Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16.3 In the present case Land Acquisition Collector has passed the award on 19.09.86 whereas petitioners have filed these reference before LAC on 29.10.01. Thus the reference has been filed after a period of more than 15 years. Thus admittedly reference has filed after the period as prescribed in the section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 16.4 The counsel for the petitioners have contended that as the petitioners were neither present on the date of announcement of the award nor any notice under section 12(2) of the act was served upon the petitioners, the limitation would commence from the date they acquire actual or constructive knowledge of the essential contents of the award. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners have further contended that the reference under section 30 ­31 was decided on 9.12.99 and then only the petitioner applied for the certified copy and came to know the essential contents of the award. The payment was received on 06.05.2000 and the application under section 18 of the act was filed on 02.06.2000 and the application is within limitation. In support of contention Ld. counsel for the petitioner relied upon Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Versus The Deputy Land Acquisition officer A.I.R. 1961 SC 1500, State of Punjab Vs. Mst. Jehan Begum AIR 1963 SC 1604 and Bharat Chand Dilwali Vs. Union of India 1988 Rajdhani Law Reporter 224 in support of case.

The Award was passed in the year 1986. Petitioners have knowledge of passing of the award. Nothing prevented the petitioner to either inspect the Award file or took certified copy from LAC Office or Court for almost 15 years. Thus it is proved that the petitioners diligently contested reference petition under Section 30­31 of L.A. Act where the amount of compensation is mentioned and deposited in Court and petitioners had opportunity of inspecting the Award or taking its certified copy leads to inference that petitioner had knowledge of market value fixed by the Collector or at least had constructive knowledge of the same. Knowledge whether actual or constructive is sufficient for the purposes of computing limitation, even otherwise petitioners have contended that they filed the present reference without taking knowledge of the content of the award as it is apparent from para 10 of the reference petition filed by the petitioner relevant lines of para is reproduced as below:

In the case of Qaiser Jehan Begum, the application for interim compensation did not come in her way because the unrebutted evidence of petitioner was that she did not know the amount of compensation and the fact that land was acquired till the day she filed her reference under Section 18 of the Act.

However, in present case, the petitioners did not enter the witness box to depose that they had no knowledge of essential contents of award prior to six months of her filing reference under Section 18 of the Act. Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. Without evidence of petitioner this issue cannot be answered their. From the Ex. P1, filed by the petitioners themselves, it is proved that the petitioners knew the date and number of Award, number of Khasra acquired and area of land in acquisition, atleast when they receive notice of the reference u/s 30­31 as these details are mentioned in the memorandum sent by the LAC while referring the case to civil court. The petitioners also had actual or at least constructive knowledge of the market value fixed by the Collector as back in the year 1958 when reference was sent by LAC and notice was received by the petitioner of the reference they begin contesting reference under Section 30­31 of the Act.

Hon'ble Judges further held in para 55 that "The state issue notification directing the collector to exercise its jurisdiction under section 18 of the Act. Such a notification, therefore, would amount to a constructional knowledge. It was obligatory on the part of the land owner to file an appropriate application with in the prescribed period."

16.22 Thus the ratio of judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents are same that i.e. The period of limitation is to be counted from the date of actual or constructional knowledge of the content is of award.