What was decided in State of Punjab v. Qaisar Jehan Begum?

The Supreme Court held that the limitation for a Section 18 reference runs from when the party knows the award and its essential contents, not from the date the Collector signs it.

Did the Court require formal notice of the award?

The Court stressed fair play: the party must actually or constructively know the award and its key terms. No communication meant time had not started until knowledge arose.

Why is knowledge of essential contents important?

Without knowing the award’s essentials—like compensation—one cannot challenge it meaningfully. So limitation begins when these essentials are known.

What is the practical effect for landowners?

They can seek reference within time calculated from real knowledge of the award. If no notice was given, the clock may start when compensation is paid or contents are learned.

Which rule of interpretation did the Court favor?

The Court avoided a narrow, mechanical reading and applied principles of fairness and natural justice to construe limitation sensibly.

State of Punjab v. Qaisar Jehan Begum

State of Punjab v. Qaisar Jehan Begum (AIR 1963 SC 1604)

Notice of Award & Limitation for Reference under Section 18 — a classroom-style explainer

Court: Supreme Court of India Year: 1963 Bench: (as per report) Citation: AIR 1963 SC 1604 Area: Land Acquisition Reading: ~7 min

CASE_TITLE: State of Punjab v. Qaisar Jehan Begum PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: notice of award, limitation SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Section 18 reference, knowledge of award PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-11-01 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India slug: state-of-punjab-v-qaisar-jehan-begum

Quick Summary

Land owned by Qaisar Jehan Begum and her daughter was taken for a firing and bombing range. They were not told about the award. They sought a court reference under Section 18. The State said their application was late. The Supreme Court said the six-month limit starts when the party knows the award and its essential contents. Since they learned of it only when compensation was paid on 22 July 1955, the reference was in time.

Issues

Were the landowners entitled to notice of the award?
Was the Section 18 reference within the limitation period?
What is the effect of no notice on the right to challenge the award?

Rules

Fair notice: People affected by an award must be informed in a way that lets them know its essential contents.
Limitation (Section 18): Time runs from actual or constructive knowledge of the award and its essentials, not from the Collector’s signing date alone.
Natural justice: Avoid mechanical reading; apply fairness and practical sense.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline illustration for State of Punjab v. Qaisar Jahan Begum

Ownership: Respondents owned 55 bighas 7 biswas in Salarpur & Nasirpur (Gurgaon).

Acquisition: State acquired land for a field firing and bombing range.

No Notice: Respondents were not informed and were absent when the award was made.

Evacuee Tag: Property was treated as evacuee; notice required by law was not issued.

Award: Collector fixed compensation @ Rs. 96 per acre.

Reference Sought: On 30 Sept 1955, they applied under Section 18 to challenge the award.

Limitation Dispute: State objected that the reference was time-barred.

Subordinate Court: Held it was beyond six months from “date of knowledge.”

High Court Revision: Set aside that view; ordered hearing on merits.

Supreme Court: By special leave, the matter reached the apex court.

Arguments

Appellant (State of Punjab)

Reference filed beyond six months; hence barred.
Limitation to be counted from the Collector’s award date.

Respondents (Landowners)

No notice or communication; they lacked knowledge of essential contents.
Time starts only when they actually or constructively know the award, which occurred on 22 July 1955 when compensation was paid.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held the reference was within time. The six-month period runs from the date the affected party learns of the award and its essential contents. Here, knowledge arose on 22 July 1955, when compensation was paid. A strict, mechanical reading of “from the date of the Collector’s award” was rejected in favor of fairness and natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi

Limitation for a Section 18 reference begins when the party knows the award—actually or constructively—and knows its essential contents. Without such knowledge, time does not properly start.

Why It Matters

Protects landowners who were not served notice of the award.
Aligns limitation with real, effective knowledge.
Promotes fairness over rigid, technical readings.

Key Takeaways

Notice should convey essential contents.
Payment of compensation may signal knowledge.
No knowledge → limitation clock not triggered.

Courts avoid mechanical limitation starts.
Natural justice guides interpretation.
Useful precedent for Section 18 references.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Know → Count → Challenge”

Know the award and its essentials.
Count six months from that knowledge.
Challenge by filing the Section 18 reference.

IRAC Outline

Issue: When does limitation start for a Section 18 reference if no notice is given?
Rule: Time begins from actual/constructive knowledge of the award’s essential contents.
Application: Respondents learned essentials on 22 July 1955 (on payment), so their 30 Sept 1955 reference was in time.
Conclusion: Reference within limitation; fairness over mechanical dating.

Glossary

Constructive Knowledge: Knowledge law assigns when facts should have been discovered with reasonable care.
Essential Contents: Key parts of an award—like compensation and parties—needed to challenge it.
Section 18 Reference: Request to a civil court to review the award on specific grounds.