Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners / land owners, would submit that the learned Collector is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 by holding it to be barred by limitation. He would further submit that at the time of making award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894, the petitioners were neither present in person nor any of their representatives was present and no notice under Section 12 (2) of the said Act was served upon the petitioners informing them about passing of the award dated 30-6-2011 and therefore, the limitation would start running in accordance with Section 18(2)(b) of the Act of 1894. By virtue of Section 18(2)(b) of the Act of 1894, the petitioners were entitled to prefer the application under Section 18 within six weeks from the date of constructive knowledge of passing of C.R.Nos.131/2014, 135/2014 & 136/2014 award by the Collector. He would also submit that in the instant case, the petitioners came to know about the knowledge of the award on 5-6-2014 and on 9-7-2014, the application for reference was filed, as such, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

8. The issue in question has been considered by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in umpteen numbers of cases. Few of them may be noticed herein profitably.

9. In the matter of State of Punjab v. Qaisar Jehan Begum and another1, after taking note of the case of Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer2, the Supreme Court has held that a literal and mechanical construction of the words "six months from the date of the Collector's award" occurring in the second part of clause (b) of the proviso would not be appropriate and "the knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fair play and natural justice, the expression ... used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively". It has further been held that knowledge of the award does not mean a mere knowledge of the fact that an award has been made. The knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award. If the award is communicated to a party under Section 12(2) of the Act, the 1 AIR 1963 SC 1604 2 AIR 1961 SC 1500 C.R.Nos.131/2014, 135/2014 & 136/2014 party must be obviously fixed with knowledge of the contents of the award whether he reads it or not. Similarly when a party is present in court either personally or through his representative when the award is made by the Collector, it must be presumed that he knows the contents of the award. It has been finally held that knowledge of the award must mean knowledge of the essential contents of the award.

10. In a very recently pronounced judgment, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajasthan Housing Board v. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited and another 3 have clearly held that limitation period of six months from date of award for making reference to court would commence from date of actual or constructive knowledge of award. Their Lordships after taking note of earlier decisions on the point by the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 13 and 16 as under: -

"13. ...... The date of award used in proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act must be the date when the award is either communicated to the party or known by him either actually or constructively. ......
16. ..... Thus, the constructive knowledge of the award is fairly attributable to it when it was so passed. Constructive notice in legal fiction signifies that the individual person should know as a reasonable person would have. Even if they have no actual knowledge of it. Constructive notice means a man ought to have known a fact. A person is said to have notice of a fact when he actually knows a fact but for willful abstention from inquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence he would have known it. Constructive notice is a notice inferred by law, as distinguished from actual or formal notice; that which is held by 3 (2015) 7 SCC 601 C.R.Nos.131/2014, 135/2014 & 136/2014 law to amount to notice. The concept of constructive notice has been upheld by this Court in Harish Chandra2."