R.F.A. No. 824 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 824 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.1.2011 HUDA, Faridabad .... Appellant vs Mohammad Yusuf and others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. D. K. Nagar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J The Haryana Urban Development Authority has filed the present appeal against the award of the learned court below whereby the reference filed by respondent no. 1 was accepted. Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 17.5.1990 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') the State of Haryana acquired land in the revenue estate of village Fazilpur, Tehsil and District Panipat for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area in Sector-12, Sonepat. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide his award dated 12.5.1993 assessed the market value of acquired land @ ` 1,80,000/- per acre for category 1st and ` 1,30,000/- for the second category of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 20.7.2006 determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 120/- per square yard for 1st category and ` 100/- per square yard for the second category of land. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, the Haryana Urban Development Authority is in appeal before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below has wrongly considered the evidence led by the landowner and ignored the evidence led by the appellant. It was submitted that as respondent no. 1 has filed the objections on 30.1.2002, whereas the award was announced by the Collector on 12.5.1993, the court below should have dismissed his claim as belated. R.F.A. No. 824 of 2009 -2- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the relevant referred record. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that though the award of compensation for the acquired land was announced on 12.5.1993 but the same was paid to the respondent/landowner on 21.2.2002. No evidence was led by the appellant regarding service of notice upon the respondent/landlord. The court below has rightly considered the date of receiving of compensation as the date of knowledge to the respondent/landowner and awarded compensation for the acquired land. No fault can be found with the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Along with the appeal even an application seeking condonation of delay of 623 days in filing of the appeal has also been filed. The cause shown for delayed filing of appeal is not at all convincing. Rather it shows total causal attitude of the applicant/appellant. Accordingly, I do not even find any ground to condone the delay in filing of appeal as well. The application is also dismissed. 12.1.2011. (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge