R.F.A.No.1348 of 1994 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A.No.1348 of 1994 (O&M) Date of Decision 04.11.2009 Amar Nath and others ...... Appellants VERSUS The State of Haryana through Collector and another ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.S.K.Chauhan, Advocate, for Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms.Mamta Singla Talwar, A.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This appeal, preferred by the petitioners-appellants (herein referred as 'the appellants') is directed against the award dated 20.01.1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, dismissing the claim petition. Vide notification No.LAC (P) NTLA-73/2116 dated 19.06.1973, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land measuring 31.78 acres was acquired for public purpose. Vide award dated 20.03.1975, Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Panchkula, Haryana fixed the compensation @ 4500/- per acre for Nahri, Rs.3500/- per acre for tall, Rs.2500/- per acre for banjar and Rs.2000/- per acre for gair mumkin land. Aggrieved against the award, reference petition was filed in the year 1993 for seeking enhancement of award amount. The said objection R.F.A.No.1348 of 1994 (O&M) 2 petition was contested by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Hisar on various grounds, interalia, that the petition is barred by time and the same is not maintainable. It is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as Haryana Urban Development Authority is not a necessary party- respondent. It was further submitted that the appellants were satisfied with the award announced by the Land Acquisition Officer and none of them filed the objection petition within the limitation. Appellants had already received the compensation. It was also denied that the market value of the acquired land is more than Rs.50/- per square yard. From pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of issuing of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ? 2. Whether the petition is barred by time ? 3. Whether the petition is bad on account of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties ? 4. Relief. No evidence was led by the appellants in support of the issues despite the various opportunities provided to them to lead evidence, as such, the Court vide order dated 17.01.1994 closed the evidence of the appellants by order. The learned lower Court while observing that market value of the land was not more than what was awarded to the appellants by the Land Acquisition Collector decided issue No.1 against them. Similarly while holding that the reference petition was time barred, decided issue No.2 against the appellants. Since issue No.3 was not pressed, therefore, same R.F.A.No.1348 of 1994 (O&M) 3 was decided against the respondents. Ultimately, the claim petition was dismissed. When confronted with the question why this reference petition was filed after 18 years, appellants had failed to make any proper explanation. Since the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector after completion of all the formalities and the awarded amount was received by the appellants without any objection, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants were not in the knowledge of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. As such, there are no sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in filing the reference. As such, findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.2 stand affirmed. Since the case is being decided on the issue that the reference petition was filed by the appellants was time barred, therefore, question of providing further opportunity to lead evidence with regard to market value and the land is immaterial. Thus, the appeal sans merit and the same is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 04.11.2009 mamta-II