Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: constructive knowledge in Bhalabhai Fatabhai Khant vs Additional Special Land Acquisition ... on 16 February, 2026Matching Fragments
4 Heard the learned advocate Mr. D.V. Kansara for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Tanmay Karia for respondent No.2 and learned AGP Ms. Himani Shah for respondent-State.
Submissions on behalf of the learned advocate for the appellant:
5 Learned advocate Mr. Kansara submitted that the learned Reference Court committed a serious error in framing additional issues on 14.09.2022 after the parties had already filed their respective closing pursis on 16.12.2022. Learned advocate Mr. Kansara further submitted that when the issues were initially framed, no issue with regard to limitation was framed. In absence of such an issue, no opportunity was afforded to the parties to lead evidence on the question of limitation. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Kansara that the learned Reference Court, on its own, framed an issue regarding NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined limitation at a belated stage and thereafter proceeded to dismiss the Reference by holding that the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The learned Reference Court held that since the claimant had received the compensation on the very date of the award, i.e. 18.02.2000, the claimant had knowledge of the award. Learned advocate Mr. Kansara submitted that it was specifically pleaded in the reference application that the claimants were neither present at the time of the award nor had knowledge of the contents thereof, and that the said plea remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the opponents. Despite this, the learned Reference Court erroneously concluded that the claimant had constructive knowledge of the award.
12 In view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, mere presence of the claimant at the time of passing of the award cannot ipso facto be construed as having constructive knowledge of the contents of the award. Such knowledge can be attributed only from the date on which the claimant receives the copy of the award. In the present case, the copy of the award was received on 31.08.2000. Therefore, the knowledge of the contents of the award can be said to have accrued to the claimant only from the said date. Consequently, in the opinion of this Court, the period of limitation would commence from 31.08.2000 and not from the date of the award itself.
"As to Question No. (ii) :
47. The Court, acting under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, has to determine the objections as regards (i) the true area of the land, (ii) the compensation, which, in his opinion, should be allowed for the land, and (iii) the apportionment of compensation amongst all the persons to whom it is payable or the persons known or believed to be interested in the land. Such an award passed under section 11 of the said Act is merely an offer for compensation by the Collector. The offer has to be communicated to the persons having a right to receive compensation. A statutory right to approach the Court for determination of the market value of the land, provided under section 18 of the said Act, accrues only upon communication of the essential contents of the award. The limitation prescribed under section 18 of the said Act, therefore, starts running from the date of actual or constructive knowledge of the essential contents of the award.
52. Even the language of the clauses (a) and (b) below sub-section (2) of section 18 of the said Act requires the Collector to establish the fact that the claimant, as contemplated by clause (a), was present or represented before him at the time when the award was made, and in other cases covered by clause (b), that the claimant had actual or constructive knowledge of the essential NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/29/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026 undefined contents of the award and that the reference was not preferred within a period of six weeks or six months, as the case may be, from the date of such knowledge. The Collector being in custody of the entire record, it is for him to plead and prove that the reference preferred under section 18 of the said Act was barred by the law of limitation. It is, therefore, for the State, acting through the Collector, to discharge its burden if it wanted to deny a fundamental right to the claimant to get the market value of the land acquired determined by the Court, by seeking reference under section 18 of the said Act.