UNION OF INDIA Vs. TARIFA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through notificationissued under Section4of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 5.7.1973 claimants respondents land situate within revenue estate of Tughlakabad was acquired for public purpose. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 12.8.1975. Award No. 43/78-79 was made by the Collector on 8.2.1979. Feeling dis-satis fied reference was sought. The Reference Court held claimants entitled to compensation @ Rs. 31,500/- per bigha. Feeling aggrieved Union of India has preferred appeal (RFA 315/83) seeking reduction in the amount of compensation. Cross-objections have been filed by the claimants/respondents claiming further enhancement in the amount of compensation @ Rs. 68/000/- per bigha. The entire land being 19 biswas only, a sum of Rs. 44,650/- has been claimed by way of further enhancement.

(2.) After the reference was decided the claimants filed an application before the Reference Court for allowing benefit of additional solatium and interest in view of the provisions of the Act. Said application was allowed by an order dated 3.1.1985, which is also under challenge separately by the Union of India in RFA 230/85.

(3.) 19 biswas of land, which was the subject matter of the acquisition was jointly owned by the claimants/respondents 1 to 5 who are the sons of Late Shri Harkaran. They jointly filed an application under Section 18 of the Act on 3.11.1979 seeking reference to the Court for determination of the amount of compensation. While forwarding the reference to the Court in the statement drawn under Section 19 of the Act a note was appended by the Collector that reference had been withheld as regards Dalip and Dalpat, respondents 2 and 4 saying that the reference was withheld "on account of time barred". No intimation was given to them that their reference had been withheld, was received in the Court notice was issued to the appellants. A written statement to the reference petition was field by the appellant specifically claiming therein that the reference under Section 18 of the Act with respect to Dalip and Dalpat had been withheld on account of time barred. Claimants/respondents filed the replication questioning validity of such order saying that the reference had wrongly been withheld.