Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. This admission by the appellant is also in sync with the finding of the reference Court based on the record of acquisition which was produced by the concerned Patwari, that compensation was received by appellants on 08.02.2007. In view of Bhagwan Das's case (supra), actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can be established by proving that the person interested had received or drawn the compensation amount for the acquired land. Relevant para of this judgment is reproduced here under:

"13. 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) 8 of 16 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:136914 2023:PHHC:136914 RFA 442 of 2015 (O&M) 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 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 to not to do so."
(iii) In the cases falling in first part of clause (b) in the proviso below Sub-Section (2) of Section 18 of the said Act, what is relevant to be established is the receipt of notice from the Collector under Section 12, Sub-Section (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, and the period of six weeks

11 of 16 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:136914 2023:PHHC:136914 RFA 442 of 2015 (O&M) prescribed therein starts running from the date of either actual or constructive knowledge of essential contents of the award and it is not a mere knowledge of the fact that the award has been made is sufficient, to hold that the period of limitation starts running from such date without there being any communication, bringing to the notice of the party concerned, the essential contents of the award, either actual or constructive.

ii) Date on which compensation was received can be conclusively taken as the date of knowledge of award and application for a reference has to be made within six months from this date.

["State of Punjab v. Mst Qaisar Jehan Begum and another", reported as AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1604]

iii) 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. ["Bhagwan Das & Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.", reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1532]