RAVUNNY NAIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the claimant in Land Acquisition Case no. 74 of 1123 on the file of the District Collector, Trichur. The petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2, the District collector, Trichur, to make a reference under S. 17 of the Cochin Land acquisition Act to the District Court of Trichur. The petitioner's property 241/2 cents in extent in S. No. 663/11, Talappilli Taluk, was acquired by the erstwhile Cochin Government under the Cochin Land Acquisition Act, Act II of 1070. On receipt of notice under S. 8 of the Act the petitioner filed a claim statement before the Diwan Peishkar on 29. 5. 1948 (16. 10. 1123 ). The Diwan peishkar passed an award on 9. 8. 1948 (25. 12. 1123 ). At the time when the award was passed neither the petitioner nor his advocate was present. Notice of the award was issued to the petitioner only on 29. 1. 1949 (16. 6. 1124) and was received by him on 4. 2. 1949 (22. 6. 1124 ). Only 17. 2. 1949 (6. 7. 1124) the petitioner made an application under S. 17 of the Act to the Diwan Peishkar claiming more amount as compensation and asking for a reference to the District Court. Although the application bears the date 8. 2. 1949 (26. 6. 1124) it was actually presented before the Diwan Peishkar only on 17. 2. 1949 (6. 7. 1124 ). This application was rejection by the Diwan Peishkar on 12. 12. 1949 (27. 4. 1125) on the ground that it was barred by limitation. It is alleged that the Diwan Peishkar (now Collector)has gone wrong in holding that the application was barred by limitation and in dismissing it on that ground. According to the petitioner, the application for reference was made within time and in any case the Collector was bound to forward the application to the District Court leaving it to that court to decide whether the application was barred by limitation or not. The petitioner, therefore, prays that a writ may be issued compelling the Collector to make the reference to the District Court. The petition was filed under Art. 226 of the constitution and S. 18 (2) of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act, Act V of 1125.

(2.) A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the state to the effect that Art. 226 of the Constitution would not apply to the case since the order of the Collector refusing to make the reference was passed before the Constitution came into force. It is true that Art. 226 of the constitution will not apply to the case. But apart from that Article this Court as a Court of Record has got jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs (vide subramonia Iyer and others v. The Chief Minister and others 1949 KLT 77, F. B. ). It is, therefore, necessary to go into the merits of the petition.

(3.) MACDONALD v. The Secretary of State for India (4 indian Cases 914) is a decision of the Punjab Chief Court. Rattigan and Shah din, JJ. observed thus in that case: "mr. Pestonji contends that an award is'made' for the purposes of Ss. 11, 12 and 18 of the Act as soon as it is written out and singed by the 'collector'. In other words, an award is 'made' even though it is not announced to the person or persons interested. Possibly the language of Ss. 11 and 12 lend some colour to this contention, but we cannot accept it. We consider that it was the clear intention of the Legislature that the award should be announced to such of the persons interested as were present when it was'made' and that due notice of it should be given to such of them as were not then present. In other words, that it is an essential part of the making of the award that it should be communicated to the interested parties. An award under the Act is in the nature of a tender and obviously no tender can be 'made' unless it is brought to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. This proposition seems to us to be self-evident, but if support for it is needed, we would refer to the limitation provision of S. 18 of the Act. To hold that an award is 'made' as soon as it is signed by the Collector would in many cases result in grave hardship, and we, therefore, feel fully justified in holding that an award is not made until it is announced or communicated to the person interested. We cannot believe that the Legislature intended that an award should be deemed to be 'made' when the collector signs the document and without saying a word about it, locks it up in his office. To take an extreme case the Collector signs an award, and without announcing it files it with various other documents in his office. He is then transferred and it is only some seven months afterwards that his successor comes across the 'award'. Under S. 18 of the Act the persons interested would be barred from applying for a reference to the Civil Court as more than six months had elapsed from the'making' of the award. Looking, then, at the true character of the award in these cases, that is to say, that it is really a tender on behalf of government, and having regard to the inconveniences and hardships that would, or might otherwise arise, we hold that an award is not made until it is announced to the persons interested. "