RAMPHAL SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above mentioned Civil Revisions viz. CR No. 2611 of 2003 and CR No. 2612 of 2003 have been listed together for hearing. Both the above mentioned Civil Revisions are being disposed of by a common judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the facts in CR No. 2611 of 2003. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, facts from this case are being taken. Present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside order dated 28.03.2003 passed by Land Acquisition Collector, P.W.D. (B&R) Haryana, Ambala Cantt..

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that an application dated 01.04.1997 under Section 28 -A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was filed by the petitioners seeking re -determination of their compensation awarded in lieu of their land situated in Manglaura, Tehsil and District Karnal vide LAC Award No. 54 dated 18.02.1987 acquired for a public purpose, namely for the construction of approaches and Guide Bandh etc. for the proposed Yamuna Bridge on Karnal -Meerut Road, at par with the enhancement allowed by the Court of Sh. B.D. Sharma, Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide common judgment dated 04.12.1996 in 25 references arisen out of the same notification issued under Section 4 of the Act dated 26.8.1996 and LAC Award dated 18.2.1987. Notices were given to all affected persons for personal hearing. The department filed their common reply. It was also reported that Sh. Kali Ram had received compensation "otherwise under protest". The application u/s. 28 -A of the Act was within time limit of 90 days prescribed under the Act after deducting the period consumed in obtaining the copy of the judgment. The petitioners are the legal heirs of Kali Ram, but no document has been filed. Vide order dated 28.03.2003, the Land Acquisition Collector, on examination, had recorded the following findings: -

(3.) THE Land Acquisition Collector has mentioned in the impugned order that condition nos. 1 and 3 of Section 28 -A of the Act stand fulfilled i.e. application under Section 28A has been filed within three months from the date of judgment of ADJ (excluding the period consumed for obtaining the copy of judgment) and the petitioners who are seeking reference under Section 28 -A, had not sought any reference under Section 18 of the Act. However, the petitioners did not fulfill the 2nd condition as they had not received the LAC Award money "Under Protest". The reference/application has been rejected only on the ground that Kali Ram, father of the petitioners, had received the LAC Award money without recording his protest.