UMED SINGH AND ORS. Vs. COLLECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Alok Singh learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. By the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 23.3.2002 passed by the then District Judge, Nainital in Land Acquisition Case No. 21/2000, whereby the application moved under section 18of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been rejected on the ground of having been filed beyond the statutory period of limitation.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present petition are that according to the petitioners, they are trustees and owners of the Helviliyar Bungalow and the land of Bachi Gaur Trust of Nainital. The said bungalow and the land was in occupation of the District Magistrate, Nainital for whom it was acquired for his residence and a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published in local newspapers on 11.2.1995. Initially, the Collector, Nainital was of the view that an amount of Rs. 95,35,765.45 p. would be required for the acquisition of the land in dispute. It was assessed by the authorities at Rs. 31,68,723/ - for total area of 23,086080 sq. ft. land and constructions thereon. As per the application of the petitioners in Land Acquisition Case No. 49/1 of 1994 -95 the acquired land has a market value of Rs. 144.92 p. per sq. ft to Rs. 167.22p. per sq. ft. which comes to Rs. 33,45,739.80p. to Rs. 38,60,574.69p. The compensation of Rs. 7,88,342.38p was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in Land Acquisition Case No. 49/1 of 1994 -95. But the said amount of compensation was inadequate according to the petitioners.

(3.) WHILE , deciding the issue No. 1, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the amount of compensation towards the acquired property should have been Rs. 33,46,980/ - apart from 30% solatium and 9% interest thereon. So far as the issue No. 2 is concerned, a finding has been recorded that the application for reference is barred by time from every angle. While deciding the issue No. 3, a finding has been recorded that the application for reference, being barred by time, was liable to be dismissed. While deciding the issue No. 2, a finding has been recorded that one Sri Madan Singh Gaur was the power of attorney holder of the applicants who was representing the applicants. The order sheet of Special Land Acquisition Officer shows that Sri Madan Singh was present on behalf of the Trust at the time of the award. The trial has also recorded a finding with regard to the overwriting in fixing the date whatsoever. The Trial Court has recorded the finding that the reference was barred by time from every angle.