Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdip Singh And Another vs Sub Divisional Magistrate on 25 March, 2010
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 1467 of 2004 [1]
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: March 25, 2010
(1) R.F.A. No. 1467 of 2004 (O&M)
Gurdip Singh And Another
..... Appellants
Versus
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana and Others
.......Respondents
(2) R.F.A. No. 1468 of 2004 (O&M)
Balbir Singh And Others
..... Appellants
Versus
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) And Others .......Respondents (3) R.F.A. No. 1469 of 2004 (O&M) Bishan Singh And Others .
.... Appellants Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) And Others ..... Respondents (4) R.F.A. No. 1470 of 2004 (O&M) Gurpal Singh Grewal And Another .
.... Appellants Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) And Others ..... Respondents (5) R.F.A. No. 1471 of 2004 (O&M) Manmohan Singh And Others .
.... Appellants Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) And Others ..... Respondents R.F.A. No. 1467 of 2004 [2] (6) R.F.A. No. 1472 of 2004 (O&M) Gurbax Singh And Another .
.... Appellants Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) And Others ..... Respondents (7) R.F.A. No. 1473 of 2004 (O&M) Smt. Tej Kaur .... Appellant Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) And Others ..... Respondents (8) R.F.A. No. 1474 of 2004 (O&M) Balwinder Singh .
.... Appellant Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) And Others ..... Respondents (9) R.F.A. No. 1475 of 2004 (O&M) Kuldip Singh And Another .
.... Appellants Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) And Others ..... Respondents (10) R.F.A. No. 1476 of 2004 (O&M) Ajmer Singh And Another .
.... Appellants Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) And Others ..... Respondents R.F.A. No. 1467 of 2004 [3] (11) R.F.A. No. 1477 of 2004 (O&M) Amrit Bir Singh And Others .
.... Appellants Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) And Others ..... Respondents (12) R.F.A. No. 1478 of 2004 (O&M) Ajmer Singh .... Appellant Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) And Others ..... Respondents (13) R.F.A. No. 1479 of 2004 (O&M) Bishan Singh And Others .... Appellants Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) And Others ..... Respondents (14) R.F.A. No. 1480 of 2004 (O&M) Amarjit Singh And Others .... Appellants Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) And Others ..... Respondents (15) R.F.A. No. 1481 of 2004 (O&M) Sarabjit Kaur And Others .... Appellants Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) And Others ..... Respondents R.F.A. No. 1467 of 2004 [4] (16) R.F.A. No. 1482 of 2004 (O&M) Gurcharan Singh .... Appellant Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) And Others ..... Respondents (17) R.F.A. No. 1483 of 2004 (O&M) Tara Singh .... Appellant Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) And Others ..... Respondents (18) R.F.A. No. 1484 of 2004 (O&M) Jagdish Lal .... Appellant Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) And Others ..... Respondents (19) R.F.A. No. 1485 of 2004 (O&M) Bishan Singh And Others .
.... Appellants Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) And Others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. M. L. Sharma and Mr. G. S. Dhaliwal, Advocates for the appellants.
Ms. Nidhi Garg, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board.
Rajesh Bindal J.
. This order will dispose of a bunch of the above-mentioned appeals arising out of the same acquisition, where the learned court below has dismissed the references filed by the land owners on account of delay as well as on merits.
R.F.A. No. 1467 of 2004 [5]The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1467 of 2004. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 130 acres, 5 kanals and 7 marlas, situated in villages Balloke and Baranhara, Tehsil and District Ludhiana was acquired vide notification dated 23.4.1997, issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of Sewerage Disposal Work at Baranhara. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act on 11.6.1997. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land in village Balloke @ Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre and in village Baranhara @ Rs. 3,25,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections, which were referred to Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, upheld the award of the Collector.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the findings recorded by the learned court below on both the counts, namely, that the references filed by the land owners were time barred and on merits no case for further enhancement had been made out, are totally erroneous. He submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, the objections could be filed within six weeks from the date of award in case the land owners are present at the time of pronouncement of the award. In other cases, it would be within 6 weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act or within six months from the date of Collector's award, whichever period expires first. The submission is that in the present case, the land was acquired invoking emergency provisions under Section 17 of the Act. Notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act was issued on 23.4.1997 and under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act was issued on 11.6.1997. Without announcing the award, possession of the land was taken on 26/27.10.1998. Though the award was announced on 19.1.2000, but the amount of compensation was not paid to the land owners, which was paid only on 19.9.2001 and the objections which were filed on 5.11.2001 were within limitation of six months as enumerated under Section 18(2) of the Act. The period of limitation provided for therein has been interpreted to mean that the same has to be filed within six months from the date of knowledge of the award. The knowledge in the present case has to be considered on the date on which the amount of compensation was paid to the appellants as it is not disputed that the appellants were not present when the award was announced and further notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was not served upon the appellants. He further submitted that even for getting the amount of compensation, after the R.F.A. No. 1467 of 2004 [6] possession of the land was taken by the State, they had to file writ petitions in this Court. In support of the contentions reliance was placed upon Sher Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1983 P&H 107; Ram Kishan v. The State of Haryana and another, 1986 PLJ 399; Naunehal Singh (died) and others v. Union of India and another, 1991 PLJ 302; Nihal Singh and others v. Union of India and another; 1986 PLJ 649; Jaswant Rai v. Land Acquisition Collector and another, (1989-1) 95 PLR 270 and Neetu and another v. Hukmi and others, 1997(1) PLJ 559.
