Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: constructive knowledge in Rfa No. 233/2017 And C.O. No. 24/2022 vs Mangal Devi (Died And Deleted) & Ors on 7 November, 2025Matching Fragments
petition that the respondents got knowledge about the award on 7.12.2005 from the Government Pleader in the Fast Track Court, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 121/2000 RBT No. 36/2004, titled as Parbhat Chand vs. State of H.P., wherein it of was disclosed by the Government Pleader on the date of hearing on 7.12.2005 that the acquisition of the land in question had taken place. It has been further averred in the petition that the rt respondents got the actual and constructive knowledge of the award on 7.12.2005 and thereafter taking necessary particulars from the concerned Department, the respondents applied for copy of award on 9.12.2005 and the copy was prepared and delivered on 4.1.2006.
[17] Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum and another, 1963 AIR(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. The knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award. These contents may be known either actually or constructively. Their Lordships have held as under:
of [26] 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 rt 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:
[11] The provisions of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act are in pari materia with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and section 12 of the Act of 1953 is extracted hereinbelow :
in-interest.
25 No evidence of any sort has been led by the State to establish that the respondents were having actual or constructive knowledge about the award passed in the matter.
No oral as well as documentary evidence has been placed on record to establish that the award was communicated to the respondents or their predecessor-in-interest. No record in this regard has been placed to prove the contention of the State that the said reference petition as preferred was time barred.