R. F. A. No. 1805 of 1990 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A. No. 1805 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.12.2011 Nasib Singh and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Punjab ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Manish K. Singla, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Alok Jain, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The claimants have filed the present appeal against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the structure and crops standing on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that land situated in village Sohana, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar (Now District Mohali), was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 16.12.1974, issued under Section 4 of the Act for the purpose of Industrial Department. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land and the fruit and non-fruit trees vide award dated 16.4.1975. However, nothing was awarded to the claimants for structure and crops standing on the acquired land. They filed objections on 9.4.1986 stating therein that the award in respect of trees was announced in their absence and they had no knowledge of the contents of the award. The learned Court below dismissed the reference being time barred. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the appellants were present at the time of announcement of award for the R. F. A. No. 1805 of 1990 2 acquired land, however, they were not in knowledge that the same included award for structure and standing crops also. They had filed objections only against the award of compensation for the acquired land. Had they been in knowledge that the award is for structure and standing crops also, they would have certainly filed objections. When they came to know about the announcement of award, they filed objections, which were wrongly rejected by the learned court below. The prayer is for acceptance of appeal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below has rightly dismissed the reference being time barred as the appellants filed the same belated by about 11 years. The award of the Collector was announced on 16.4.1975. The land reference was decided by the learned court below on 1.6.1985 and the objections claiming compensation for the structure and crops existing on the acquired land were filed on 9.4.1986, clearly shows that the mistake was not bonafide. The prayer is for upholding the award of the learned court below. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. A perusal of impugned award shows that the land reference was decided on 1.6.1985 and the objections for compensation for the structure and crops existing on the acquired land were filed on 9.4.1986. The appellants had not given any reason for this time gap. Further the Collector had announced the award on 16.4.1975. The amount was received by the appellants on 21.4.1975. Hence, they were very much in the knowledge of the award of compensation. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no illegality in the award of the learned court below. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 21.12.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge