DURGA DASS Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ACQUISITION, UDHAMPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case are very simple. The Collector passed his award under the Land Acquisition Act on 21 -4 -1975. The petitioners applied for a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act on 1 -3 -1976. The trial court held that the applicants were neither present at the time when the Collector made his award nor even a notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, was served on them. The court, however, found that the applicants had the knowledge of the award on 5 -8 -1975. On this finding it held that the application was time barred and as such the consequent reference was incompetent. In coming to this conclusion that it did, the court, relied upon the solitary circumstance that on 5 -8 -1975 the applicants had applied for a copy of the award through one of them, namely Amar Nath. The court held that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it must be held that on that date they had knowledge of the essential contents of the award.

(2.) THE argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the inference is wholly unreasonable and perverse. I am unable to agree. It is not unthinkable that a party applying for a copy would have knowledge of the essential contents of the original document. Exceptions may be there, but the possibility cannot be entirely ruled out. If that be so, as it really is, the inference drawn by the lower court, cannot be said to be wholly perverse or unreasonable calling for interference in revision by this court Another point taken by the learned counsel is that the lower court has not dealt with the circumstances that the other brother, Vasudev, himself had applied for a copy only on 21 -2 -1976. On this premise he urged that the finding was vitiated. There can be no dispute with the principle that non -consideration of material evidence vitiates the finding. But this circumstance became inconsequential when the applicants has already obtained knowledge of the contents of the award and even applied for a copy on 5 -8 -1975, through, one of them, namely AmarNath. Its Non -Consideration cannot, therefore, vitiate the finding. The argument to the contrary of the learned counsel must fail.

(3.) THE result, therefore, is that this revision fails which is dismissed accordingly but without any order as to costs.