Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. Ld. Counsel for petitioners Shri Sehrawat has vehemently argued that besides being absent at the time of passing of the award by LAC, no notice under section 12(2) of the Act has been served upon the petitioners. It has further been submitted that no intimation was ever given to the petitioners either regarding passing of the award by LAC. He has further argued that though the petitioners have preferred their claim u/s 9 (2) of the Act, but the same is in response to the statutory notice u/s 9(1) of the Act and has no co-relation with the limitation as stipulated under section 18(2) of the Act since the scheme of the Act requires, the presence of the interested person/petitioners at the time the collector made his award. He has further sought to rely upon the certified copies of the LAC file filed by him at the time of arguments with an application u/s 151 of CPC for considering the certified copies within the purview of section 114(e) and (f) read with section 79 and 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1961 SC 1500 Raja Harish Chander Raj Singh Vs. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer & Ors, reiterated by the Division Bench of our Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No. 10039/2016 Shanti Devi & Ors. Vs. Union of India, Ld. Counsel for petitioners had stated that "the date of the award" under proviso to section 18 of the Act shall be the date on which the award was communicated or made known to the owners or interested person actually or constructively. He has argued that at best the date of knowledge or the date of constructive knowledge in this case shall be the date on which the possession of the land of the petitioners was taken which is 25.07.2006 and the petition being filed on 10.01.2007 well within the period of 6 months as stipulated under proviso to Section 18(2) of the Act. He has finally argued that the compensation has been accepted by the petitioners under protest and the application for reference u/s 18 of the Act being filed within limitation, the petitioners are entitled to enhancement in compensation.

25. Our own Hon'ble High Court in Shanti Devi (Supra) while discussing the aforesaid judgment has held that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code in itself and does not permit for application of general principle of law and even of the Limitation Act by the collector which has no power to condone the delay. It has succinctly held that the most fair reason construction of this proviso would the date of knowledge of the contents of the award which would enable the applicant to pursue his remedy like a common prudent man in accordance with law. It has further held that the limitation in the absence of material to show the presence of the applicant shall commence from the date, the party has constructive and/or actual knowledge of the information of award in regard to its essential features. Once the award has made and the parties have knowledge of its ingredient the time limit on a realistic interpretation would commence from that date and expires on lapse of six months. In simple words, the date of collector's award must be a date on which the award is either communicated to or is made known to the interested persons actually or constructively. Reliance placed on AIR 2005 SC 3464 Purshottam Bhai Madan Bhai Patel Vs. State of Gujrat.

26. Applying the aforesaid discussion and preposition of law to the facts of the present case, it may be seen that the petitioners have made an application u/s 151 CPC for taking judicial note of the certificate copies of collector's file in respect of the land under question. Though the certified copies have been filed at a belated stage of the case, however, it may be seen that the same are relevant for the purpose of the present determination and do not require to be proved in view of the presumption laid down u/s 79 of the Indian Evidence Act read with section 114(e) and (f) and can be considered for the purpose of present reference for dispensation of justice to the parties. Admittedly, the petitioners have averred in the petition that they were neither present nor represented through authorised person before the LAC when the LAC has passed the award. The certified copies which contains the noting of LAC clearly shows that no presence was recorded by the collector at the time the award was made and has been written in the order that award has been announced in open court in presence of interested persons who chose to be present. Interestingly, no such reference for those persons chose to be present has been made by the LAC which is a mandatory requirement of Section 12 of the Act. This being the position taken on the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities, the petitioners were proved to be not present at the time of collector made an award taking them out of the purview of first eventuality referred to above and laid down in proviso to section 18(2) of the Act. Nothing has been shown on record by the respondent to prove that the petitioners were ever served with a notice u/s 12 (2) of the Act. Even, the internal notings of the file does not show any acknowledgment of any notice u/s 12 (2) of the Act being given to the petitioners. The respondents were required to prove the same in order to avail the benefit of taking the reference petition out of limitation. This leaves the court with two facts being proved, one that the petitioners were not present at the time of award and two notice u/s 12 (2) of the Act being not served upon them. Now how to calculate the commencement of the limitation in the present case. In view of the discussion held aforesaid and the settled preposition of law made by Hon'ble Supreme court in Raja Harish Chander (supra) and our own Hon'ble High Court in Shanti Devi (supra), the date of commencement of limitation shall be the date on which the award was made known to the petitioners either actually or constructively. Now the constructive knowledge can only be deciphered from the record on the basis of the Kabza Karyawahi (possession proceedings) on which the acquired land was possessed and handed over to the beneficiary DDA which according to the documents and the statement u/s 19 of the Act is 25.07.2006. The case of the petitioners is clearly covered within the purview of second period of second eventuality and therefore, the petitioners shall get a limitation period of six months from the aforesaid date i.e. 25.07.2006 which can only be taken to be the date of constructive knowledge of the petitioners. Nothing contrary to the aforesaid has even come on record to show that the petitioners have any prior knowledge of award. The petition has been filed on 10.01.2007 and is found well within the purview of limitation of six months. The reference is accordingly held to be a valid reference filed within a prescribed period of 6 months.