Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 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 not to do so."

12. A reading of the aforesaid Section would show that an application under Section 18 is to be presented within six weeks if the person making an application is present or represented before the Collector at the time of making of the Award, which is not so in the present case. The period of limitation is fixed at six weeks in case a notice is received from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act which is also not the case. A period of six months has been fixed from the date of the Collector‟s Award. The counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the case of the petitioners falls in the third category. He has further submitted that constructive notice of the Award would not be enough and once he gained knowledge with respect to the contents of the award, the actual period of limitation would begin, while it is the stand of learned counsel for the LAC that the petitioners had both actual and constructive knowledge with regard to the contents of the award which is evident from the fact that the applications for grant of compensation were filed on 16.09.2009 and in case a period of six months is to be calculated from the said date, the period of limitation would expire by 15.03.2010. In response to this submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.Vashistha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners gained actual knowledge with regard to the contents of the award when they received the payment which was of 09.02.2010 and the period of limitation would, in fact, commence from the said date. Mr Jain, learned counsel for LAC while relying on the original record submits that while furnishing a bond, the petitioners have given a complete number of the award which would show that the petitioners had received a copy of the award. Mr. Vashistha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners neither received the copy of the award nor he applied for certified copy nor did he inspect the record.