TMI Blog1963 (2) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Acquisition Act (Act 1 of 1894) was incompetent by reason of the circumstance that it was made on an application filed beyond time. The appellant before us is the State of Punjab and the respondents are two ladies being related as mother and daughter. We shall presently state the relevant facts, but before we do so it is necessary to say that the only point on which the High Court disposed of the application in revision before it made by the respondents herein, was whether the civil court to which a reference is made by the Collector under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on an application filed beyond time, can reject the reference on the ground that the reference made is incompetent. On this point there is a conflict of judicial opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Bombing Range. The respondents were not notified about the acquisition and were not present at the time of the award. The respondents alleged, and this was not denied, that the Collector treated the property as evacuee property and none of the notices contemplated by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued to them. The Collector made an award on October 25, 1953 by which he allowed compensation at the rate of ₹ 96/- per acre in respect of the lands of the respondents. On December 24, 1954 that is more than a year after the award, the respondents made an application to the Collector in which they said that certain agricultural lands of villages Salarpur and Nasirpur were compulsorily acquired by the Collector by an award dated Oc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that she had no knowledge of the award at the time it was made and that she only came to know about it in July, 1955, when she received the award money. Nothing has been shown to me to the contrary to prove that the award was made within the knowledge of the petitioners. Under the circumstances it would be only fair and equitable to refer the petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to a civil court for determining the compensation, which I hereby do. A reference was made accordingly to the civil court and the Senior Subordinate judge of Gurgaon who heard it came to the conclusion that the application made to the Collector for a reference war barred by time, because the Collector s award was made on October 25, 1953 and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication in revision, set aside the order of the learned Subordinate judge and directed him to deal with the reference on merits. It is from this order of the High Court that the appeal has come to us by special leave. It is necessary at this stage to set out the proviso to s. 1 8 of the Act ............ Provided that every such application shall be made,- (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collectorate at the time when he made his award. within six weeks from the date of the Collector s award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector s award, whichever period shall fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd 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 Raja Harish Chandra s case ([1962] 1 S.C.R. 676), is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Subordinate judge did not reject it. It is worthy of 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. In 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. (by of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
