BUDHI PARSHAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 11.10.1990 whereby petitioner's application under Section 28 -A of the Land Acquisition Act has been rejected with a further direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the application in accordance with law and determine the compensation in accordance with the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he along with his brother was the owner of land measuring 3 Kanals 1 marla comprised in Khewat No. 30 Khatauni No. 60 khasra No. 14/2/3(0 -13) and 17/1(2 kanals 8 marlas) situated at village Ratgal, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. This land was acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 11.3.1981. Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 25.6.1986. Neither the petitioner nor his brother filed any reference under Section 18 of the Act. Some other claimants filed references under Section 18 of the Act, which was decided on 4.4.1989. It is thereafter that the petitioner applied for a copy of the order, which is annexure P -1 to the petition. On receipt of the copy, annexure P -1 the petitioner filed application under Section 28 -A of the Act for re -determination of the compensation before respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner this application was received in the office of respondent No. 2 within the stipulated period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the award passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 never issued any notice for his appearance. On further enquiry it was found that application was rejected on 11.10.1990, being barred by time as the same had been filed after the expiry of a period of 3 months from the date of passing of the first award of the District Judge on 29.2.1988. It is this order of respondent No. 2, which is being challenged terming it to be illegal and arbitrary. Reliance has been placed upon the Division Bench judgment in Lila Krishan v. Land Acquisition Collector, 1991 2 P.L.R. 65. Support has also been sought from another decision of this Court in C.W.P. No. 4441 of 1992.

(3.) FACTUAL aspect is not in dispute i.e. petitioner did not seek any reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. As per Section 28 -A of the Act any person who is aggrieved by the award of the Collector but has not sought a reference under Section 18, can file an application to the Collector within 3 months from the date of award of the Collector praying that the amount of compensation payable to him may be re -determined on the basis of amount of compensation awarded by the Court. It is the case of petitioner that admittedly he had the right to file an application in terms of Section 28 -A of the Act. As regards the objection of the respondents that the same was time barred, counsel urged that the matter stands decided by the Division Bench in Lila Krishan's case (supra). As per this decision, the limitation is to be considered from the date of the award relied upon by the land owner. Since in the present case reliance has been placed upon the award dated 4.4.1989, the application filed by the petitioner is within limitation.