R.F.A. No. 2869 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2869 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.1.2011 Bir Singh and others .... Appellants vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J The landowners have filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 3.7.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana, sought to acquire land situated in Village Daultabad, Tehsil and District Faridabad, for development and utilisation thereof as residential, institutional and commercial area in Sector 20-A, Faridabad. The same was followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Act on 2.7.1996. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide award dated 29.6.1998 determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,85,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below rejected their claim being barred by limitation vide award dated 24.12.2009. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that father of the appellants Harkishan was tenant in possession of agricultural land under Union of India as per jamabandi for the year 1993-94. He had wrongly filed a suit seeking entitlement of compensation for the acquired land. During the pendency of the suit, he expired and the appellants were impleaded as his R.F.A. No. 2869 of 2010 -2- legal representatives. The said suit was decreed on 22.12.2001 and the appellants were held entitled to receive the compensation for the acquired land. Thereafter, the appellants filed objections on 12.2.2002, within three months of the passing of decree in their favour. The learned court below had wrongly dismissed the same as barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that similarly situated landowners were granted enhanced compensation by this court in RFA No. 2392 of 1997- Mukhtiar Singh and others vs State of Haryana . decided on 6.10.2010. The prayer is for grant of same amount of compensation. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the claim of the appellants was hopelessly barred by time and the learned court below had rightly rejected the same. It was further submitted that the appellants in the present case cannot claim similarity with other landowners as they had filed objections in time. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. It is admitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the objections were filed before the Collector on 12.2.2002, whereas the award was announced by him on 29.6.1998. It is not the case of the appellants that they were not in the knowledge of announcement of award. When the appellants were claiming themselves to be entitled for compensation, they should have filed the objections within the period prescribed under Section 18 of the Act, which is as under:- “18. Reference to Court.- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made- R.F.A. No. 2869 of 2010 -3- (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector' s award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub- section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector' s award, whichever period shall first expire. The issue as to whether the objections filed beyond the period of six months either from the date of award or from the date of knowledge of the award could be entertained or have to be dismissed as time-barred. The consistent opinion of the Courts is that the Collector being not the Court, the delay in filing of objections cannot be condoned. If the facts of the present case are considered, the admitted position available on record is that the land owners had the knowledge of the award at the time of filing of civil suit in the year 1998. The objections were also admittedly filed on 12.2.2002, which were clearly beyond the period of six months from the date of knowledge of the award. Accordingly, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned court below holding the objections to be beyond limitation. As regards the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants that as the suit was pending for adjudication of their title, the appellants were not in a position to file objections, have no merits. Reason being that there is nothing in the Act which debars any person, who is interested and has not accepted the award, to file objections against the award of compensation by the Collector or seeking apportionment thereof. It has also come in the evidence that objections under Section 9 of the Act had been filed by deceased Harkishan before the Collector. However, he did not file objections under Section 18 of the Act. In view of my above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 27.1.2011. (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge