Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

45. Thus, in respect of the land since the Collector did not find it appropriate to mention names of the awardees it only mentioned the extent of area acquired and the total amount of compensation that was to be awarded for the said area. Thus, the area and the quantum of compensation were both mentioned in the Award, but in the column of recipient on account of the dispute it was stated that due to dispute of title, the names are not being mentioned and the matter was being referred under Section 30 of the Act for adjudication. This document, therefore, dated 12th June, 2001 was turned as Award No. 60 of 2001 which was declared as an Award but the payments were not made on account of the said dispute of reference. The reference was sent along with the list of the claimants and it is not in dispute that the respondent-petitioners thereafter in the said reference filed their claim which was registered as a Title Suit in the same reference proceedings as Title Case No. 10 of 2007 (Chhotan Yadav and two others Vs. State of Bihar and others). The two others were the Patna High Court L.P.A No.418 of 2018 dt.22-04-2019 respondent-petitioners Arjun Yadav and Ranjit Yadav. A copy of the plaint which was not part of the record has been supplied by the learned counsel for the respondent-petitioners which has been perused by us. Learned counsel for the respondent- petitioners, therefore, contends that the same was only a claim set up for establishing the title and since neither the area of the respondent-petitioners was disclosed nor the amount of compensation that was payable to them was known, therefore, the contents of the Award did not exist about which the respondent-petitioners had no knowledge. It is only after the Section 30 proceedings were finalized that the amount payable to the answering respondents was made known through a notice under Section 12(2) in the year 2010 as stated above. The applicants then were tendered a cheque, whereafter they filed the application under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. It is urged on their behalf that unless there is a notice under Section 12(2), there cannot be any actual or constructive knowledge about Award and in fact there was no knowledge about the contents of the Award in the present case so as to enable the respondent- petitioners to file an application. Two judgments have been cited being that of Madan and another Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 720 and Vijay Mahadeorao Kubade Patna High Court L.P.A No.418 of 2018 dt.22-04-2019 Vs. State of Maharashtra through the Collector, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 266. The said judgments hold that it is only when a copy of the Award accompanies the said notice, then only it can be said that there is knowledge of the Award to the tenure- holder to enable him to file an objection under Section 18 and, therefore, limitation has to be counted accordingly. Thus, knowledge according to the aforesaid judgments can be presumed only after a notice is sent under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act and not before it. The issue of limitation was discussed in the case of Bhagwan Das and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 545. The learned counsel for the parties have also invited the attention of the Court to the Division Bench judgment in the case of Dr. J. Dubey Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. decided on 14th November, 1967, reported in 1968 BLJR Part 16 page-562 to advance their respective submissions.

46. As a corollary to this argument, learned counsel for the appellant has also advanced his submissions that no acquiescence can be presumed on the part of the appellant as it has been contesting the matter throughout. On the other hand, the respondent-petitioners contend that no acquiescence can be presumed on their part either, inasmuch as, they had not actual Patna High Court L.P.A No.418 of 2018 dt.22-04-2019 or constructive knowledge of the Award or its contents till th matter was finalized under Section 30 of the Act. As to what is the actual and constructive knowledge, the decisions in the case of Kanara Bank Vs. Canara Sales Corporation and others, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 666 and Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited and another, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 601 have been cited at the Bar.

56. In the above background what we find is that the judgment in the case of Madan (supra) does not cover the issue on facts as involved in the present case inasmuch as here the appellants had both actual and constructive knowledge about the contents of the award dates 12th June 2001 which was an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act. The conclusion drawn by the learned Single that it was a purported award does not appeal to reason at all, inasmuch as, if the award was even otherwise deficient in any way, the same had not been challenged within time as per the law laid down in the case of Patna High Court L.P.A No.418 of 2018 dt.22-04-2019 Bhagwan Das (supra). The period of limitation either six weeks if the notice had been received under Section 12(2), which is not the case here, was extended till six months. The actual award was being contested by the respondent-petitioners in the manner indicated above in the proceedings under Section 30 of the 1894 Act since 2002 itself. They therefore, cannot contend that they had no opportunity to move an application earlier. All the grounds which are being taken now in the application under Section 18 were very much available and could have been made the basis of an application under Section 18 of the Act way back in 2001 itself. It would have been possible for the Collector to have referred the matter under Section 18 as well if a ground was made out for such reference along with the proceedings under Section 30 of the 1894 Act on any demand been made by the respondent-petitioners.