R. F. A No. 657 of 1994 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 27.4.2009 1. R. F. A No. 657 of 1994 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants vs Ramji Dass and another ..... Respondents 2. R. F. A No. 675 of 1994 (O&M) Jai Singh and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents 3. R. F. A No. 733 of 1994 (O&M) State of Haryana and others ..... Appellants vs Jai Singh and others ..... Respondents 4. R. F. A No. 736 of 1994 (O&M) Ramji Dass and another ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Ms. Ritu Bahri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the landowners. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal No. 675 and 736 of 1994 filed by the landowners for further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land and RFA No. 657 and 733 of 1994 have been filed by the State for reduction thereof. All these appeals are taken up together as the same are arising out of common acquisition. The facts have been noticed from R. F. A. No. 657 of 1994. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 6.11.1981 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') acquired land within the revenue estate of Village Bohar, Tehsil and District Rohtak, for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area in Sector-1, Urban Estate, Rohtak. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide his award dated 15.9.1986 determined the fair value of the acquired land at Rs. 28,640/- per acre for nehri category of land. R. F. A No. 657 of 1994 -2- Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 28-A (3) of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 20.11.1993, assessed the compensation at Rs. 20/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the claim made by them in the present set of appeals is squarely covered by the judgment of this court rendered in RFA No. 2272 of 1990 Net Ram vs Haryana State and another decided on 13.8.2003, whereby the compensation payable on account of acquisition of land was further enhanced to Rs. 30/- per square yard. Accordingly, the landowners in the present set of appeals are also entitled to same amount of compensation. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, while not disputing the fact that the compensation for the acquired land in the other appeals was further enhanced by this court in Net Ram's case (supra), submitted that in fact the application filed by the landowners in the present case was barred by time and on that account the same deserves to be dismissed. However, still the learned court below without appreciating that fact had granted compensation to the landowners. To substantiate the plea, it was submitted that initially the landowners filed application under Section 28-A (1) of the Act for grant of same amount of compensation as was granted by the Reference court in the case of other landowners vide award dated 14.12.1989. The same was rejected on 26.11.1991. The application under Section 28-A (3) of the Act was filed on 26.3.1992 and the same was time barred as it could be filed within six weeks from the date of the award of the Collector. The learned court below did not consider and appreciate that contention. In fact, the reference application filed by the landowners being barred by time, deserved to be dismissed. In response to the contention on the issue of limitation raised by the learned State counsel, learned counsel for the landowners submitted that it is a case where the application filed by the landowners under Section 28-A (3) of the Act was referred by the Collector to the learned court below without raising any issue about the limitation, considering the same to be within limitation. Even in the reply filed by the State before the learned court below, no objection regarding limitation was taken and consequently no issue was framed. Either of the parties did not lead any evidence in that regard. The issue was sought to be raised only at the time of argument, which the learned court below had rightly rejected holding that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and was required to be raised in the pleadings and then only the same could be considered at the time of arguments after the parties lead their evidence to substantiate the same. In the R. F. A No. 657 of 1994 -3- absence thereof, the State could not be permitted to raise said issue out of the cuff only at the time of arguments. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before I proceed to decide the appeals filed by the landowners claiming the same to be covered by earlier judgment in the case, on which there is no dispute, I proceed to decide the appeals filed by the State raising the issue of limitation. The fact that no plea with regard to limitation was raised by the State in the reply filed before the learned court below, is not disputed. The issue was sought to be raised only at the time of arguments. The landowners were caught unaware and they could not lead any evidence to substantiate the plea that in fact their petition was within limitation. It cannot be disputed that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law which was required to be decided on the basis of pleadings and evidence to be led by the parties. As there was no pleadings with regard to limitation, the learned court below did not frame any issue thereon and in the absence of any issue, there was no occasion for either of the parties even to lead evidence thereon. Considering the aforesaid facts and also that acquisition in the present case was carried out way back in the year 1981, all what the landowners are seeking is the compensation as has been determined by this court in the set of other cases arising out of same acquisition, I do not deem it appropriate to entertain the issue regarding limitation sought to be raised by the State at late stage. It is a welfare State. The landowners deserve to be compensated adequately for the land of which they are deprived of. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the State are dismissed and those of landowners are allowed in terms of Net Ram's case (supra). The landowners are also entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. 27.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge