JUDGMENT
N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letter’s Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Civil Miscellaneous No. 303-CI of 1991 whereby the application filed by the appellant-Claimant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay that occurred in filing the Regular First Appeal against the award of the Land Acquisition Court has been dismissed.
2. Land measuring 2528, 25625 acres in village Bhucho Kalan, district Bhatinda belonging to different persons, including Devi Dawar Temple, the claimant-appellant (hereinafter called the Temple) was acquired as per notification of the State Government published on June 8, 1979 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and it was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar as per his award dated March 30, 1981 assessed the value of the land at the following rates :-
i) Nehri Rs. 20,000/- per acre. ii) Chai Rs. 20,000/- per acre. iii)Barani Rs. 12,770/-per acre. iv) Banjar Rs. 6,400/- per acre. v) Gairmumkin Rs. 6,400/- per acre.
Dissatisfied with the award, the claimants including the Temple preferred reference applications under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation which were referred to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda. The Land Acquisition Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land and assessed the amount of compensation as fallows:-
a) Land abutting on the main road @ Rs. 31,000/- per acre. of Bhatinda-Barnala upto the depth of 500 meters. b) Nehri, Chahi, Nehri/Chahi @ Rs. 30,000/- per acre. c)Barani @ Rs. 14,000/-per acre. d) Banjar Qadim @ Rs. 8,800/- per acre. e) Gair Mumkin @ Rs. 8,000/- per acre.
A large number of land owners/claimants then filed Regular First Appeals in this Court claiming further enhancement in compensation. Union of India also filed first appeals challenging the award of the Land Acquisition Court claiming reduction in the quantum of compensation as, according to it, the same was erroneously enhanced. The Temple through one of the claimants did not then challenge the Court award in this Court. All the first appeals filed by the land owners as also by the Union of India were heard and disposed of on May 21, 1987 by a learned Single Judge in regular First Appeal No. 140 of 1986 (Zora Singh v. Union of India). The appeals filed by the claimants before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 1251 of 1987 were allowed on January 30, 1989 and the claimants were held entitled to compensation of the acquired land at the following enhanced rates:-
i) for the land within the abadi @ Rs. 90,000/- per acre.
and abutting the National Highway on
either side upto depth of 500 meters.
ii) For Chahi/Nehri, or Chahi Nehri @ Rs. 50,000/- per acre.
Land
iii) For Barani Land @ Rs. 38,000/- per acre.
iv) For Banjar Kadim or Gair Mumkin @ Rs. 30,000/- per acre.
land
The appeals filed by the Union of India were, however, dismissed. The matter was thereafter taken in appeal before the Supreme Court and the judgment of the Division Bench was upheld in Union of India another v. Zora Singh, 1992(1) S.C.C. 673.
3. The Temple then filed a Regular First Appeal in this Court on December 21, 1990 impugned the award of the Land Acquisition Collector dated April 29, 1986. Since there was a delay of 4 years, 6 months and 27 days in the filing of the first appeal, the appellant also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay. The only ground on which the delay was sought to be condoned was that Jai Lal son of Shri Sher Chand who was the Mohtmim of the Temple had died on December 10, 1982 after filing the application under Section 18 of the Act and there was no Mohtmim of the Temple who could file an appeal in this Court on its behalf. It was stated that Baba Khem Singh of Bhucho Kalan was appointed Mohtmim by a resolution of the General Public on June 3, 1988 and thereafter he took some time in consolidating all the properties movable and immovable belonging to the Temple. It was farther averred in the application that on May 9, 1990 Baba Khem Singh moved the Land Acquisition Court on behalf of the Temple for the payment of the amount of compensation as awarded by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda. This application is stated to have been allowed and after applying for a certified copy of the judgment the appeal was filed. Notice of this application was issued to the Union of India and when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application holding that the same was lacking in bonafides and that the reasons mentioned in the application had been cooked up only for the purpose of filing an appeal. The learned Judge was of the opinion that Baba Khem Singh was not a genuinely appointed Mohtmim of the Temple. The application for condonation of delay was accordingly dismissed. While dismissing the application learned Judge directed the Inspector General of Police (Crime) Punjab to hold an enquiry into the manner in which Baba Khem Singh was appointed as Mohtmim of the Temple, the assets of the Temple, the existing state of affairs of the Temple and its property etc.
4. As directed by the learned Judge, Shri B.P. Tiwari, IPS, Inspector General of Police (Crime) Punjab held the enquiry and submitted a detailed report dated July 2, 1992. The conclusions reached by the Inspector General of Police are as under:-
“As per the resolution dated 1.6.1988 and 3.6.1988 Devi Dawar Mandir Committee has nominated Baba Khem Singh of Dera Roomi Wala as Mohtmim of Devi Dawar Mandir and he was also authorised to deal with the movable and immovable assets of the Mandir. Revenue records also show that Baba Khem Singh was appointed as Mohtmim of Devi Dawar Mandir vide Waqiati Roznamcha No. 641 dated 17.6.1988 of village Bucho Kalan. As per S.B. A/c No. 2602 there are Rs. 67,395.75 lying in the Bank and no amount has been withdrawn. Similarly the second compensation received as per decision dated 14.6.1990 by Additional District Judge, Bhatinda is lying with the Bank of India Bhatinda Branch vide DBD No. 18/06 favouring Devi Dawar Mandir through Baba Khem Singh.
It is clear that Baba Khem Singh of dera Roomi Wala was appointed by the Devi Dawar Mandir Committee and village Panchayat as Mohtmim. All the cash amounts received as compensation in lieu of land acquired by the Govt. are intact in the Banks and no amount was withdrawn or spent by Baba Khem Singh.
Baba Khem Singh is a devout Sikh and does not believe in idolatory but the sanctity of the temple has been properly maintained by him in close co-operation of the people living in nearby villages. A boundary wall has been constructed inside the premises of the Devi Dawar Temple which is housing a ‘Goshala’ also. The construction of the residential premises for the priest of the Temple and the search of a good Priest by the Baba and the villagers in on”.
5. We have heard counsel for the parties at length. The only ground on which the learned Judge had dismissed the application was that Baba Khem Singh had not been genuinely appointed Mohtmim of the Temple and, therefore, he was not entitled to represent the Temple in the present proceedings. It was observed in the order under appeal that as and when a rightful Mohtmim would be duly appointed, the claim of the Temple would be examined on merits. Now, in view of the findings recorded by the Inspector General of Police (Crime) Punjab that Baba Khem Singh of Dera Roomiwala was genuinely appointed by the Devi Dawar Mandir Committee and village Panchayat as. Mohtmim and was authorised to deal with the movable and immovable assets of the Mandir and that all the. cash amounts received as compensation are lying intact in Banks, the ground on which the learned Judge dismissed the application cannot be sustained. Baba Khem Singh is, therefore, recognised as the Mohtmim of the Temple and must be held to be entitled to file the present application on its behalf. For the reasons stated in the application and also keeping in view the fact that the other claimants whose land had been acquired through the same notification have already received enhanced compensation as determined by this Court in Zora Singh v. Union of India and Anr., L.P.A. 1251 of 1987, we are of the opinion that it is just and equitable and also in the ends of justice to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act allowed and the delay in filing the first appeal condoned.
6. Since counsel for the parties are agreed that the amount of compensation of the acquired land stands determined by this Court in Zora Singh’s case (supra), we do not think it necessary to remand the case back to the learned Single Judge and instead we allow the Regular First Appeal filed by the Temple but not yet registered as such in terms of the decision in Zora Singh’s case (supra) leaving the parties to bear their own costs. (The Office is directed to register the Regular First Appeal).