M D UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK Vs. RAM CHANDRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, granting additional solatium in terms of Section 23(1-A) of the land Acquisition Act cannot indeed be sustained.

(2.) It was as far back as September 30, 1976 that the Collector made his Award. On November 20, 1983, the Additional District Judge, Rohtak decided that reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was about six years thereafter on October 18, 1989 that by an application for review filed by the landowner, the Additional District Judge allowed them enhanced solatium at the rate of 30 per cent. On the market value of the land as assessed by him. On the face of it, such an application is clearly barred by time and the court fell in error in allowing it.

(3.) It would be pertinent to note in this behalf that this enhanced solatium had been claimed on the basis of the amendment in the Land Acquisition Act which came in 1984. No reason whatsoever, has been put forth to account for this inordinate delay in seeking a review of the order founded upon this amendment. The impugned order of the Additional District Judge is accordingly hereby set aside and this appeal is consequently accepted. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.