GURMUKH SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the landowner is directed against an award dated 9.1.1978 made by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, while disposing of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act).

(2.) In pursuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act published in the Punjab Government gazette dated 28.9.1971, the State of Punjab acquired 70 acres 0 kanals and 3 marlas of land situated in the revenue estate of Salem Tabri and Karabara for a public purpose namely for the construction of grain market at the public expense. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award dated 21.11.1972 by which he fixed the market value of the land comprising killa Nos. 7,37 and 38 at Rs. 32,000/- per acre and for the rest of the land at Rs. 24,000/- per acre. The land-owner-appellant whose 10 kanals of land had been acquired being dissatisfied by the compensation awarded by the Collector made a reference under Section 18 of the Act on 6.11.1975. He moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stating therein that he has been residing in the United Kingdom, for the last many years. He came from there and landed in India at Bombay on 10.12.1975. He reached Ludhiana on 26.10.1975. On arrival there, he learnt that his land had been acquired and the Land Acquisition Collector had made his award dated 21.11.1972. Since he had no knowledge of the award earlier he prayed for condonation of delay in making the reference. He incorporated the same plea for condonation of delay in para 2 of his reference application. In reply to the reference application filed by the respondent, the averment made in para 2 was denied for want of knowledge. As such the facts stated in para 2 of the reference application remained unrebutted. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is supported by an affidavit duly sworn in by the appellant.

(3.) The learned Additional District Judge framed issues which need not be reproduced here. Besides he received evidence and on the basis of the same upheld the award made by the Collector and further concluded that the reference application made by the appellant is barred by time. Being thus dissatisfied the landowner-appellant preferred this appeal.