Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. In Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Dy. Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. : [1962]1SCR676 the Dy. Collector on making an award on March 19, 1950, did not notice of award to the appellant. On January 13, 1953, on coming to know of the making of the award, the appellant made an application on February 24, 1953 under Section 18 requesting the Collector to refer the matter for determination by the Court. That application was dismissed as barred by limitation. In dealing with question of limitation, this Court held that the decision of the Collector under Section 11 is in respect of the amount of compensation which should be paid to the person interested in the property acquired. Legally such award cannot be treated as a decision. It is in law an offer or tender of the compensation determined by the Collector to the owner of a property acquired. If the owner accepts the offer, no further proceeding is required to be pursued, the amount is paid and compensation proceedings comes to an end. If, however, the owner does not accept the offer, Section 18 gives him the statutory right of having the question determined by court and it is the amount of compensation which the court may determine that would bind both the owner and the Collector. The Collector does not determine the amount with legal authority but if the court determines the amount judicially, the acquisition proceedings would be concluded. The award, therefore, was considered as a tender or offer made by the Collector on behalf of the Government to the owner of the property for acceptance. Although the Government is bound by the proceedings of the Collector, the persons interested are not concluded by the findings in the award. Therefore, he makes the offer binding on the Government as well as on the owner of the property. Communication of the award is required to be done if he is not present at the time of the making of the award or none represented them. Service of notice of award is made mandatory. Therefore, this Court held that "the date of the award cannot be determined solely by reference to the time when the award is signed by the Collector or delivered by him in his office; it must involve the consideration of the question as to when it was known to the party concerned either actually or constructively. The date of the award should be construed in that perspective. The knowledge of the party affected by the decision of the Collector, either actual or constructive, is an essential element which must be satisfied before the decision can be brought into force. The communication of the award to the party concerned, actually or constructively, is therefore, necessary. If the award is pronounced in the presence of the party whose rights are affected by, 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. If the party is represented, the party is presumed to have the knowledge of the date. In other cases, the communication to the party is necessary." Knowledge of the party affected by the award either actual or constructive is essential to satisfy the requirements of fairness and principles of natural justice. The legal position enunciated in Harish Chander's case being the law under Article 141 and the legislature being presumptively aware of this legal position, has altered the law by enacting Section 28A by the Amendment Act.