Judgment:
RFA No.6303 of 2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH213RFA No.6303 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.2.2014 Lakhmir Singh ....Appellant versus Union of India ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble MRS.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.D.S.Channan, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
*** Sabina, J.
61.64 acres of land was sought to be acquired in village Manimajra for public purpose namely for rehabilitation of slum dwellers by Chandigarh Administration vide notification dated 10.12.1986 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short).Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 25.2.1987.
Land Acquisition Collector, vide award dated 27.3.1987 awarded compensation @ ` 85,000/- per acre.
Dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, land owners sought references under Section 18 of the Act .
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Reference Court:- “1.
What was the market value of the land at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act?.
OPP1A Whether the reference filed by claimant is within the period of limitation ?.
OPP2 Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of Devi Anita 2014.02.18 10:12 I am approving this document Chandigarh RFA No.6303 of 2012 (O&M) 2 compensation, if so, to what extent?.
OPP3 Whether the claimant is entitled to interest from the date of possession till the date of payment ?.
OPP4 Relief”.
The reference court held that the reference was liable to be dismissed as it was time barred and appellant had failed to bring on record any document that the value of the land was ` 10,00,000/- per acre as stated by him.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
In the present case, a perusal of the record reveals that the appellant had moved an application under Section 18 of the Act on 23.4.1987.
The said fact is evident from the stamp affixed by Estate Office, U.T.Chandigarh.
It appears that the said reference was not sent to the Reference Court and consequently, the appellant again sought reference under Section 18 of the Act.
The second reference was referred to the Reference Court.
However, the Reference Court, while deciding the case, has failed to go through the record available on the file.
Rather from the record itself, it is evident that the appellant had sought reference under the Act way back on 23.4.1987.
Since the said reference was not sent to the Reference Court, the appellant cannot be blamed for the said lapse.
In the other connected cases, the Reference Court, vide its award dated 24.7.1990, enhanced the compensation to ` 2,00,000/- per acre.
The said order was challenged by the land owneRs.Learned Devi Anita Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 29.7.1999, awarded 2014.02.18 10:12 I am approving this document Chandigarh RFA No.6303 of 2012 (O&M) 3 compensation @ ` 79 per square yard.
The said order was challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeal.
Letters Patent Appeals filed by the land owners were decided on 17.9.2008 and the amount of compensation was enhanced to ` 116/- per square yard.
A perusal of the record of the trial Court reveals that the judgment passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.241 of 2004 and other connected appeals was placed on record as Ex.PA.
The said order was also not taken in consideration by the Reference Court, while deciding the reference in question.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Reference Court erred in holding that the reference sought by the appellant was time barred.
In fact, the referencer sought by the appellant could be said to be within limitation as the appellant had immediately sought reference under Section 18 of the Act by moving an application which was received by the Estate Office, U.T.Chandigarh on 23.4.1987.
The reference was liable to be disposed of in terms of decision of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.241 of 2004.
Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of in terms of decision of this Court in LPA No.241 of 2004 decided on 17.9.2008 (Ex.PA).Consequently, impugned order dated 23.2.2012 is set aside.
(SABINA) JUDGE February 11, 2014 anita Devi Anita 2014.02.18 10:12 I am approving this document Chandigarh