Judgment :- SHANMUKHAM, J. 1. This petition came to be posted before a Division Bench because Mohan, J. felt he was unable to share the view of Natarajan, J. In Dhanalakshmi v. The Special Deputy Collector 1, Land Acquisition, Saidapet, According to Natarajan, J. a notice under S. 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred, to as the Act) should be accompanied by a copy of the award. 2. The brief facts are as follows: In the process of acquisition of the petitioners land in S. No. 548 of Vadakku Venganalloor village, measuring 1.36 acres, the notice under Sec. 12(2) of the Act was served on the petitioner on 7th August, 1978. The said notice was not admittedly accompanied by a copy of the award, but contained the extent to be acquired and the quantum of compensation offered to be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner also received the said compensation under protest. The petitioners request to refer the matter to Court was received by the respondent, the Land Acquisition Officer, on 9th November, 1978. Under Sec. 18(2) of the Act, such request should be made within six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice under Sec. 12(2) of the Act. Thus, the petitioners request foe reference was belated and consequently the respondent refused a reference. It is this order of this respondent in Roc, B1. 27722/74, dt. 1st November, 1980 that is assailed in this proceeding. 3. At the outset we must point out that a Division Bench of this Court affirmed the judgment of Natarajan, J. referred to above, in W.A. 111 of 1980 on 26th March, 1980 while dismissing the said appeal even at the admission stage. From a reference to the order of reference made by Mohan, J. it is obvious that the order in W.A. 111 of 1980 was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge. 4. Be that as it may, we find on our independent examination of the relevant provisions in the Act, that the view of Natarajan, J. is correct. What the learned Government Advocate attempted to do was to refer to Ss. 5-A(6)(2)(8), 9, 11, 12, 18 and 31 of the Act, and submit that Sec. 12(2) does not mandate that the notice should be accompanied by a copy of the award. What the learned Government Advocate attempted to do was to refer to Ss. 5-A(6)(2)(8), 9, 11, 12, 18 and 31 of the Act, and submit that Sec. 12(2) does not mandate that the notice should be accompanied by a copy of the award. It is, therefore, necessary to extract Sec. 12(1) and (2) of the Act: “Sec. 12(1) Such award shall be filed in the Collectors office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made.” A plain reading of the expression ‘notice of the award’ may indicate that the passing of the award has to be intimated to the interested persons who were not present personally or by their representatives when the award was made. It is also quite clear that Sec. 12(2) is silent about the particulars of the award that have to be furnished when a notice of the same was to be sent to such persons as aforesaid. We could only recall the procedure that is prevalent in the civil court when notice of judgment i s either given to the learned counsel appearing for both the parties or put on the court notice board. Such notice could never contain the particulars of the judgment or even the result. The only information that is exhibited by such notice is that on that particular date and hour the judgment will be delivered. But the rules enable either party to the proceeding to apply for a certified copy of the judgment and also the aggrieved party to exclude the time taken by the Court in furnishing copies in computing the period of limitation for preferring an appeal. It is conceded by the learned Government Advocate that the rules framed under the Act do not envisage the procedure to be followed by the Collector under Sec. 12(2). It is conceded by the learned Government Advocate that the rules framed under the Act do not envisage the procedure to be followed by the Collector under Sec. 12(2). Reverting to what is really conveyed by S. 12(2): we had already pointed out that it simply mentions that the Collector shall give immediate notice of his award and that the provision is significantly silent about the particulars of the award. While so, it is difficult to accept the argument of the learned Government Advocate that if the notice should contain material particulars such as the extent of the award and the quantum of compensation offered by the Collector, that would be sufficient compliance of S. 12(2). We have to reiterate that there is nothing in the section itself to warrant that if the material portions were furnished in the notice of the award that would be enough compliance. 5. Under S. 18(2) of the Act, the claimant should intimate the Land Acquisition Officer about his request for reference to Court within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under S. 12(2), because he was not admittedly present. In our view, it is but fundamental that when a claimants property is being acquired, he should be served with a copy of the award. It is not for the respondent to decide as to how the claimant would utilise the award. We would emphasise that it is the fundamental right of the claimant to have a copy of the award served on him. How he may use it is none of the concern of the respondent. For instance, take an illustration. In the award a reference is made to a decision of the Superme Court and on that basis the quantum of compensation is fixed, in such a case it might be that the claimant would not plunge into a costly litigation, but would be content with the quantum awarded by the Officer. Take a case where compensation is not only in respect of the land, but also in respect of the standing trees. In that case, if the consolidated figure alone is shown as compensation in the award, how could the claimant be put on notice of the break up of the figures so as to entitle him to decide his next course of action. In that case, if the consolidated figure alone is shown as compensation in the award, how could the claimant be put on notice of the break up of the figures so as to entitle him to decide his next course of action. Can it be said then, there is sufficient compliance of Sec. 12(2) of the Act. As long as neither in the Act nor in the Rules, is there any provision which enables the claimant to obtain the certified copy of the award and as long as S. 18(2) of the Act mandates that the claimants reference should be notified to the Land Acquisition Officer within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under S. 12(2) of the Act it is but reasonable to construe S. 12(2) of the Act, as requiring the Collector when he sends the notice of his award, to enclose therewith a copy of the award. 6. For the reasons already stated, we are unable to follow the decision reported in Abdul Wahid v. Union of India, 1 or the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Kamala Kunwar v. Lakshan Goala 2. We have to reiterate that unless there is a provision in the Act or in the rules, which enables the claimant to apply for certified copy of award and unless the time taken for obtaining such award is excluded in reckoning the period by which he shall petition to the Collector to make a reference to the court, to read S. 12(2) as meaning mere intimation of the fact of award would lead to grave injustice. Further, Natarajan, J. had followed the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Mangilal Jawanmal v. Special L.A. Officer 1. With great respect to the learned Judge, we accept his reasoning also as sound. Besides, it is important to note that the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court whose decision was also relied on by Natarajan, J. had in turn sought the support of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Mst. Quaiser Jehan Begum 2. We do not propose to encumber this judgment with the quotation of the Supreme Court. We would like to point out that the provisions, such as Ss. Quaiser Jehan Begum 2. We do not propose to encumber this judgment with the quotation of the Supreme Court. We would like to point out that the provisions, such as Ss. 5-A, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 31 do not throw any light on the interpretation of S. 12(2) of the Act. 7. In the result, we hold that unless the notice of the award is accompanied by a copy of the award, it would not be effective notice within the meaning of S. 12(2) of the Act. The result is, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed, but with no order as to costs.