PURAN DATT Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the land of the petitioners was acquired for the purpose of construction of Airport as well as run way at Jubber Hatti. The learned Collector made the award on 28.11.2000 whereby a sum of Rs. 8,06,719/- was awarded in favour of the petitioners.

(2.) The learned District Judge, Solan vide award dated 5.1.1998 in land reference petition No. 17-S/4 of 1996 determined the value of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 2,08,620/- per Bigha and in addition to the valuation, the learned District Judge granted solatium at the rate of 30% and additional solatium of 12% and interest @ 9% and 15% as per provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners preferred an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act seeking re-determination of the compensation on the basis of the award passed by the learned District Judge on 5.1.1998. The learned Land Acquisition Collector, i.e. respondent No. 3 vide award dated 28.11.2000 allowed the application moved by the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Act and made award in favour of the petitioners as well as proforma respondent to the tune of Rs. 8,06,719/- and directed the respondents No. 1 and 2 to deposit the same within one month. The respondents No. 1 and 2 did not deposit the awarded amount within the period of one month. The respondent No. 3 had issued notice to the respondents No. 1 and 2 on 13.12.2002 calling upon them to deposit the amount with interest. The respondents No. 1 and 2 on 28.11.2000 prayed for time to file reply and the matter was directed to be listed on 3rd March, 2003. The fact of the matter remained that the petitioners were not paid the compensation as per award dated 28.11.2000.

(3.) Mr. Ramakant Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioners has strenuously argued that the award dated 28.11.2000 is required to be implemented by respondents No. 1 and 2. The learned Advocate General has argued that the reference made was not within the prescribed period, thus, the same is not enforceable.