RFA No. 117 of 1991 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 117 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision : 2.8.2010 State of Haryana and another ... Appellants vs Jasbir Singh and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The State is in appeal before this Court against the award passed by learned court below seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the landowner on account of acquisition of land. Briefly, the facts are that State of Haryana vide notification dated 19.3.1975 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) acquired land situated in Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak, for development and utilisation thereof as residential area of Sector-5, Bahadurgarh. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 7.7.1978 determined the market value of the acquired land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below for consideration, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 8/- per square yard. It is this award which is challenged in the present appeal. The issue raised by the State in the present appeal is that the application under Section 28 (3) of the Act filed by the landowners was not made within three months as provided unde the Act and the same deserved to be dismissed as time barred. Therefore, the award of the learned court below be set aside. A perusal of the award shows that issue regarding limitation was framed by by the learned court below. However, as the learned State counsel appearing before the court below had not pressed the issue regarding limitation, therefore, it was decided against the appellants and in favour of the landowners. Further more, as has been referred to by the learned court below that the State has also not led any evidence in support of their claim that the application under RFA No. 117 of 1991 -2- Section 28(3) of the Act was time barred. Since the appellants had not pressed the issue regarding limitation before the court below, it cannot be allowed to raise the same now before this court. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 2.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge