ORDER : Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner-Smt Anju Mishra is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 06/08/2020 (Annexure P-1) (wrongly mentioned in the petition as 05/08/2020) passed by the Respondent No.2-Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2013”), has been rejected holding it to be barred by time. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the findings recorded by the Respondent No.2 rejecting the said application by holding the same to be barred by time, is apparently contrary to law. It is contended further that the petitioner was not aware regarding the pronouncement of the award, dated 07/06/2017 and she came to know only when the certified copy of the same was delivered to her on 02/07/2020 and, therefore, the application as was made immediately thereafter on 14/07/2020 ought not to have been held to be barred by time. In support, he placed his reliance upon the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Bhagwan Das And Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 545 . 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State/ Respondents has supported the order impugned as passed by the Respondent No.2, as the application for reference under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 was filed 3 years after the pronouncement of the said award, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order impugned passed by the Respondent No.2. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire papers annexed with this petition. 5. From perusal of the record, it appears that the land bearing Khasra No. 83/10 admeasuring 0.60 acre and Khasra No.52/5 admeasuring 0.30 acre, situated at village Saida, Patwari Halka No.41, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), owned by the petitioner– Smt. Anju Mishra was acquired under the award dated 07/06/2017 (Annexure P-3) passed in Land Acquisition Case No.12-A/82/2014-15 for the construction of Cannal under the Arpa Bhaisajhar Bairaj Project, where the compensation of the land in question held by the petitioner was assessed to the tune of Rs.8,30,022/-. 6. 6. The amount of compensation as was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was received by the petitioner on 26/06/2020 and on the same day, she applied for obtaining the certified copy of the said award dated 07/06/2017 and in pursuance thereof, it was delivered to her on 02/07/2020 and, immediately thereafter, an application was made by her on 14/07/2020 (Annexure P-5) under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 seeking reference of her matter to the Authority, i.e. Establishment of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Authority constituted under Section 51 of the Act, 2013, as the compensation of her alleged land has illegally been determined while treating the same to be unirrigated land, though it was the irrigated one. The application so made has, however, been rejected by the concerned Authority while holding it to be barred by time by virtue of the order dated 06/08/2020 (Annexure P-1), which has been impugned by way of this petition. 7. It is to be seen from the record that although the award was passed on 07/06/2017 in the said acquisition proceeding, but the same was, however, pronounced in her absence, as no materials have been placed on record by the respondents/State, that she was present when the said award was pronounced on 07/06/2017. It was, however, expected from the respondents/ State to establish the said fact by producing the relevant order sheets in this regard that the petitioner was present at the time of pronouncement of the said award dated 07/06/2017, as the same was in their exclusive knowledge. But, for the reasons best known to them, they failed to produce the same on record. Non-production of the same would, therefore, lead to an irresistible conclusion that the petitioner was not present at the relevant point of time, else it would have been placed on record. Even otherwise, no notice, as required to be issued under sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Act, 2013, was issued to her regarding the information of the said award. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the petitioner was aware regarding the pronouncement of the alleged award and, rather, it appears to have come in her knowledge on 02/07/2020, when the copy of it was delivered to her based upon her application, made on 26/06/2020. 8. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the petitioner was aware regarding the pronouncement of the alleged award and, rather, it appears to have come in her knowledge on 02/07/2020, when the copy of it was delivered to her based upon her application, made on 26/06/2020. 8. At this juncture, the provision prescribed under Section 64 of Act, 2013 is to be seen, which reads as under :- “64. Reference to Authority - (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested: Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority: Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made-- (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire: Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso.” 9. The term “date of the Collector’s award” occurring in aforesaid clause (b) of the proviso has been interpreted by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh V. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, reported in A.I.R. 1961 SC 1500 and held that the party affected by the award must know it, actually or constructively, and the period of six months will run from the date of knowledge. The relevant observation made therein at para 6 reads as under:- “6. ……………… If the award is pronounced in the presence of the party whose rights are affected by it, it can be said to be made when pronounced. If the date for the pronouncement of the award is communicated to the party and it is accordingly pronounced on the date previously announced the award is said to be communicated to the said party even if the said party is not actually present on the date of its pronouncement. Similarly if without notice of the date of its pronouncement an award is pronounced and a party is not present the award can be said to be made when it is communicated to the party later. The knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fair-play and natural justice the expression "the date of the award" used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. In our opinion, therefore, it would be unreasonable to construe the words "from the date of the Collector's award" used in the proviso to S.18 in a literal or mechanical way”. 