Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

references within the period prescribed. Award was made in the absence of the claimants. The delay, in fact, was on the part of the Land Acquisition Collector and the claimants can not be held responsible for the same. Thus, of the reference court has rightly concluded that the reference petitions were filed within limitation.

24. rt Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum and another, AIR 1963 SC 1604 have held that where the award was never communicated to the party the question is when did the party know the award either actually or constructively. Knowledge of the award does not mean a mere knowledge of the fact that an award has been made.

occurring in the second part of cl. (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. Admittedly the award was never communicated to the respondents. Therefore the question before us boils down to this. When did the respondents know the award either actually or constructively? Learned counsel for the appellant has placed very strong reliance on the petition which the of respondents made for interim payment of compensation on December 24,1954. He has pointed out that the learned Subordinate Judge relied on this petition as showing the respondents date of knowledge and there are no reasons why we rt should take a different view. 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. If the award is communicated to a party under S. 12 (2) of the Act, the 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. Having regard to the scheme of the Act we think that knowledge of the award must mean knowledge of the essential contents of the award. Looked at from that point of view, we do not think that it can be inferred from the petition dated December 24, 1954 that the respondents had knowledge of the award one of the respondents gave evidence before the learned Subordinate Judge and she said :

So the knowledge of the party affected by the award made .

by the Collector under section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, either actual or constructive is an essential requirement of fair play and natural justice. Their Lordships have held as under:

of [6] There is yet another point which leads to the same conclusion. If the award is treated as an administrative decision taken by the Collector in the matter of the valuation of the property sought to be acquired it is clear that the said decision rt ultimately affects the rights of the owner of the property and in that sense, like all decisions which affect person, it is essentially fair and just that the said decision should be communicated to the said party. The knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either actual or constructive, is an essential element which must be satisfied before the decision can be brought into force. Thus considered the making of the award cannot, consist merely in the physical act of writing the award or signing it or even filing it in the office of the Collector : it must involve the communication of the said award to the party concerned either actually or constructively. If the award is pronounced in the presence of the party whose rights are affected by it, it can be said to be made when pronounced. If the date for the pronouncement of the award is communicated to the party and it is accordingly pronounced on the date previously announced the award is said to be communicated to the said party even if the said party is not actually present on the date of its pronouncement. Similarly if without notice of the date of its pronouncement an award is pronounced and a party is not present the award can be said to be made when it is communicated to the party later. The knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fairplay and natural justice the expression "the date of the award" 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. In .

33. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Housing Board versus New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited and another, (2015) 7 SCC 601 have held that the limitation period of six months from date of award for making reference to court commences from the date of actual or constructive knowledge of award. Their Lordships have held as under: