Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Learned counsel further submitted that the reference court committed illegality in concluding that the reference is time barred because the limitation is to be considered from the date of knowledge i.e. when the appellant became aware of the award passed by the Collector. Learned counsel further submitted that it has to be seen when the appellant had constructive knowledge of the award and from that date, the limitation for filing reference under section 18 of the Act is to be calculated. He further submitted that the reference court has simply calculated the limitation from the date of taking possession of the land ignoring that, the appellant had constructive knowledge of the acquisition only in February 1989. He submitted that the reference has been filed on 3.3.1989, which is within the limitation period, if calculated from the date of knowledge of the award.

6. There is yet another point which leads to the same conclusion. If the award is treated as an administrative decision taken by the Collector in the matter of the valuation of the property sought to be acquired it is clear that the said decision ultimately affects the rights of the owner of the property and in that sense, like all decisions which affect persons, it is essentially fair and just that the said decision should be communicated to the said party. The knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either actual or constructive, is an essential element which must be satisfied before the decision can be brought into force. Thus considered the making of the award cannot consist merely in the physical act of writing the award or signing it or even filing it in the Office of the Collector; it must involve the communication of the said award to the party concerned either actually or constructively. If the award is pronounced in the presence of the party whose rights are affected by it, 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. Similarly if without notice of the date of its pronouncement an award is pronounced and a party is not present the award can be said to be made when it is communicated to the party later. The knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fair play and natural justice the expression the date of the award used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. In our opinion, therefore, it would be unreasonable to construe the words from the date of the Collector's award used in the proviso to Section 18 in a literal or mechanical way.

31. 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 not to do so."

(emphasis supplied)

19. It is evident from the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Das (supra) that when a person interested makes an application for reference seeking the benefit of six months, 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) of the Act, and that he did not have the knowledge of the contents of the award during the period of six months prior to the filing of 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 withdrawn 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 any 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 not to do so.