RATIYA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 20.5.2011, whereby the learned court below has dismissed the objections filed by the land owner on account of delay as well as on merits. Along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 74 days in filing the appeal has also been filed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that land situated within the revenue estate of village Balu, Hadbast No. 20, Tehsil and District Kaithal, was sought to be acquired by the State of Haryana for construction of Kapil Muni Minor, vide notification dated 4.5.2007, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 13.9.2007. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ' 8,000,00/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections, which were referred to Additional District Judge, Kaithal, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, upheld the award of the Collector and dismissed the reference as barred by limitation. It is this award which is impugned by the landowner before this court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding recorded by the learned court below that the reference filed by the land owner was time barred is totally erroneous. He submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, the objections could be filed within six weeks from the date of award in case the land owners are present at the time of pronouncement of the award. In other cases, it would be within 6 weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period expires first. The land in the present case was acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 4.5.2007 and he received the amount of compensation under protest on 5.12.2007. The submission is that the appellant is illiterate person. He has no knowledge about the intricacies of the law. Though the amount of compensation was paid to him on 5.12.2007, but he was not having the knowledge of the passing of the award by the Collector. When he came to know about the passing of the award by the Collector, he immediately filed the objection on 17.2.2009, which were within limitation of six months as enumerated under Section 18 (2) of the Act. The period of limitation provided for therein has been interpreted to mean that the same has to be filed within six months from the date of knowledge of the award.