IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.5627 of 1988 Date of decision: 2.2.2009 Rup Chand and another. -----Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- None for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl.A.G., Haryana. ----- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 9.12.1987 whereby application of the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was dismissed. 2. Land of the petitioners was acquired in pursuance of notification dated 9.6.1982 under Section 4 followed by notification dated 22.10.1982 under Section 6 of the Act. The acquisition was for construction of Yamuna Nagar Thermal Power Plant. The Collector vide award dated 27.6.1984 determined the market value of the land. The petitioners did not seek any reference under Section 18 of the Act. However, other land owners sought references, on which the land acquisition Court enhanced the compensation vide award dated 22.8.1985. The said award was affirmed by this Court on 9.4.1987. Thereafter, the petitioners made an application on 6.8.1987 seeking C.W.P. No.5627 of 1988 to calculate limitation from the date of order of this Court. The application was dismissed as barred by limitation. 3. Learned counsel for the State relies upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Mangatu Ram etc. AIR 1997 SC 2704, holding that limitation has to be calculated from the date of award of the reference Court. In para 14, it was observed as under:- “14. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on June 18, 1984. The Collector made his award on January 21, 1986 under Section 11. On reference under Section 18, at the instance of some of the claimants, the reference Court, by its award and decree dated April 3, 1989, enhanced the compensation. On appeal, it was confirmed. The application seeking redetermination of the compensation under Section 28-A (1) came to be made on 24.4.1989. Thus, it is seen that by operation of the limitation prescribed under sub- section (1) of Section 28-A, since the written application was not filed within three months from the date of the award of the reference Court, the application is barred by limitation. The compensation granted by the Collector on the basis of the said application is clearly illegal. Therefore, the view of the High Court also is incorrect.” 4. In view of above, this petition is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 02, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 2