R. F. A No. 922 of 1993 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 23.4.2009 RFA No. 922 of 1993 (O&M) Bhagwanti and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms. Ritu Bahri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners are before this court challenging the award of the learned court below whereby reference filed by them objecting to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector”), on account of acquisition of land were dismissed as time barred. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 27.4.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') acquired land within the revenue estate of Village Rania, District Sirsa, for construction of 132 KV Sub-station at Rania. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act which was issued on 13.6.1988. The Collector vide award dated 14.2.1989 determined the fair value at Rs. 88,000/- per acre for nehri and Rs. 44,000/- per acre for barani/gair mumkin kinds of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the learned Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 5.6.1992, dismissed the reference petition being time barred. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that award in the present case was pronounced on 14.2.1989 and the application was filed on 8.2.1991. It was for that reason that the land was owned by Jag Mohan Singh, who expired on 13.11.1989 and it was on that account that the objections could not be filed within time. Immediately after the appellants were guided, the objections were filed. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that owner of the land had expired on 13.11.1989. The maximum period of limitation as provided under Section 18 (2) of the Act for filing objections had expired, accordingly the plea sought to be raised by the landowners is misconceived. R. F. A No. 922 of 1993 -2- After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, I do not find any merit therein. Considering the admitted facts on record where the award of the Collector was passed on 14.2.1989. The original landowner was expired on 13.11.1989 i.e. 9 months thereafter and the objections were filed on 8.2.1991 which were clearly time barred. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 23.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge