JUDGMENT
P.S. Poti, C.J.
1. Rule. Shri M. I. Hava waives service of 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 award, they have no notice of the award itself and, therefore, they had i 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 S. 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 serving either a copy of the award or the essential part of it. In State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the purpose of the notice under S. 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:
“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 S. 12(2) of the Act, the party must be obviously fixed with 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.”
This Court has expressed the same view referring to the above said decision in Rasulkhanjiv. H. P. Rathod, (1975) 16 Guj LR 911. In this view, it is clear that there is -an obligation on the part of the Collector not merely to intimate about the passing of the award but he has to communicate the essential contents of the award, if not a copy of the award. That has not been fulfilled in this case and we direct that this shall be done within a month.
4. In view of what we have said about the obligation of the Collector, it follows that the time for reckoning the period for filing a. reference application will commence with the service of the copy of the award and if such an application is made within time thereafter, it shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
5. There is a further prayer for rehabilitation by the third respondent of persons whose lands have gone under submergence due to irrigation project in accordance with rehabilitation schemes. It is a matter for the third respondent to consider. We direct that if the third respondent is moved in this behalf, the third respondent will consider the request.
6. Rule made absolute as above. No costs.
7. Rule made absolute.