Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana Through The Land ... vs Jang Bahadur Singh Son Of Tej Partap ... on 26 July, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No.1907 of 1992 (O&M)
Date of decision: 26.07.2012
State of Haryana through the Land Acquisition Officer, Panchkula.
....Appellant
versus
Jang Bahadur Singh son of Tej Partap Singh, resident of Thanesar,
District Kurukshetra, near old Killa Water Tank, District
Kurukshetra.
....Respondent
II. RFA No.1908 of 1992 (O&M)
The State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector,
Panchkula.
....Appellant
versus
Jagdish Ram Sharma son of Shri Arjan Dass, resident of opp. Rudra
Cinema, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra.
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ankur Soni, Advocate, for the respondent in RFA
No.1907 of 1992.
None for the respondent in RFA No.1908 of 1992.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. The only ground urged by the State is the issue of limitation for an application filed under Section 28-A of the Land RFA No.1907 of 1992 (O&M) -2- Acquisition Act by persons who had not sought reference under Section 18 after the determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector. To such of those persons, who had sought reference under Section 18, the District Judge at Kurukshetra passed an award on 03.10.1981 assessing the compensation at ` 37,400/- per acre. This assessment of compensation had been challenged before the High Court and in a Regular First Appeal No.7 of 1982, decided on 14th March, 1990, the High Court enhanced the compensation at ` 37 per square yard. The application had been filed by the landowners, who had not sought reference under Section 18 seeking for redetermination of the compensation in the light of the award passed by the High Court in RFA No.7 of 1982. The Reference Court has allowed the application under Section 28-A and redetermined the compensation on the basis of enhancement obtained through the order of the High Court in RFA No.7 of 1982. It is these awards which are challenged by the State.
2. The proposition of law canvassed by the State is no longer res integra. It is squarely governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Versus Pradeep Kumari-1995 (2) SCC 736. This decision has been subsequently followed in Jose Antonia Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese and another Versus Land Acquisiton Collector and another-1996 (6) SCC 746 that in terms of the language employed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the application for compensation must be filed RFA No.1907 of 1992 (O&M) -3- within 3 months from the date of the award of the Court under reference under Section 18 and the Court that Section 28-A contemplates is the first Court of reference. The issue of whether an application could be filed after a reappraisal of compensation in a higher forum was directly an issue which was dealt with by the Supreme Court in the above judgment and the Supreme Court has held authoritatively that the limitation commences from the date of the award of the first Court of reference only. Redetermination made in the application under Section 28-A after nearly a period of 9 years on the basis of the award of the appellate Court is erroneous. The respective awards passed under Section 28-A are set aside and the applications filed under Section 28-A are ordered to be dismissed.
3. Both the appeals by the State are allowed to the above extent.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 26.07.2012 sanjeev