R.F.A. No. 2360 of 1997 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 7.9.2010 (1) R.F.A. No. 2360 of 1997 (O&M) Gopi and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana .. Respondent (1) R.F.A. No. 2361 of 1997 (O&M) Thambu and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Gagan Oberoi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2360 and 2361 of 1997, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The only issue under consideration in the present set of appeals is as to whether the learned court below was wrong in rejecting the reference filed by the appellants as time-barred. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2360 of 1997. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 22.6.1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, R.F.A. No. 2360 of 1997 [2] `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired the land belonging to the appellants, for construction of extension of Jind Distributory No. 5 in village Rupgarh. The same was followed by notification dated 13.7.1985, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 20,000/- per kill for Nehri land and ` 16,000/- per killa for Barani land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below dismissed the reference being time barred. A perusal of the impugned award shows that there is a definite finding recorded to the effect that at the time of announcement of award by the Collector on 15.11.1985, the appellants were present in person. Even the compensation was received by them under protest on the same day. As to whether under such circumstances, the objections filed by a land owner beyond a period of six weeks therefrom can be said to be within limitation or time barred is the issue under consideration. Considering an identical issue and also as to whether the delay, if any, in filing the objections can be condoned, 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, opined as 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 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 references filed by the appellants as time barred. R.F.A. No. 2360 of 1997 [3] Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) 7.9.2010 Judge mk