Case: State Of Punjab Vs. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum And Anr

respondents were neither present nor were represented before the Collector when the letter made his award. The first part of cl. (b) is also not applicable, because the respondents did not receive any notice from the Collector under sub-sec. (2) of S. 12 of the Act. That sub- section requires the Collector to give immediate notice of his award to suck of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. Clearly enough, the respondents herein were entitled to a notice under sub-sec. (2) of S. 12 admittedly no notice was issued to them.5. As to the second part of cl. (b) of the proviso, the true scope and effect thereof was considered by this court in Harish Chandras case, 1962-1 SCR 676 : (AIR 1961 SC 1500 ) (supra).It was there observed that a literal and mechanical construction of the words "six months from the date of Collectors award" occurring in the second part of cl. (b) of the proviso would not be appropriate and "the knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fair play and natural justice, the expression used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. Admittedly the award was never communicated to the respondents. Therefore the question before us boils down to this. When did the respondents know the award either actually or constructively? Learned counsel for the appellant has placed very strong reliance on the petition which the respondents made for interim payment of compensation on December 24,1954. He has pointed out that the learned Subordinate Judge relied on this petition as showing the respondents date of knowledge and there are no reasons why we should take a different view. It seems clear to us that the ratio of the decision in Harish Chandras case, 1962-1 SCR 676 : (AIR 1961 SC 1500 ) (supra) is that the party affected by the award must know it, actually or constructively, and the period of six months will run from the date of that knowledge. Now, knowledge of the award does not mean a mere knowledge of the fact that an award has been made. The knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award. These contents may be known either actually or constructively. If the award is communicated to a party under S. 12 (2) of the Act, the party must be obviously fixed with knowledge of the contents of the award whether he reads it. or not. Similarly when a party is present in court either personally or through his representative when the award is made by the Collector, it must be presumed that he knows the contents of the award. Having regard to the scheme of the Act we think that knowledge of the award must mean knowledge of the essential contents of the award. Looked at from that point of view, we do not think that it can be inferred from the petition dated December 24, 1954 that the respondents had knowledge of the award one of the respondents gave evidence before the learned Subordinate Judge and she said :"The application marked as Ex. D-1 was given by me but the amount of compensation was not known to me, nor did I know about acquisition of the land. Chaudhari Mohd. Sadiq, my Karinda had told me on the day I filed the said application that the land had been acquired by the Government."This evidence was not seriously contradicted on behalf of the appellant and the learned Subordinate Judge did not reject it. It is worthy of the note that before the Collector also the appellant did not seriously challenge the statement of the respondents that they came to know of the award on July 22, 1955 the date on which the compensation was paid. On the reply which the appellant filed before the learned Subordinate Judge there was no contradiction of the averment that the respondents had come to know of the award on July 22, 1955. That being the position we have come to the conclusion that the date of knowledge in this case was July 22, 1955. The application for a reference was clearly made within six months from that date and was not therefore barred by time within the meaning of the second part of cl. (b) of the proviso to S.18 of the Act.6. In the view which we have taken on the question of limitation, it is unnecessary for us to decide the other question as to whether the civil court, on a reference under S. 18 of the Act, can go into the question of limitation. We have already stated that there is a conflict of judicial opinion on that question. There is on one side a line of decisions following the decision of the Bombay High Court In re, Land Acquisition Act, ILR 30 Bom 275 which have held that the civil court is not debarred from satisfying itself that the reference which it is called upon to hear is a valid reference. There is, on the other side, a line of decisions which say that the jurisdiction of the civil court is confined to considering and pronouncing upon any one of the four different objections to an award under the Act which may have been raised in the written application for the reference. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Secretary of State v. Bhagwan Prasad, ILR 52 All 96 : (AIR 1929 All 769) is typical of this line of decisions. There is thus a marked conflict of judicial opinion on the question. This conflict, we think, must be resolved in a more appropriate case on a future occasion. In the case before us the question does not really arise and is merely academic and we prefer not to decide the question in the present case.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Assuming that the appellant can raise the ground of limitations, the first question before US is, whether the application made on September 30, 1955 was within time within the meaning of the aforesaid proviso. Clause (a) of the Proviso clearly not applicable in the present case, because admittedly the respondents were neither present nor were represented before the Collector when the letter made his award. The first part of cl. (b) is also not applicable, because the respondents did not receive any notice from the Collector under sub-sec. (2) of S. 12 of the Act. That sub- section requires the Collector to give immediate notice of his award to suck of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. Clearly enough, the respondents herein were entitled to a notice under sub-sec. (2) of S. 12 admittedly no notice was issued to them.5. As to the second part of cl. (b) of the proviso, the true scope and effect thereof was considered by this court in Harish Chandras case, 1962-1 SCR 676  : (AIR 1961 SC 1500  ) (supra).It was there observed that a literal and mechanical construction of the words "six months from the date of Collectors award" occurring in the second part of cl. (b) of the proviso would not be appropriate and "the knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fair play and natural justice, the expression used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. Admittedly the award was never communicated to the respondents.It seems clear to us that the ratio of the decision in Harish Chandras case, 1962-1 SCR 676  : (AIR 1961 SC 1500  ) (supra) is that the party affected by the award must know it, actually or constructively, and the period of six months will run from the date of that knowledge. Now, knowledge of the award does not mean a mere knowledge of the fact that an award has been made. The knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award. These contents may be known either actually or constructively. If the award is communicated to a party under S. 12 (2) of the Act, the party must be obviously fixed with knowledge of the contents of the award whether he reads it. or not. Similarly when a party is present in court either personally or through his representative when the award is made by the Collector, it must be presumed that he knows the contents of the award. Having regard to the scheme of the Act we think that knowledge of the award must mean knowledge of the essential contents of the award. Looked at from that point of view, we do not think that it can be inferred from the petition dated December 24, 1954 that the respondents had knowledge of the award one of the respondents gave evidence before the learned SubordinateIn the view which we have taken on the question of limitation, it is unnecessary for us to decide the other question as to whether the civil court, on a reference under S. 18 of the Act, can go into the question of limitation. We have already stated that there is a conflict of judicial opinion on that question. There is on one side a line of decisions following the decision of the Bombay High Court In re, Land Acquisition Act, ILR 30 Bom 275 which have held that the civil court is not debarred from satisfying itself that the reference which it is called upon to hear is a valid reference. There is, on the other side, a line of decisions which say that the jurisdiction of the civil court is confined to considering and pronouncing upon any one of the four different objections to an award under the Act which may have been raised in the written application for the reference. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Secretary of State v. Bhagwan Prasad, ILR 52 All 96 : (AIR 1929 All 769) is typical of this line of decisions. There is thus a marked conflict of judicial opinion on the question. This conflict, we think, must be resolved in a more appropriate case on a future occasion. In the case before us the question does not really arise and is merely academic and we prefer not to decide the question in the present case.