R. F. A No. 922 of 1993 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision : 23.4.2009
RFA No. 922 of 1993 (O&M)
Bhagwanti and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellants.
Ms. Ritu Bahri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The landowners are before this court challenging the award of the
learned court below whereby reference filed by them objecting to the award of the
Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ‘the Collector”), on account of acquisition of
land were dismissed as time barred.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide
notification dated 27.4.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) acquired land within the revenue estate of Village Rania,
District Sirsa, for construction of 132 KV Sub-station at Rania. The same was
followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act which was issued on
13.6.1988. The Collector vide award dated 14.2.1989 determined the fair value at
Rs. 88,000/- per acre for nehri and Rs. 44,000/- per acre for barani/gair mumkin
kinds of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the learned Collector, the
landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act,
the learned court below vide award dated 5.6.1992, dismissed the reference
petition being time barred.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that award in the
present case was pronounced on 14.2.1989 and the application was filed on
8.2.1991. It was for that reason that the land was owned by Jag Mohan Singh, who
expired on 13.11.1989 and it was on that account that the objections could not be
filed within time. Immediately after the appellants were guided, the objections
were filed.
On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that
owner of the land had expired on 13.11.1989. The maximum period of limitation
as provided under Section 18 (2) of the Act for filing objections had expired,
accordingly the plea sought to be raised by the landowners is misconceived.
R. F. A No. 922 of 1993 -2-
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper
book, I do not find any merit therein. Considering the admitted facts on record
where the award of the Collector was passed on 14.2.1989. The original landowner
was expired on 13.11.1989 i.e. 9 months thereafter and the objections were filed
on 8.2.1991 which were clearly time barred. Accordingly, the present appeal is
dismissed.
23.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge