JUDGMENT : 

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

Vide this common order, aforesaid two Regular First Appeal(s) shall stand disposed of. For convenience, the facts are drawn from RFA-2640-2016.

2. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to an award dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur-cum-Reference Court.

3. Briefly stating, certain land owned by the appellant-landowner forming part of revenue estate of village Gurdaspur (Hadbast No.337) came to be acquired vide notification dated 21.05.2004 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) followed by notification dated 07.02.2025 issued under Section 6 thereof. Subsequently, award dated 22.03.2007 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide which the compensation was assessed at Rs.15,00,000/- per acre for land up to depth of 1 killa, Rs.12,00,000/- for land upto depth of 2 to 6 acres and Rs.10,00,000/- per acre for the rest of the land.

4. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant-landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act by moving their objections before the LAC on 30.07.2007.

5. Learned Reference Court dismissed the reference petition to be barred by limitation while holding that since the appellant-landowner was aware of the acquisition proceedings having filed his objections under Section 5-A of the Act and the award under Section 11 of the Act was passed by LAC on 22.03.2007, the objections under Section 18(2)(b) were required to be filed within 6 weeks therefrom i.e. before 02.05.2007. It was thus recorded that objections filed under Section 18 of the Act on 30.07.2007 before LAC were clearly barred by limitation.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.

7. A perusal of record shows that in pursuance to an award passed by the LAC in exercise of power under Section 11 of the Act on 22.03.2007, the petition under Section 18(2)(b) of the Act by the appellant-landowner was preferred on 13.07.2007. The Reference petition was held to be barred by limitation merely for the reason that the appellant-landowner being aware of the initiation of acquisition proceedings, preferred his petition under Section 5-A of the Act, as such the objections under Section 18(2)(b) of the Act were to be preferred within 6 weeks of the passing of the Award dated 22.03.2007.

8. In the humble opinion of this Court, the aforesaid reasoning cannot be sustained in the given facts and circumstances. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to the effect that any representative of appellant-landowner was present at the time of passing of the award, further, no document has been produced on record to show that the appellant-landowner was ever served with any notice about passing of the award or any copy thereof was ever served upon him in terms of Section 18(2)(b) of the Act. In such circumstances, the learned Reference Court went wrong having dismissed the objections preferred at the instance of appellant-landowner to be barred by limitation.

9. Thus, the said finding being unsustainable in the given facts and circumstances is therefore set aside. Resultantly, the objections preferred at the instance of appellant-landowner are held to be within limitation in terms of Section 18(2) of the Act.

10. With respect to the assessment of market value, both the parties are ad idem that the claim of the appellant-landowner is squarely covered by decision rendered by this Court in RFA-641-2016 titled as “House and Urban Development Department (PUDA) Punjab Vs. Bhan Singh and Ors.”

11. Accordingly, the appellant-landowner is held entitled to market value of Rs.24,97,265/- per acre as awarded by this Court in case of “Bhan Singh” (Supra).

12. The present appeal thus, stands disposed of.

13. Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty