Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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/Panchnama/proceedings W.A.No.1777 of 2009 & 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."

W.A.No.1777 of 2009 &

27. It become clear beyond the pale of any doubt therefore that under Section 18 of the Act there are three contingencies. An application for reference can be made within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award itself in a case where the award is made in the presence of the person or his representative. If the person interested or his representative is not so present but is in receipt of notice under Section 12 (2) then he must make reference within six weeks from the date of receipt of notice. But, if no notice has been issued under Section 12 (2) or neither the person interested nor the representative received notice under Section 12 (2) then a period of 6 months will become available to him with reference to the point of time when he actually or constructively became aware of the contents of the W.A.No.1777 of 2009 & award. Still further more, the person concerned has remedy made available under Section 28A of the Act also. This being the position, we are of the clear view that the contention of the appellants that non giving of notice under Section 12 (2) or non service of notice will in any way vitiate the award cannot be accepted. We cannot hold that giving of notice as such is mandatory, in that, if notice has not been given or not served, it will invalidate the award. Non giving of notice or non service of notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act really does not adversely affect the person concerned as the whole purpose of giving notice is to enable the person interested to seek further redress in regard to the award as provided under Section 18 or under Section 30 of the Act. In view of the interpretation placed by the Apex Court that as far as the person who is not issued with W.A.No.1777 of 2009 & notice or not served with notice is concerned, he gets a period of 6 months with reference to the date of either actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award, he is not to be prejudiced. The consequences of non giving of notice is taken care of by the provisions of Section 18 (2) (b) of the Act and in view of the interpretation placed by the Apex Court we also see that no injustice as such would follow in the sense that the purpose of giving notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act is achieved even in a case where no notice is given as the party concerned can seek redress with reference to the date of knowledge of the contents of the award be it actual or constructive. Since the Legislature has provided the consequences of non issuance of notice or non service of notice as aforesaid we are of the view that by no stretch of imagination we can intervene and W.A.No.1777 of 2009 & interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge or the acquisition proceedings including the award on the ground that no notice was issued under Section 12 (2) to the appellants. We have already noticed that the award becomes complete with reference to Section 11A of the Act on the date on which the award is made and signed by the Collector. Subsequent issue of notice under Section 12 (2) is only intended to enable the party concerned to pursue further remedies available under law in regard to the award. It does not in any manner mean non service of notice take away the efficacy or validity of the award which is to be decided with reference to whether it has been made within the time limit prescribed under Section 11A of the Act, that is, with reference to the date on which the award is actually made and signed by the Collector. Therefore, we repel W.A.No.1777 of 2009 & the contention of the appellants in this regard.