As far as merits of the case are concerned, the submission is that the findings of the learned court below dismissing the claim of the appellants for further enhancement of compensation are totally perverse considering the evidence produced on record by them. In fact, the learned court below has failed to consider and appreciate the true import thereof while determining the compensation. The land in question, which was acquired for the purpose of construction of Sewerage Disposal Work, pertained to two villages, namely, Balloke and Baranhara. As regards village Balloke is concerned, sale deeds (Ex. P9 and Ex. P20) have been totally ignored. Vide sale deed (Ex. P9), 7 kanals and 8 marls of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 21,97,500/-. The aforesaid sale deed was registered on 9.10.1997. Vide sale deed (Ex. P20), 100 square yards of land was sold on 30.4.1997 for a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/-. Even if the aforesaid transactions were entered into after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act on 23.4.1997, the same could still be relied upon for the purpose of determination of compensation for the acquired land after the application of a reasonable cut. The sale deed (Ex. P20) was registered merely a week after the date of acquisition. Even if the same was for a small piece of plot, a cut can be applied, considering the fact that the total acquisition was for 130 acres, 5 kanals and 7 marlas. As regards village Baranhara is concerned, reference was made to sale deeds (Ex. P18, Ex. P.19 and Ex. P.22) registered on 5.8.1997, 16.7.1998 and 27.10.1997 for 375 square yards, 226.37 square yards and 250 square yards, respectively. The same argument was reiterated even for the aforesaid sale deeds, namely, application of a reasonable cut for sale transactions being subsequent to the acquisition and for small plots. The submission was that there was no comparative sale transaction immediately prior to the acquisition and for that reason, the subsequent sale transactions were produced on record, the genuineness of which has not been disputed. Initially, some of the land owners filed C.W.P. No. 11544 of 1997- Manmohan Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, challenging the acquisition, which was dismissed on 23.7.1998.
R.F.A. No. 1467 of 2004 [7]In response to the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the provisions of Section 18(2) of the Act provides for maximum period of six months for filing objections against the award, i.e., from the date of pronouncement of the award. Even if that is considered to be the date of knowledge of the pronouncement of award, in the present case, almost all the landowners filed C.W.P. No. 16059 of 2000-- Amar Bir Singh Sidhu and others v. State of Punjab and others, in this court on 21.11.2000 praying for setting aside of the award dated 19.1.2000, which was subsequently disposed of on 20.12.2000. The mere fact that the land owners had referred to the award of 19.1.2000 in the writ petition filed on 21.11.2000 shows that they had actual knowledge of pronouncement of the award on that date. It is not in dispute that the objections were filed on 5.11.2001, which is clearly beyond the period of six months from the admitted date of knowledge of the award and there being no enabling provision for extension of this time, the learned court below has rightly non-suited the appellants on account of the objections being delayed.
As far as merits of the case are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that initially the acquired land of village Baloke was valued at Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre and that of village Baranhara at Rs. 3,25,000/- per acre. However, thereafter a Committee was constituted which increased the value of the land of village Balloke to Rs. 10,00,000/- per acre and that of village Baranhara to Rs. 9,25,000/- per acre. The same was given considering the prevailing prices in the area. He further submitted that none of the sale deeds produced by the land owners on record can be considered for two reasons, namely, all of them are post- acquisition and secondly the same cannot, in any manner, be considered to be comparative as far as the acquired land is concerned. As against the sale-deeds produced by the land owners, the respondents had produced on record sale deeds (Ex. R1 to Ex. R6) showing that value of the land in the area at the time of acquisition was far less and further even the site plans produced by the land owners on record clearly established that these were located far off from the acquired land. Even otherwise, the same were pertaining to small plots either located in the abadi or on road, which cannot possibly be relied upon for the purpose of valuation of a big chunk of land.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.
