Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. Further relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1963 SC 1604 titled State of Punjab Vs. Mst Qaisar Jehan Begum and Ors.. it has further been sought to be argued that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of clarifying that knowledge of award does not mean a mere knowledge of the fact that an award has been made but must relate to the contents of the award which may be known to the petitioners/interested persons either actually or constructively. Hon'ble Apex Court has even laid down that knowledge of essential contents of the award should be read within the meaning of section 18(2) of the Act having regard to scheme of the Act. Ld. Counsel has finally sought to rely upon a recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Das and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (2010) 3 SCC 545 thereby arguing that if a person is not present at the time when collector has made an award and a notice u/s 12 (2) of the Act has also not been served upon him then only way to decipher knowledge for interested person is either the interested person has drawn the compensation or has participated in the mazhar/possession proceedings or has filed a case challanging award wherein documentary evidence or any statement on oath about the contents of knowledge in any other proceedings before any authority is made. 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 03.11.2006 is as such 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 in respect of acquired land 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 for enhancement in compensation.

27. The aforesaid preposition of law was further clarified or elucidated by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Mst Qaisar Jehan Begum and Ors case (Supra) wherein it has been held 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 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 section 12(2) of the Act, the Party must be obsharingviously 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".

30. The aforesaid preposition of law has been applied and reiterated by our own Hon'ble High Court in Shanti Devi (Supra) where it has been held that Land Acquisition Act being a complete code itself does not permit the application of general principles of law regarding Limitation and Limitation u/s 18(2) of the Act should commence from the date, the petitioner has constructive and/or actual knowledge or the information of the award including itself essential ingredients and shall expire on lapse of 6 months thereof.

33. Once the aforesaid two facts are proved, the only eventuality left before the court is to scrutinize and ascertain the date of actual or constructive knowledge of petitioners in respect of the collector's award. Now in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in Bhagwan Dass (supra), the petitioners are only required to aver that he did not have the knowledge of the award during the period of 6 months prior to the filing of the application for reference and the onus is discharged once these facts are asserted on oath which PW1 has duly done in his deposition by deposing that the deponent got the constructive knowledge of the award only on 25.07.2006 when the acquired land was possessed and handed over to DDA (Kabza Karyawahi Ex.PW2/1). Now it is for the LAC to establish otherwise by discharging the shifted onus that the petitioners actually had knowledge of the contents of the award. It may be seen that during cross-examination PW1 has been consented with the original records received from the LAC, more particularly, the application Ex.PW1/X-1 moved by the petitioners before the LAC for receiving the compensation. The application is duly supported by the affidavits of the petitioners including affidavit of PW1 Jagdish (Ex.PW1/X-2). The documents specifically mention about the details of the award, the land being free from any dispute and the entitlement of the petitioners to receive the compensation amount pursuant to the award. Interestingly, the application specifies that the applicants (petitioners herein) shall receive the compensation amount under protest and subject to filing of (a) reference under section 18 of the LA Act. PW1 during his testimony has duly admitted that the application and the supporting affidavit Ex.PW1/X-2 bears his signature on 20th February, 2006 which simply means that the application was moved by the petitioners on 20.02.2006, a fact which can also be demonstrated from the endorsement of the office of the ADM dated 20.02.2006. This being the factual position the petitioners have acquired the actual or even constructive knowledge either prior to 20.02.2006 or at best on 20.02.2006 and as such the respondent has been able to discharge the shifted onus of establishing the petitioner's actual or constructive knowledge of the award on 20.02.2006 and in terms of para No. 31 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Dass (supra).