The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Sec.18(2)(a)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act regarding the time limit for filing an application for reference and the entitlement to enhanced compensation based on the price rise of the land.

NARESH CHANDER JAIN, J.

1. This judgment of mine will dispose of Regular First Appeals Nos. 818 and 1372 of 1985, the former preferred by Jaswant Rai son of Yog Raj whereas the latter has been filed by the State of Punjab and another, since both the appeals have been filed against the same award of the District Judge, they are being disposed of together.

2. The facts of the case leading to the filing of the Regular First Appeals are that on March 1, 1974 notification under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act ) was issued for acquisition of the land measuring 756.69 acres in the revenue estate of village Jamalpur Awana for setting up a residential urban estate in the area of Ludhiana. The aforesaid area was later on reduced to 731.32 acres. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the entire land at the rate of Rs. 39,400.00 per acre. In these appeals this Court is concerned only with land measuring 1 Kanal 17 Marla belonging to Yog Raj, father of Jaswant Rai in Regular First Appeal No. 818 of 1985.

3. On a reference having made under Sec.18 of the Act, the learned District Judge held that Jaswant Rai appellant is entitled to the same amount of compensation at which he had purchased the disputed land in the year 1971 i. e. the subject matter of acquisition and assessed the compensation of the acquired land at Rs. 22,870.00 . Besides this, solatium and interest at the rate of 30 per cent and 9 per cent respectively were awarded. In spite of the fact that the claimant was held entitled to enhanced compensation, it was held by the learned District Judge that the enhanced compensation could not be granted to him because petition under Sec.18 of the Act was barred by time. Against the award of the learned District Judge the appellant has preferred an appeal. The State has also filed an appeal against the award of the District Judge contending apparently that no enhancement was warranted. This is how, as has been observed above, both these appeals are being disposed of together.

4. Mr. S.K. Pipat, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the learned District Judge has fallen into legal error in holding reference under Sec.18 to be barred by time. In order to appreciate the question of law pertaining to limitation, it is necessary to recount a few facts. The land in dispute was purchased by the father of the appellant on Aug. 3, 1971 for residential purposes. The appellant who being the only son of his father Yog Raj was settled in England at that time and it is his case that his father had purchased the land on his behalf and he being a care-free person did not bother to get the mutation sanctioned in his name and, therefore, no notice was given to him by the Collector. Yog Raj the father of the appellant died on Dec. 27, 1980 and the appellant came back to India in the month of Feb. 1981 and got the mutation of inheritance of his father entered for the first time on May 14, 1981 at Serial Nos. 5387 and 5388. No notice under Sec.12(2) of the Act was either served upon him or his father and thus they were not aware of on going proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. The reference was admittedly filed on July 16, 1981 i.e. within two months and two days of his acquiring the knowledge of the award. The learned District Judge held that the reference was time barred as the same was filed after the expiry of two months and two days of the alleged date of knowledge and that the same was required to be filed within six weeks from the date of Collector s award or from the date of knowledge or within six months from the date of the award, whichever period first expires in view of proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. To appreciate the question of law which arises for determination in this appeal it is necessary in the first instance to have a look on the bare provisions of law which is reproduced for facility of ready reference: