UNION OF INDIA Vs. TIKKA RAJINDER PRAKASH BEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Union of India filed FAO No. 315 of 2002 to challenge award dtd. 3/1/2001 passed by the Arbitrator i.e. District Judge, Ludhiana exercising the powers of Arbitrator under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act in respect of land falling in village Gill, requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1915. During pendency of the appeal aforesaid, the respondent/land owners whose land was requisitioned filed cross objections in the year 2013 for grant of compensation along with solatium and interest in the light of enhancement of compensation by the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dtd. 5/7/2006 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S. Narang in the case of other land owners whose land was requisitioned simultaneously.

(2.) Counsel representing the Union of India has seriously resisted claim of the cross objectors on the premise that cross objections preferred in the year 2013 are clearly barred by limitation. It is argued that the cross objectors have not filed an application for condonation of delay of more than 10 years and allegations raised in para 1 of the cross objections are patently false when examined in the light of facts on record that the cross objectors caused appearance in the appeal through a counsel on 1/4/2002 and the period of limitation to file cross objections would start from that day. In support of his contention, he has heavily relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court Mahadev Govind Charge and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka, with connected case, 2011(5) R.C.R.(Civil) 364 : 2011(3) Civil Court Cases 575.

(3.) Another submission made by counsel is that cross objections can be continued even if the appeal is dismissed provided the cross objections are filed within limitation prescribed for an appeal or within the extended period if the appeal was valid and filed within limitation. For this purpose, reference has been made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others v. Intnl. Security and Intelligence Agency Ltd., 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 757, According to counsel, the cross objectors caused appearance through counsel on 1/4/2002, sought time for filing reply to application vide order dtd. 31/10/2002. Application for condonation of delay of 323 days in filing the appeal was allowed in presence of counsel for the cross objectors on 12/5/2005 and on the same very day, the appeal was admitted. It is argued with vehemence that keeping in view the aforesaid when examined in the light of judgment in Mahadev Govind Gharge and others's case (supra), the cross objections are liable to be rejected outrightly being barred by limitation.