Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

discriminatory, it will run the risk of being branded as being violative of Article 14 as also Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

38. In the aforesaid decision in in the case of Bhagwan Das, the Apex Court also considered the question of burden of proof. It is held in para 13 as 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) fa518.03.odt 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 a period of six months prior to 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/Panchanama/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."

Thus, the initial onus is on the person making reference seeking fa518.03.odt the benefit of six months' period from the date of knowledge 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 Land Acquisition Act, and that he did not have the knowledge of the contents of the award during the period of six months prior to filing of the application for reference. It is held that the onus is discharged by asserting these facts on oath and it is not expected to prove negative. The Court further holds that 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 said Act, or that he had knowledge of the contents of the award. If further holds that 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/Panchanama/proceedings delivering possession of the fa518.03.odt 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.

(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 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.

45. The ratio of the decision in aforesaid two cases, which is followed in other cases, is directly in conflict with the ratio of the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh, Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum, Bhagwan Das, Premji Nathu, and Madan and others. The decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Satinder Bir Singh, and Poshetty and others are rendered by the two Judges, whereas, the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum, Premji Nathu, and Madan are delivered by the three Judges. The law laid down by the larger Benches is, therefore, binding. The Apex Court in its decision in the case of Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum has enhanced the ratio of the earlier Division Bench decision in the case of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh, and it is held that the fa518.03.odt limitation shall start running from the date of either actual or constructive knowledge of the essential contents of the award and it is not a mere knowledge of the fact that the award has been made, that is sufficient, to hold that the period of limitation starts running from such date.