CWP No.22979 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22979 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 19, 2011 Gajraj …..Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Patter, Senior Dy. Advocate General, Haryana *** 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The prayer made in the instant petition is for issuance of direction for quashing order dated 08.08.2011 (P-4) passed by the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector (respondent No.1), dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for re-determination of the amount of compensation, on the basis of the award of the Court. The Land Acquisition Collector has dismissed the application on the preposterous ground of delay and the order reads as under: “…The file is presented and case is called. The counsel for the applicant is present and on behalf of the Irrigation Department Sh. V.N. Yadav, Sub Divisional Officer, Water Services Sub - CWP No.22979 of 2011 Division-5, Rewari is present. The arguments of both the parties are heard. The counsel for the application has submitted that the delay in presentation in the case is because of the unawareness of the order of the civil Court. Therefore, after condoning the delay the applicant be also given the benefit of the order of the Civil Court as in the other cases. The Sub Divisional Officer, Water Services-5, Rewari, Irrigation Department has argued that the applicant has filed the present case after the limitation period and counsel for the applicant has not stated the appropriate reason because of that the delay cannot be condoned. In the end submitted that the present application is liable to be rejected and the same be dismissed. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and perusing the documents on the file, I came to the conclusion that the case of the applicant is time barred and in view of the aforesaid facts there is no reason to condone the delay and the application for enhancement of compensation is rejected. The file be consigned to the record room after due compliance as per law.” A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that the Collector has found that the application under Section 28A of the Act was suffered from delay. It is appropriate to mention here that the award in the present case was announced on 08.10.2002 and thereafter an application for obtaining the copy of the award was filed by the petitioner. He could file the application under Section 28A only on 28.01.2003. There was delay of about - CWP No.22979 of 2011 20 days from the date of the award and the Collector has failed to consider and reckon the time spent in securing the certified copy. 2. Notice of the petition was issued for final disposal to the respondent and they were required to ascertain why the petition should not be allowed. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the application filed under Section 28A of the Act and the accompanying application seeking condonation of delay, it is evident that the award was announced on 18.10.2002 and certified copy of the award was secured by the petitioner on 13.10.2002 after filing application. The Collector, hence failed to apply his mind to exclude the period spent on securing the certified copy of the award. The certified copy of the award was prepared on 30.10.2002 and if the period of limitation is counted from the aforesaid date, then the application filed under Section 28A on 21.03.2003 would be within the period of three months by excluding the period spent for securing the certified copy. 4. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds. The Collector is directed to pass an appropriate order on the application filed under Section 28A of the Act by re-determining the amount of compensation on the basis of the award dated 08.10.2002. The Collector has already delayed the decision on the application by a period of about eight years. The needful shall now be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 19.12.2011 JUDGE vcgarg -