Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: constructive knowledge in Bhupinder Singh vs Union Of India on 29 April, 2026Matching Fragments
Reliance placed by the petitioners upon the judgments of the Supreme Court afore-referred is certainly well founded. It is a settled principle that the knowledge must relate to essential contents of the award and not merely the LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 31/65 information that the Collector has passed the award.
It seems clear to us that the ratio of the decision in Harish Chandra's case, 1962-1 SCR 676 :(AIR 1961 SC 1500) (supra) is that the party affected by the award must know it, actually or constructively, and the period of six months will run from the date of that knowledge. Now, 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. These contents may be known either actually or constructively.
The Court in Bhagwan Das then held:
"When a person interested makes an application for reference seeking the benefit of six months' period from the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove that he (or his representative) was not present when the award was made, that he did not receive any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, and that he did not have the knowledge of the contents of the award during a period of six months prior to the filing the application for reference. This onus is discharged by asserting these facts on oath. He is not expected to prove the negative. Once the initial onus is discharged by the claimant/person interested, it is for the Land Acquisition Collector to establish that the person interested was present either in person or through his representative when the award was made, or that he had received a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, or that he had knowledge of the contents of the award. Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can be established by the Collector by proving that the person interested had received or drawn the compensation amount for the acquired land, or had attested the mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering possession of the acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a case challenging the award or had acknowledged LAC No.18/2023 Bhupinder Singh VS UOI 32/65 the making of the award in any document or in statement on oath or evidence. The person interested, not being in possession of the acquired land and the name of the State or its transferee being entered in the revenue municipal records coupled with delay, can also lead to an inference of constructive knowledge. In the absence of any such evidence by the Collector, the claim of the person interested that he did not have knowledge earlier will be accepted, unless there are compelling circumstances not to do so."
It seems clear to us that the ratio of the decision in Harish Chandra's case, 1962-1 SCR 676 :(AIR 1961 SC 1500) (supra) is that the party affected by the award must know it, actually or constructively, and the period of six months will run from the date of that knowledge. Now, 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. These contents may be known either actually or constructively.
(d) State of Punjab Vs Qaisar Jahan Beigum, 1963, AIR (SC) 1604.
77) As per abovesaid judgments, it is settled proposition of law that the period of six months for filing reference application under Section 18 of L.A. Act mentioned in proviso (b) of Section 18 of L.A. Act, will run from the date of knowledge of the petitioner regarding the essential contents of the award. The petitioners are entitled to file reference application within six months from the date of his knowledge regarding the essential contents of award. The knowledge of the petitioners about the essential contents of award may be either actual knowledge or constructive knowledge.