In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... CM No.9525-CI of 2006 and R.F.A. No.4191 of 2006 ..... Date of decision:31.1.2008 Vikas Kapoor .....Applicant-Appellant v. The State of Haryana and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Adish Gupta, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. Mr. Madan Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) Civil Miscellaneous Application No.9525-CI of 2006 has been filed for disposing of the R.F.A. in terms of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Bansal v. State of Haryana and another, Civil Appeal No.9808 of 2003, decided on 27.10.2004. It is submitted that the appellant has filed RFA No.4191 of 2006 in this Court against the judgment and award dated 6.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad. In terms of the award, the compensation of the land has been assessed @ Rs.90/- per sq. yard. As regards same acquisition, other awards were passed whereby compensation of land was assessed @ Rs.90/- per sq. yard. Regarding the same acquisition i.e. acquisition relating to land measuring 486.61 acres in Village Mewla Maharajpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad in pursuance of notice dated 7.9.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land CM No.9525-CI/2006 and R.F.A. No.4191 of 2006 [2] Acquisition Act, 1894 (`Act' – for short), Regular First Appeals were filed by other land owners and the State. These appeals were then also subject matter of Letters Patent Appeals before this Court. The matter was taken up by the claimants to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court vide order dated 27.10.2004 passed in the case of Vinod Bansal v. State of Haryana and another, Civil Appeal No.9808 of 2003, has allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Reference Court for fresh disposal in the light what has been stated therein. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court in its order dated 27.10.2004 this matter is also liable to be remitted. In response, learned counsel appearing for the non- applicants/respondents-State of Haryana has submitted that the first appeal against the impugned award dated 6.4.2004 was filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 649 days in filing the appeal. The said delay has been condoned by this Court vide order dated 16.4.2007. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the appellant is not entitled for a similar order as has been passed in Vinod Bansal's case (supra) on 27.10.2004. In any case, the appellant is not entitled for the statutory benefits of the Act for the period there occurred a delay in filing the appeal i.e. for 650 days. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it may be noticed that notification dated 7.9.1992 under Section 4 of the Act was issued followed by subsequent declaration on 2.9.1993 under Section 6 of the Act. In terms thereof the CM No.9525-CI/2006 and R.F.A. No.4191 of 2006 [3] Government of Haryana expressed its desire to acquire land measuring 486.61 aces in Village Mewla Maharajpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad for a public purpose, namely, for development and utilization of land as residential, commercial and institutional Sectors 44 and 47, Faridabad with Faridabad-Ballabgarh Controlled Area under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. The Land Acquisition Collector in terms of his award dated 8.2.1995 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,96,800/- per acre. A provision was also made in the award for the payment of solatium @ 30% and other statutory benefits under the Amendment Act of 1984. The claimants-appellants made a reference to the learned District Judge in terms of Section 18 of the Act, who vide his impugned order dated 6.4.2004 accepted the reference and held that the market price of the acquired land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act i.e. on 7.9.1992 was Rs.90/- per sq. yard. Claimants were also held entitled to the statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. It is against the said award that the present RFA has been filed. A reading of the order of the Supreme Court in Vinod Bansal's case (supra) dated 27.10.2004 would show that the matter in issue in the present appeal is similar to that in Vinod Bansal's case (supra). Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to deny the benefit of the order which has been passed in a similar case by the Supreme Court to the appellant-applicant. However, in order to be fair to the learned counsel for the State, it would be proper that for the period of 650 days i.e. the delay in filing the appeal in this Court the appellants-claimants would not be entitled to the statutory benefits permissible under the Act (as amended). CM No.9525-CI/2006 and R.F.A. No.4191 of 2006 [4] Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Application is allowed and the Regular First Appeal is disposed of after setting aside the judgment dated 6.4.2004 of the Reference Court and the case is remitted to the Reference Court for disposing of the Reference Application in terms of the order dated 27.10.2004 passed by the Supreme Court in Vinod Bansal's case (supra). It is made clear that the claimants shall not be entitled to the statutory benefits for the period of 650 days i.e. period of delay taken for filing the appeal. The parties through their counsel shall put in appearance before the Reference Court on 20.5.2008. January 31, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*