10. While reiterating the aforesaid principles, the Supreme Court yet in another matter of Bhagwan Das (supra), held at paragraphs 26 & 27 as under:- “26. If the words six months from the “date of the Collector's award” should be literally interpreted as referring to the date of the award and not the date of knowledge of the award, it will lead to unjust and absurd results. For example, the Collector may choose to make an award but not to issue any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, either due to negligence or oversight or due to any ulterior reasons. For example, the Collector may choose to make an award but not to issue any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, either due to negligence or oversight or due to any ulterior reasons. Or he may send a notice but may not bother to ensure that it is served on the landowner as required under Section 45 of the Act. If the words “date of the Collector's award” are literally interpreted, the effect would be that on the expiry of six months from the date of award, even though the claimant had no notice of the award, he would lose the right to seek a reference. That will lead to arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination between those who are notified of the award and those who are not notified of the award. 27. Unless the procedure under the Act is fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory, it will run the risk of being branded as being violative of Article 14 as also Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. To avoid such consequences, the words “date of the Collector's award” occurring in proviso (b) to Section 18 requires to be read as referring to the date of knowledge of the essential contents of the award, and not the actual date of the Collector's award”. 11. In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law, it is, thus, evident that while interpreting the said term “date of the Collector’s award”, it has been held that the period of six months will run from the date of knowledge which must relate to the essential contents of the award. 12. It is to be seen further from perusal of the second proviso to sub-section (2) of the above-mentioned provision that the Collector may entertain an application even after the expiry of the said period, but within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso. 13. 13. It, however, appears from perusal of the order impugned dated 06/08/2020 that the application (Annexure P-5) as was made by the petitioner under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 while addressing to the Collector, Bilaspur was, in fact, considered by the Assistant Grade-II, namely, Gopichand Chauhan, though it was not referred to him, yet while considering the said application, he made his proposal before the Additional Collector, Bilaspur for its rejection while marking the said relevant portion as ‘A’, who in turn, based upon the said proposal has recommended the Collector, Bilaspur for its rejection and, while acting on it, the Collector, the Respondent No.2 herein, has rejected the said application. The Collector has, therefore, without applying his mind as required under the Statute, has rejected the same in a cursory manner. For its ready reference, the verbatim of the said order is reproduced as under :- 14. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order impugned would show that the Collector, Bilaspur, has, in fact, not applied his mind while entertaining the said application (Annexure P-5) as was moved by the petitioner on 14/07/2020 under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 and rather, as observed herein-above, it appears to have been considered by the clerk of the said office, i.e. Assistant Grade-II, who was, however, not at all authorized to act as such under the Statute. 15. Be that as it may, the application (Annexure P-5) made by the petitioner under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 has been rejected by the Respondent No.2 holding it to be barred by time. But, as observed herein-above, the award dated 07/06/2017 was pronounced in the said acquisition proceedings in her absence and no notice as required under sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Act, 2013 was issued in this regard. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the petitioner was aware regarding the said award. 16. But, as observed herein-above, the award dated 07/06/2017 was pronounced in the said acquisition proceedings in her absence and no notice as required under sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Act, 2013 was issued in this regard. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the petitioner was aware regarding the said award. 16. That apart, it appears from the endorsement made in the award dated 07/06/2017 (as reflected from the internal page no.24 of the memo of petition) that the copy of the same was provided to the petitioner on 02/07/2020, based upon her application made on 26/06/2020 and, immediately thereafter, the said application (Annexure P-5), was made on 14/07/2020 under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 for its reference to the Authority, i.e. Establishment of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Authority constituted under Section 51 of the Act, 2013, within the period of 6 months from the date of its knowledge. Therefore, the alleged application cannot be held to be barred by time. 17. The aforesaid observation is fortified by the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the said matter of Bhagwan Das (supra), wherein it has been held at para 28 as under :- “28. The following position therefore emerges from the interpretation of the proviso to Section 18 of the Act : (i) If the award is made in the presence of the person interested (or his authorised representative), he has to make the application within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award itself. (ii) If the award is not made in the presence of the person interested (or his authorised representative), he has to make the application seeking reference within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2). (iii) If the person interested (or his representative) was not present when the award is made, and if he does not receive the notice under Section 12(2) from the Collector, he has to make the application within six months of the date on which he actually or constructively came to know about the contents of the award. (iii) If the person interested (or his representative) was not present when the award is made, and if he does not receive the notice under Section 12(2) from the Collector, he has to make the application within six months of the date on which he actually or constructively came to know about the contents of the award. (iv) If a person interested receives a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, after the expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt of such notice, he cannot claim the benefit of the provision for six months for making the application on the ground that the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was the date of knowledge of the contents of the award.” 18. In view of the aforesaid background, the petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 06/08/2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, is hereby quashed and the Collector, the Respondent No.2 herein, is directed to make a reference to the Authority, i.e. Establishment of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Authority constituted under Section 51 of the Act, 2013, as soon as possible, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to cost(s).