RFA No. 2034 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2034 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 3.5.2010. Sarabjit Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. P.C. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for Union Territory, Chandigarh-respondent. RAJESH BINDAL, J **** The landowners are in appeal before this Court against the judgment and decree of learned Court below whereby the reference filed by them seeking enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of land was dismissed by the learned Court below as time barred. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 15.5.1998 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the Chandigarh Administration acquired land situated in the revenue estate of village Palsora, U.T. Chandigarh for development of Phase 3rd (Sector 56). The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the value of the acquired land at different rates. Dissatisfied with the same the land owners filed objection. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, learned Court below though enhanced the compensation payable for the acquired land but the claim of the appellants was dismissed as time barred. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Court below on the issue of limitation are totally perverse as the material available on record has not been considered at all i.e. in the form of written statement filed by the Collector and further the findings have been recorded without affording proper opportunity to the appellants to lead evidence. Initially no issue regarding limitation was framed. The evidence of the appellants/landowners was closed on October 9, 2007. Even the respondent also closed their evidence on May 8, 2008. The issue regarding limitation was framed only on October 16, 2008 and immediately thereafter on January 22, 2009, the reference was dismissed being barred by limitation. RFA No. 2034 of 2009 2 He referred to the reply filed by the Collector dated August 28, 2008 to the petition filed by the landowners wherein it was admitted that the objections were filed in the office of the Collector on May 17, 1999. He further submitted that though in the reply initially filed by the Collector, it was admitted that the objections were filed on May 17, 1999, however, the same was sought to be amended later on to submit that the objections were filed on June 2, 2004. To point out the falsity in the submission sought to be made in the amended reply reference was made to communication dated July 24, 2000 (Ex.PY) on record which was addressed by the Collector to the land owners wherein referring to the application dated November 2, 1999 in connection with reference under Section 18 of the Act, the land owners were directed to appear before him on August 2, 2000. It was submitted by him that after filing of the objections on May 17, 1999 when those were not referred to the learned Court below he sent a reminder dated November 2, 1999 in connection with which he was asked to appear before the Collector on August 2, 2000. Meaning thereby the plea which is sought to be raised in the amended reply was contrary to the material on record. The award in the present case was pronounced on March 30, 1999. The case of the appellants is that they were not present at the time of pronouncement of award. He further submitted that the objection initially filed by the land owners was lost somewhere in the office of Collector and on his request duplicate thereof were filed. Those were held to be barred by limitation. Summing up the arguments on the issue of limitation it was submitted that once the Collector had admitted his own mistake in losing the objections initially filed by the land owners he cannot be made to suffer merely because there was some delay in supply of copy thereof again to the office when the same was asked for. As far as the merits of the case are concerned the submission was that the claim made by the appellants in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 3870 of 2003 Man Mohan Singh Vs. Union Territory,Chandigarh decided on March 5, 2010, whereby the compensation payable for acquisition of land vide same notification, was further enhanced. He had also produced in Court the photocopy of the objections allegedly filed by him on August 17, 1999 which carries initials of some officials and stamp which is not visible. However, the same cannot be considered having not been proved and produced on record in accordance with law. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petition filed by the land owners in the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation was rightly dismissed by the learned Court below being time barred as inspite of the award of the Collector having been pronounced on March, 30, 1999 the objections were filed only on June 2, 2004. RFA No. 2034 of 2009 3 There is no material on record as such to show that the objections were initially filed in time. Even if the reply filed by the Collector is considered still when the land owners were informed of the loss of objections, they took substantial time in filing duplicate thereof which can very well be considered by the Court to hold that objections were barred by time. As far as merits of the case are concerned learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the fact that the claim made by the land owners is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Man Mohan Singh's case (supra). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as the issue of limitation is concerned from the material on record, the land owners have been able to make out a case that they had filed objections on May 17, 1999. The award in the present case was announced by the Collector on March 30, 1999. On a cumulative reading and consideration of the following documents it can be concluded that infact the land owners had filed objections against the award on May 17, 1999, namely-the initial reply filed by the Collector on August 28, 2008 whereby it was specifically admitted that the objections were filed by the land owners on May 17, 1999. The prayer for rejection of objections being time barred was made on the ground that initially the objections had been lost in the office. However, the land owners were asked to file duplicate thereof and there was delay in filing thereof. The reply initially filed was sought to be amended by mentioning that the objections were not filed on May 17, 1999 and the earlier reply was not correct. Along with the application amended reply was also placed on record. It may be mentioned that neither in the first reply nor in the second one the contents stated therein were verified by the Collector nor any affidavit was annexed in support thereof. Two other documents which are relevant for the purpose of appreciation of contention of the parties are Memo No. 646 dated March 1, 2006 from the Collector to District Judge, Chandigarh, referring to the objections filed by the land owners under Section 18 of the Act. It was mentioned therein that against the award dated March 30, 1999 the claim was submitted by the land owners on September 11, 2003. The aforesaid date has not been explained by the respondent in any other evidence produced by them on record. However, another is a communication from Collector to the land owners (Ex.PY) dated July 24, 2000 whereby the land owners were asked to appear before the Collector on August 2, 2000 with reference to their application dated November 2, 1999 filed under Section 18 of the Act. If the case of the Collector is that no objections were filed by the land owners prior to June 2, 2004, there was no question of sending the aforesaid communication to the land owners on July 24, 2000, referring to their application dated November 2, 1999. The above RFA No. 2034 of 2009 4 communication fortifies the stand of the land owners as was even admitted by the Collector in the reply initially filed wherein it was stated that the objections initially filed by the land owners having been lost they were asked to furnish a duplicate thereof. On preponderance of evidence led on record, in my opinion, the findings recorded by the learned Court below that the objections filed by the land owners in the present case were time barred, cannot be sustained and the same is reversed. After reversing of finding on the issue of limitation now the question before this Court is as to what amount of compensation the land owners are entitled to. It is the admitted case of both the parties that claim made by the land owners in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Man Mohan Singh's case (supra) whereby on account of acquisition of land vide same notification the compensation was further enhanced. For the detailed reasons recorded in Man Mohan Singh's case (supra) the land owners are held entitled to same amount of compensation as has been determined in Man Mohan Singh's case (supra). The present appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (RAJESH BINDAL) 3.5.2010. JUDGE Reema (Refer to Reporter)