HARIKESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment, nine connected writ petitions shall stand disposed of. The learned counsel representing the parties are ad idem that the point in issue in the writ petitions is identical and the matter can conveniently be disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The question which arises for adjudication is that, 'whether after the expiry of the period of limitation provided under Sec. 28-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') for which no extension is permissible, can the direction to re-decide the application under Sec. 28-A (1 and 2) of the 1894 Act be issued, resulting in circumventing the statutory bar set by the said provision in the statute?

(3.) Some peculiar facts are required to be noticed. The State of Haryana issued a preliminary notification on 13/2/2008 proposing to acquire the land for setting up an Industrial Model Township at District Rohtak. The notification under Sec. 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on 13/12/2008, whereas the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the LAC'), vide award No. 4 dtd. 30/7/2009, acquired the said land. The certain landowners filed the applications under Sec. 18 of the 1894 Act for referring the matter to the Court. On being referred, the Reference Court decided the cases on 30/3/2016. These petitioners did not file applications under Sec. 18 of the 1894 Act, but filed the applications under Sec. 28-A of the 1894 Act claiming parity with the amount assessed on 30/3/2016 by the Reference Court, which were allowed on 21/11/2017.