Mewa Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. In the present appeal the appellants have impugned the award of learned Addl. Distt. Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, dated 04.12.2009 vide which the reference filed by the appellants has been dismissed as time barred. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab, to set up Urban Estate at Mohali, sought to acquire the land of the appellants vide Notification dated 12.11.1992 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') assessed the market value of the land, trees and super structure vide award dated 22.02.1995. As per the averments, the appellants were not aware of the contents of the award, as to whether the award in respect of trees and super structure was announced or not, therefore, the appellants were not able to file application under section 18 of the Act in respect of the the trees and super structure existing on the acquired land. The present reference was filed by the appellants after eight years from the date of award dated 22.02.1995. On reference under section 18 of the Act the learned trial court below dismissed the reference being time barred. R.F.A. No.3061 of 2010 - 2 - Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the fair compensation has not been awarded by the Collector with regard to the trees and super structures existing on the acquired land. He further argued that the learned court below has held the reference to be time barred whereas sufficient reasons for approaching the court late, were given by the claimants. Furthermore the appellants are quite old persons and rustic villagers, who were and are not aware of law. It was prayed that a liberal approach be taken and adequate compensation may be awarded with regard to the super structure and trees. On the other hand learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has argued that the present reference has been filed by the appellants after eight years from the date of award. He further argued that a notice under section 9 of the Act was also issued to the applicants on

11.10.1993 and munadi was also got effected before the announcement of the award. He further submitted that the appellants had also received the payment of the award on 12.08.1996. Fair and adequate compensation, as per assessment of technical expert, has been awarded to the claimants with regard to the trees and super structure. He further submitted that the provisions of section 5 of the limitations Act are not applicable here and the Collector has no power to condone the delay. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The only issue for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the learned court below was wrong in rejecting the reference filed by the appellants as time barred. A perusal of the impugned award shows that there is a definite stand of the State that notice under section 9 was issued to the appellants on 11.10.1993 and munadi was also got effected before the announcement of the award. Section 18 (2) of the Act provides that the application for reference under section 18 can be made within six R.F.A. No.3061 of 2010 - 3 - weeks from the date of receipt of notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act or within six months from the date of award of the Collector, whichever period expires first. However, the date of award of the Collector has been interpreted to mean that it is the date of actual or constructive knowledge of award to the person concerned, as the words “date of Collector's award” cannot be given literal meaning considering the fact that in the absence of knowledge of announcement of the award, no one can possibly file objections thereto. In the present case the award was passed on 22.02.1995. From the pleadings of the State, it is evident that the appellants had received the payment of compensation qua trees and super structure on 12.08.1996, whereas the present petition was filed on

25.05.2004, i.e. after about eight years. When the appellants had even received the compensation qua trees and super structure on 12.08.1996, then they cannot claim that they had no knowledge of the passing of the award. An identical issue, as to whether the delay, if any, in filing the objections can be condoned, has been considered by this court in R.F.A. No.1467 of 2004-- Gurdip Singh and another v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana and others, decided on 25.3.2010, relevant para thereof is reproduced here under: “ In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the answer to questions No. (i) and (ii) is that in case the land owner or his representative is not present at the time of announcement of the award, the objections can be filed either within six weeks from the date of receipt of notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act or within six months from the date of award of the Collector,whichever period expires first. The provisions are mandatory in nature. The time period provided therein cannot be extended. The date of award of the Collector has been interpreted to mean that it is the date of actual or constructive knowledge of award to the person concerned, as the words “date of Collector's award” cannot be R.F.A. No.3061 of 2010 - 4 - given literal meaning considering the fact that in the absence of knowledge of announcement of the award, no one can possibly file objections thereto.” Considering the aforesaid enunciation of law and the admitted facts on record, I do not find any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in dismissing the reference filed by the appellants as time barred. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed.

14.12.2010 sarita (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE