Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The said decision, therefore, itself is an authority for the proposition that constructive knowledge would also subserve the purpose of the Act. Whether a person had the actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of a document is essentially a question of fact. The onus would be on the landholder to show that he did not have any knowledge of the contents of the award.

We may furthermore notice that in a case where communication gives rise to a cause of action, the same must be held to be mandatory in nature.

In Parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel and Others v. State of Gujarat Through Dy. Collector Modasa and Another [(2005) 7 SCC 431], it was observed :

"7. This Court, therefore, held that the limitation under the latter part of Section 18(2)(b) of the Act has to be computed having regard to the date on which the claimants got knowledge of the declaration of the award either actual or constructive. This principle, however, will apply only to cases where the applicant was not present or represented when the award was made, or where no notice under Section 12(2) was served upon him. It will also apply to a case where the date for the pronouncement of the award is communicated to the parties and it is accordingly pronounced on the date previously announced by the Court, even if, the parties are not actually present on the date of its pronouncement."

The State issued a notification directing the Collector to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act. Such a notification, therefore, would amount to a constructive knowledge. It was obligatory on the part of the land owners to file an appropriate application within the prescribed period.

The State, however, clarified the said notification on or about 25.01.1983 stating that its earlier notification of the year 1981 would not mean that the statutory period of limitation provided for under the Act should be given a complete go-by. It is only on or about 2.12.1983 that the writ petition was filed.