R.F.A. No. 1467 of 2004 [8]The issues, which arise for consideration in the present set of appeals are:
(i) Whether the period for filing objections under different eventualities as provided for under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is mandatory or the delay in filing of the objections can be condoned?
(ii) Whether the period provided for filing objections under proviso (b) in Section 18(2) of the Act is to be counted from the date of Collector's award or from the date of knowledge of the award?
(iii) In case the objections filed by the land owners are found to be within limitation, whether the assessment of compensation for the acquired land is just and fair?
Questions (i) and (ii) The facts, which are evident from the record are that notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act was issued on 23.4.1997. Notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act was issued on 11.6.1997. The acquisition was challenged by some of the land owners by filing C.W.P. No. 11544 of 1997, which was dismissed on 23.7.1998. It is admitted by the appellants that possession of the land was taken from them on 26/27.10.1998. The Collector announced the award on 19.1.2000. It is further admitted case of the parties that C.W.P. No. 16059 of 2000 was filed by almost all the land owners jointly on 21.11.2000 inter-alia on the ground that in spite of the award having been announced on 19.1.2000, amount of compensation has not been paid till date, in which at the time of issuance of notice of motion on 23.11.2000, a Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to produce the cheques for the amount due to each of the petitioners on the next date of hearing. The writ petition was finally disposed of on 20.12.2000 on the statement of learned counsel for the State that majority of the land owners had been paid the compensation, however, some of them will be paid within two weeks therefrom on account of the fact that there was some error in the calculation.
It is further evident from record that one Tara Singh son of Kapoor Singh filed C.W.P. No. 9925 of 2001 (Ex. P5) challenging the award dated 19.1.2000 inter-alia on the same ground, which was taken in C.W.P. No. 16059 of 2000. Further prayer in the petition was for a direction to the State either to pay the amount of compensation or restore the land back to the petitioner therein. The writ petition was disposed of as infructuous on 19.9.2001 on the stand of the R.F.A. No. 1467 of 2004 [9] respondents therein that amount of compensation due to the petitioner had already been paid. Meaning thereby that the land owners had the knowledge of the award having been announced on 19.1.2000 at the time of preparation of the writ petitions filed in this Court, which is dated 21.11.2000. Another fact, which is not in dispute, is that the objections were filed by the appellants on 5.11.2001.
As regards payment of compensation is concerned, though the land owners claimed that it was paid on 19.9.2001 and not at the time of announcement of the award, whereas the stand of the respondents is that it was paid immediately after the land owners filed C.W.P. No.16059 of 2000 in this Court.
In the aforesaid factual matrix, the issue which arises for consideration by this Court is, as to whether the objections filed by the appellants are to be treated within time by considering the limitation from the date the appellants claimed that they received the amount of compensation or from the date they admittedly had the knowledge of announcement of the award. It is for the reason that admitted case of the parties is that at the time of announcement of the award, the appellants were not present and notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was also not served by the Collector on the land owners.
As regards the payment of compensation to the appellants is concerned, in my opinion, the stand of the appellants that the same was paid on 19.9.2001 is contrary to the material on record. It is evident from the two orders passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 16059 of 2000 on 15.12.2000 and on 20.12.2000, which are extracted below:
Order dated 15.12.2000 "Mr. Berry, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5, states that cheques for the amount due to the various landowners have been prepared. An officer of the Department is present with the cheques. Mr. Berry submits that the petitioners may appear before the Land Acquisition Collector, respondent No. 5, at Ludhiana, on December 18, 2000, and obtain the cheques. He has also filed a statement showing the apportionment of the compensation to the landowners. This statement is taken on record as Mark `A'.
The hearing of the case is adjourned to December 20, 2000. The petitioners may appear before the Land Acquisition Collector, Ludhiana on December 18, 2000 and collect their cheques. The factual position shall be conveyed to the Court on December 20, 2000."R.F.A. No. 1467 of 2004 [10]
Order dated 20.12.2000 "The petitioners have approached this Court with the grievance that even though they had been divested of the possession of the land in the year 1998, no compensation has been paid to them despite the award having been given by the Collector.
Mr. M. C. Berry, Sr. DAG, Punjab states that an amount of Rs. 10,95,48,800/- has already been paid after making the deduction of tax at source. He further states that in case of 13 petitioners whose particulars have been given in para 2 of the short reply filed today by Mr. Manjit Singh Brar, SDM, Ludhiana West-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, there has been an error of calculation. The full amount shall be released to them within two weeks from today. Mr. Berry further states that in case of land owners who have not approached the court, necessary orders for payment shall be made if they file a representation in that behalf. The payment shall be made within one month after the receipt of representation.
In view of the above, counsel for the petitioners states that this writ petition has been rendered infructuous. It is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs."
A perusal of the aforesaid orders shows that on 20.12.2000, it has been recorded that a sum of Rs. 10,95,48,800/- had already been paid and in the cases of 13 petitioners in the writ petition, on account of certain calculation error, there was some delay and that amount was also undertaken to be released within two weeks. So the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the amount was paid on 19.9.2001 is not supported by any material on record, as referred to at the time of hearing.
Section 18 of the Act is extracted below:
" 18. Reference to Court.- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made,-R.F.A. No. 1467 of 2004 [11]
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire."
The aforesaid section provides that in case any person interested does not accept the award, he may by written application to the Collector require that the matter be referred to the court. The objections can be regarding measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of compensation amongst the persons interested. The application should contain the grounds on which the award is objected to. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act provides the period in which the objections could be filed. Clause (a) thereof provides that in case a person is present or represented before the Collector at the time of announcement of the award, the objections can be filed within six months from the date of the Collector's award. Clause (b) provides that in other cases, the objections can be filed within six weeks of the receipt of notice from the Collector under Section 12 (2) of the Act or within six months from the date of Collector's award, whichever period expires first.
The issue as to whether the period of six months is to be counted from the date of award of the Collector or from the date of knowledge of the award to the person concerned or from the date of payment of compensation to the land owners, is no more res integra and similar is the position with regard to the fact whether the objections filed beyond the period of six months either from the date of award or from the date of knowledge of the award could be entertained or have to be dismissed as time-barred.
In Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another, AIR 1961 SC 1500, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that knowledge of the party affected by the award either actual or constructive is an essential requirement of fair play and natural justice. The expression "the date of the award" used in proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. In case the rights of a person are affected by any order and limitation is prescribed for enforcement of the remedy by the person aggrieved against the said order, the making of the order must mean either actual or R.F.A. No. 1467 of 2004 [12] constructive communication of the said order to the party concerned. The relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted below:
"6. ........ If the award is treated as an administrative decision taken by the Collector in the matter of the valuation of the property sought to be acquired it is clear that the said decision ultimately affects the rights of the owner of the property and in that sense, like all decisions which affect person, it is essentially fair and just that the said decision should be communicated to the said party. The knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either actual or constructive, is an essential element which must be satisfied before the decision can be brought into force. Thus considered the making of the award cannot, consist merely in the physical act of writing the award or signing it or even filing it in the office of the Collector; it must involve the communication of the said award to the party concerned either actually or constructively. If the award is pronounced in the presence of the party whose rights are affected by it, it can be said to be made when pronounced. If the date for the pronouncement of the award is communicated to the party and it is accordingly pronounced on the date previously announced the award is said to be communicated to the said party even if the said party is not actually present on the date of its pronouncement. Similarly if without notice of the date of its pronouncement an award is pronounced and a party is not present the award can be said to be made when it is communicated to the party later. The knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fair play and natural justice the expression "the date of the award" used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. In our opinion, therefore, it would be unreasonable to construe the words "from the date of the Collector's award" used in the proviso to S. 18 in a literal or mechanical way.
In The State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum and another, AIR 1963 SC 1604, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that the limitation period of six months for an application for reference to the court will run from the date of R.F.A. No. 1467 of 2004 [13] knowledge of the award.
In Mohammed Hasnuddin v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 404, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined as under:
"24. The word `require' in Section 18 of the Act implies compulsion. It carries with it the idea that the written application makes it incumbent on the Collector to make a reference. The Collector is required to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act on the fulfilment of certain conditions. The first condition is that there shall be a written application by a person interested who has not accepted the award. The second condition is as to the nature of the objections which may be taken, and the third conditions is as to the time within which the application shall be made. The power of the Collector to make a reference under S. 18 is thus circumscribed by the conditions laid down therein, and one condition is the condition regarding limitation to be found in the proviso.
25. The conditions laid down in S. 18 are 'matters of substance and their observance is a condition precedent to the Collector's power of reference', as rightly observed by Chandavarkar J. in Re Land Acquisition Act (supra). We are inclined to the view that the fulfilment of the conditions, particularly the one regarding limitation, are the conditions subject to which the power of the Collector to make the reference exists. It must accordingly be held that the making of an application for reference within the time prescribed by proviso to S. 18, sub-sec. (2) is a sine qua non for a valid reference by the Collector."
In Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and another v. Sham Manilal Chandulal and others, (1996)9 SCC 414, Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered the issue as to whether limitation provided for under Section 18(2) of the Act for filing objections can be extended and it was answered in the negative. Paragraphs 17 and 18 thereof are extracted below:
"17. It is to be remembered that the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (68 of 1984) was enacted prescribing the limitation to exercise the power under Sections 4, 6 and 11 and also excluded the time occupied due to stay granted by the courts. Taking cognizance of the limitation prescribed in proviso to sub-section (2) R.F.A. No. 1467 of 2004 [14] of Section 18, the provisions of the Limitation Act were not expressly extended. Though Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act is available, and the limitation in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 may be treated to be special law, in the absence of such an application by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (68 of 1984), the Act specifically maintains distinction between the Collector and the court and the Collector/LAO performs only statutory duties under the Act, including one while making reference under Section 18. It is difficult to construe that the Collector/LAO while making reference under Section 18, as statutory authority still acts as a court for the purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
18. Though hard it may be, in view of the specific limitation provided under proviso to Section 18(2) of the Act, we are of the considered view that sub-section (2) of Section 29 cannot be applied to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18. The Collector/LAO, therefore, is not a court when he acts as a statutory authority under Section 18(1). Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied for extension of the period of limitation prescribed under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18. The High Court, therefore, was not right in its finding that the Collector is a court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act."
The same view was followed in State of Karnataka v. Laxuman, (2005) 8 SCC 709.
Similarly, in Parsottambhai Maganbahi Patel and others v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2005 SC 3464, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that limitation under the latter part of Section 18(2)(b) of the Act has to be computed having regard to the date on which the land owners got knowledge of the declaration of the award either actual or constructive. This principle is applicable only in situation where the land owner or his representative is not present when the award is made or where no notice under Section 12(2) of the Act is served upon him. Similar view was expressed by this Court in Jagat Singh v. Punjab State and others, 1983 Cur. L. J. 601; Ram Kishan's case (supra); Usaf and another v. The Collector Urban Estate Land Acquisition, Urban Development, Punjab, 1989(1) PLR 253. Jaswant Rai's case (supra) and Naunehal Singh (died) and others' case (supra).
R.F.A. No. 1467 of 2004 [15]Answer to Questions No. (i) and (ii) In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the answer to questions No. (i) and (ii) is that in case the land owner or his representative is not present at the time of announcement of the award, the objections can be filed either within six weeks from the date of receipt of notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act or within six months from the date of award of the Collector, whichever period expires first. The provisions are mandatory in nature. The time period provided therein cannot be extended. The date of award of the Collector has been interpreted to mean that it is the date of actual or constructive knowledge of award to the person concerned, as the words "date of Collector's award" cannot be given literal meaning considering the fact that in the absence of knowledge of announcement of the award, no one can possibly file objections thereto.
If the facts of the present case are concerned, the admitted position available on record is that the land owners had the knowledge of the award at the time of filing of writ petition in this court on 21.11.2000, where they had sought quashing of the award or in the alternative prayed for payment of compensation in terms of the award which had not been paid. The objections were also admittedly filed on 5.11.2001, which were clearly beyond the period of six months from the date of knowledge of the award. Accordingly, no fault can be found with the findings of the learned court below holding the objections to be beyond limitation.
Question No. (iii) As far as argument of learned counsel for the land owners regarding valuation of the acquired land is concerned, in my opinion, no case has been made out for any increase. The value, as assessed by the Collector initially at Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre and Rs. 3,25,000/- per acre for the land pertaining to villages Balloke and Baranhara respectively, was revised by the Government itself to Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 9,25,000/- per acre for the aforesaid villages, respectively. It would not be safe to place reliance on the sale deeds produced by the land owners considering the fact that some of them were registered after the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Barring one sale deed (Ex. P9), which was registered on 9.10.1997, where the area dealt with was 7 kanals and 8 marlas, in all other sale deeds (Ex. P18 to Ex. P20 and Ex. P22), the area dealt with was merely measuring 100 square yards to 375 square yards and the location thereof is also either in the abadi or abutting a road. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 23.4.1997 and the area acquired is also substantial, i.e., 130 acres, 5 kanals and 7 marlas. As against that, the State had produced on record sale deeds (Ex. R1 to Ex. R6) showing quite less value of the R.F.A. No. 1467 of 2004 [16] land in the area at the relevant time.
Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, even no case for enhancement of value of acquired land can be made out.
For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge March 25, 2010 mk (Refer to Reporter)