RAJAT HIRABHAI MOTIBHAI Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION PANAM PROJECT GODHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Shri M. I. Hava waives service the Rule for the respondents. It is agreed that the matter may be heard and disposed of. forthwith and accordingly it is heard..

(2.) The complaint of the petitioners in this case is that though they are said to be parties to an awards they have no notice of the award itself and. therefore they had necessarily to seek copies of the award for the purpose of filing reference applications under the Land Acquisition Act. That they have been supplied with intimation of the passing of the award and not with the essential contents of the award is not a matter in controversy. If there is obligation to serve on a party a copy of the award or a substance of the award which will enable the party to know the decision as well as the reasons supporting such decision so as to enable him to file a reference application such a notice has not been served is not again in controversy.

(3.) The question therefore is whether under sec. 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act there is an obligation upon the Collector merely to intimate about the passing of the award or he is obliged to convey the matters contained in the award by seeing either a copy of the award or the essential part of it. in State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum as another AIR 1963 S.C. 1604 the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the purpose of the notice under sec. 12(2) in the context of a plea as to whether mere knowledge of the passing of the award would be sufficient as a starting point reckoned for the purpose of filing a reference application. It is in dealing with this that the Supreme Court observed: