1. This is an application for an appropriate writ in order to quash an order of the Collector refusing to entertain the application of the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, praying that their case be referred to the court. it appears that some lands situated in Kasba Bhagat and Sarnal District Anantnag, were acquired by the Government and the usual notices under Sections 6 and 9 of the Act were served on the interested persons. Some of the petitioners appeared before the collector and filed their objections. Ultimately the Collector filed an award under section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, and after obtaining the sanction of the Revenue Minister directed the Tehsildar to arrange for the announcement of the award to the parties concerned.
2. The main point taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners before me is that none of the petitioners bad any knowledge either actual or constructive of the contents of the award. The petitioners have also in their petition, challenged the correctness of the notices issued to them under sections 6 and 9 of the Act. On a perusal of the record, however, I am satisfied that so far as the notices under Sections 6 and 9 of the Act are concerned, they were duly served and there does not appear to be any defect in them. The main contention however raised is that the award was not announced to the parties and they had no knowledge of this award except as and when alleged by them in their petition before the Collector which was summarily dismissed. A petition was filed before the Collector on 17-4-1963 against the compensation awarded and praying that a reference be made to Page: 59the court. On tills application, the Collector has passed the following order on 3-7-1963.
“The case being time barred cannot be referred to court, inform the applicants.”
3. it is manifest that the order does not contain any reason why the Collector thought that the application was time barred. The order also does not reveal as to whether or not the Collector had applied his mind to the facts and circumstances given by the petitioners indicating that they came to have the Knowledge of the Award on 24-1-1063 when they were actually dispossessed. The right given to a person under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, is, indeed, a very valuable right and although the Statute provides a period of limitation in making an application for reference, the point of Knowledge should be determined by the Collector on good and cogent materials before him it is not open to the Collector to brush aside an application like this treating it as a sort of a routine matter. Moreover, If the application is within time, the Collector has no discretion in the matter, but it is his duty to refer the case to court. Clause (b) of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which applies to the present case runs as under:—
“In other cases, within 6 weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2) or within 6 months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.”
4. In State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1604, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows:—
“It seems clear to us that the ratio of the decision in Harish Chandra v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, 1962-1 SCR 676 : AIR 1961 SC 1500 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 Section 12(2) of the Act, the party must be obviously fixed with the 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.”
5. Applying these tests to the facts of the present case, I am satisfied that some of the petitioners, to whom reference will be made later had no Knowledge actual or constructive of the contents of the award.
6. In reply to the points taken by the petitioners, the Advocate General has filed an affidavit of the Patwari Prem Nath Tikku dated 26-5-1964, paragraphs Nos. 4 and 5 whereof run as under:—
“That Ghani (petitioner No: 4); Subhan (petitioner No: 5); Kabir Bhat since deceased Numberdar Qasba Bhagat and father of Abdul Aziz, Mahi Din and Abdul Salam; Khalil son of Ahad Bhat, residents of Qasba Bhagat who are close relations and lived in the same compound were personally Known to me.
That the copy (on page 171 file No: 193/1957) of the award with respect to the land in question was received by me through proper channel from the Tehsildar Anantnag and the contents of the same (i.e the award) were announced by me on 3-5-1962(AD) to the persons mentioned in Paragraph 4 above by explaining to them the contents thereof both in Urdu and in Kashmiri language. The signatures of literate amongst the aforesaid persons i.e Kabir Bhat and Khalil Bhat were also obtained on the reverse of page 170 of the file No: 193/1957 in token of the aforesaid award having been announced by me.”
7. It is, therefore, clear that according to the affidavit of the Patwari Prem Nath Tikku, the petitioners Ghani, Subhan, Kabir Bhat Numberdar, his sons and Khalil were duly apprised of the contents of the award by the Patwari at the spot. In fact at page 171 of the file signatures of Khalil and Kabir appear to have been taken by the Patwari. Thus the affidavit of the Patwari is fully corroborated by his report which appears at page 171 of the file. It is true that as the other petitioners were not literate, their thumb impressions were not taken on the report appearing at p. 171 of the file. That, however, does not indicate that the Patwari has falsely deposed when he filed this affidavit in the court, in these circumstances, therefore, I see no reason to distrust the affidavit of the Patwari from which it appears that the petitioners, referred to above, were duly informed of the contents of the award.
8. When the case was argued before me on the last date, the petitioners took time to file a supplementary petition specifying the Claims of those persons who even according to the affidavit of the Patwari, Prem Nath Tikku were not informed of the contents of the award. The petitioners in this supplementary petition are as follows:—
1. Gulam Shah. 2. Mst. Hehti. 3. Kabir Wani. 4. Abdul Rehman. 5. Ahad Sheikh, 6. Sattar. 7. Ghulam Nabi. 8. Abdul Ahad. 9. Ghulam Kasool. 10. Abdul Rehsi. 11. Monamad Ismail. 12. Mst. Dutti. and 13. Jabbar.
9. In this petition, the petitioners have also mentioned the lands which belonged to them and which have been acquired by the Government under the notifications referred to above. The Advocate General conceded that the award was not in fact announced by the Patwari or anybody else to the petitioners mentioned in the supplementary petition. He, however, contended that since some of the petitioners were co-owners of those persons to whom the award announced, they must be deemed to have constructive knowledge of the award. It is not disputed that the petitioners mentioned in the supplementary petition were not present in court when the award was announced. It is also admitted that these persons were not present at the spot when the Patwari announced the contents Page: 60of the award to Ghani, Subhan and others. There is also no material to show that the co-owners namely Ghani, Subhan and ors. had any power of attorney from other co-sharers. In these circumstances, therefore, the mere fact that they happened to he co-owners along with some of the petitioners in the supplementary petition and had knowledge of the award would not show that the other petitioners, co-owners to whom the award was never announced had constructive Knowledge of the award.
10. Moreover, as pointed above by the Supreme Court, it is not only essential that the persons concerned should have the Knowledge of the award but that they should have Knowledge of the contents of the award. To apply the principle of constructive Knowledge in such a case, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would toe, to my opinion, to take a very narrow and extreme view. On the materials before me, therefore, X am satisfied that the petitioners mentioned in the supplementary petition had no Knowledge of the contents of the award, until 24-1-1963 when they were actually dispossessed by the Collector. The Collector, has, therefore, committed a serious, error of law patent on the face of the record in refusing to entertain the petition of these petitioners on the ground of limitation and in not making the reference. The result is that the petition of only those persons who are mentioned in the supplementary petition is allowed and the order of the Collector with respect to those petitioners is quashed. By a writ of Mandamus the Collector is directed to make a reference to the District Judge concerned as required by the provisions of Section is of the Act with respect to the cases of the petitioners in the supplementary petition. These petitioners will be entitled to costs assessed at Rs. 50/- The petition of Ghani, Subhan, Khalil and Kabir Bhat along with his sons is rejected without any order as to costs.
IH/MVJ/R.G.D
11. Order accordingly.