Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1488
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.
State of Haryana and another - Appellants
Versus
Deepa Devi and another - Respondents
RFA No. 638 of 2018 (O & M)
Decided On : 18-11-2019
For the Appellant : Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG
For the Respondent:Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate
The statutory period provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be extended under the limitation.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Market Value - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the award of the Reference Court, which had enhanced the market value of the land. The judgment of the court in RFA No. 3860 of 2014 was initially relied upon, but it was later modified by the Apex Court in Manoj Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2018 (2) RCR (Civil) 815, reducing the amount to Rs.95,00,000/- per acre. The issue was whether the reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the market value should be reduced to Rs.95 lakhs per acre along with all statutory benefits. The court also rejected the ground for dismissing the reference under Section 18, modifying the award accordingly.
Issues: The main issue was whether the reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reference should not be dismissed on the point of limitation, as the land owner's specific stand regarding the lack of knowledge of the award was not controverted. The court also emphasized that the statutory period provided under the Act cannot be extended under the limitation.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the award and assessing the market value at Rs.95 lakhs per acre along with all statutory benefits. The land owner was not entitled to interest for the period for which she did not approach the Court/Authority.
JUDGMENT :
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.
C.M. No. 1564-CI of 2018
1. Application for condonation of delay of 340 days in filing the appeal is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application duly supported by affidavit.
Delay condoned.
Main Appeal
2. The present appeal is directed against the award of the Reference Court, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari dated 25.10.2016. The market value has been enhanced from Rs.20 lakhs per acre for the land situated in village Bhatauli within municipal limits and from Rs.10 lakhs per acre for the remaining land to Rs.3,610/- per square meter (Rs.1,46,09,164/- per acre). The enhancement is on the basis of the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 3860 of 2014, Ajmer Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others for the notification dated 30.05.2005.
3. It is not disputed that the said judgment has been modified by the Apex Court in Manoj Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2018 (2) RCR (Civil) 815 and the amount has been reduced to Rs.95,00,000/- per acre. The relevant portion reads thus:-
“32. Even if we calculate compensation by adding between 12 to 13% flat increase, taking base price at Rs.1560/- granted in the case of Swaran Singh in the facts of the case, the price would come approximately to Rs.1.10 crores per acre. Further deduction in addition to deduction made in Swaran Singh’s case (supra) is required to be made towards development, it would be appropriate to deduct further amount of Rs.15 lakhs. Thus the compensation that we award comes to Rs.95 lakhs per acre, not Rs.1,46,09,000/- as determined by the High Court. Approximation of compensation, when made on comparable sale method, would by and large be similar. We reduce the amount awarded by the High Court. Thus, we deem it appropriate to award the amount @ Rs.95 lakhs per acre along with statutory benefits.”
4. To this, counsel for the land owners has no response and, therefore, the market value is liable to be reduced to Rs.95 lakhs per acre alongwith all statutory benefits.
5. It is to be noticed that the cross appeal for enhancement filed by the land owners being RFA No. 1821 of 2017 has been dismissed on 02.08.2017. The only issue which arises, as contended by counsel for the State, is whether the reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') was to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as admittedly, the award was passed on 16.07.2007 and the reference was filed on 31.01.2013. The compensation was only received after the filing of the reference petition on 12.09.2013.
6. Counsel for the State has submitted that the reliance by the Reference Court as such upon the judgments in Dhiraj Singh (D) through L.Rs. and others vs. Haryana State and others, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 507 and Market Committee, Hodal vs. Krishan Murari and others, 1996 (1) SCC 311 had been placed on alongwith the judgment in Samiyathal and others vs. Special Tehsildar and others, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 441 to repel the argument of the State that the reference petition was beyond the period of limitation under Section 18(2)(b) of the Act. The Reference Court, as such, had noticed that the land owner had not been cross examined on this point and, therefore, it could not deny the land owner the due entitlement of compensation. But the land owners were held not entitled for the interest for the period for which they did not approach the Court/Authority i.e. the period beyond 6 months of the passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Collector.
7. As noticed, the land owner's appeal has already been dismissed on this point and, therefore Mr. Dinarpur is in no position to assail this aspect of the finding as such. However, from the record, it would be clear that it was the categorical case of the land owner that no information was given to her regarding the acquisition and she came to know about the award only in December, 2012. She was a parda nashin lady and not aware of the legal formalities.
8. The State, in its reply
