Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. It is stated that the petitioner had purchased the land through registered Sale Deed dated 10.01.1989 from the recorded Bhumidhar Sh. Ram Kumar and Sh. Satyapal both sons of late sh. Jyot Ram, which was acquired vide the aforesaid Award. The name of the present petition could not be mutated in the revenue record so, no notice was served by the LAC to the petitioner and thereafter the the petitioner filed objection against the recorded owner/Bhumidhar and finally the matter sent to the court for adjudication under Section 30-31 of the Act, which was decided by the court on 19.03.2010 and the court has awarded compensation to the extent of 1000 sq.yards land to the petitioner and same has been received by the petitioner on 08.04.2010 from the Court. The petitioner came to know about the acquisition of the actual land and got constructive knowledge on the date on which he has received the compensation from the Court and hence, the present petition is within limitation. The petitioner was neither present at the time of announcement of the award nor any notice under section 12 (2) of the Act was ever served upon the petitioner.

24. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased the land from Bhumidhar Sh. Ram Kumar and Sh. Satyapal vide registered sale deed dated 10.01.1989. At the time of acquisition of the land his name was not included in the award and no notice was served upon him. He submitted that thereafter, petitioner filed objections and reference was made under Section 30-31 of the LA Act. The reference petition was decided on 19.03.2010 in favour of petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the constructive knowledge of the award when award amount was received. Therefore, petition filed is within limitation.

"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 and 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.

LAC No. 01/18 Devinder Raghav vs. UOI & Anr. 10/13

26. The Apex Court laid sown principle that period of limitation prescribed under Clause (a) and (b) of the proviso below Sub section 2 of Section 18 of the L.A. Act shall start running in the facts and circumstances of each case. The date from which the period of limitation would start is dependent upon facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, it is admitted by the petitioner that he had filed reference under section 30-31 of the Act being the purchaser of the land to the extent of 1000 sq. yards from Bhumidhar Sh. Ram Kumar and Sh. Satyapal vide registered sale deed dated 10.01.1989. Reference under Section 30-31 of the Act cannot be referred unless complete knowledge of award is not known to the petitioner. The petitioner must have gone through the award and its contents and finding that his name is not included as one of the beneficiary, then objections must have been filed. In my considered opinion, the constructive knowledge of the award was gained by the petitioner when he had filed objections under Section 30-31 of the Act, therefore, in my considered opinion, it is wrong interpretation of the facts and circumstances that the petitioner being IP No. 43 gained constructive knowledge after the judgment on 08.04.2010. If the petitioner is believed then it was not possible for the petitioner to raise objections under Section 30-31 of the Act, unless he had constructive knowledge of the award.