G.C. Mital, J. - (1.) THE State of Haryana by notification published on 30th January. 1973, acquired 132/acres of land in village Bohar, District Rohtak, for setting up a Tourist Complex and lake. The Land Acquisition, Collector by award, dated 28th November, 1973, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per acre. Feeling dissatisfied, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'), which was found to be within time by the Collector, but when the matter came up before the Additional District Judge, the State took objections that the reference application was barred by time and that no specific claim was made in response to notice under Section 9 of the Act and therefore, by virtue of Section 25 of the Act, the reference application was not competent and the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector could not be varied.
(2.) ON the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the petition or reference made by the claimant is barred by time as the award was, announced on 28th November, 1973 while the application for making reference was made, on 14th January, 1974? (2) Whether the application requires to be amended as alleged in preliminary objection No. 2 of the written statement of the Respondent -State? (3) What was the market value of the land in question on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? (4) Whether the award was bad as alleged in the replication of the Petitioner because compensation was not paid at the time of the announcement of the award or within the time given in the award? (5) Whether the claimant is barred from making the present application under Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act? (6) Relief. After the evidence was led, by order, date 31st August, 1978, the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, found that the market value was Rs. 100 per Marla, but held that the reference application was -time barred and that no specific claim had been made by the claimants and therefore, they were not entitled to enhancement and with these observations, declined the reference. Against the aforesaid decision of the Additional District Judge, the claimants have come up in appeal to this Court. The learned Additional Advocate -General has raised a preliminary objection that no appeal is competent in this Court as reference has been declined on one of the grounds that it was time barred. This point has already been dealt with by me in Pokhar Singh v. State of Haryana R.F.A. 1707 - -78 decided on 21st May, 1980 and I have held that the appeal is competent. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in Pokhar Singh's case (supra), I hold that the appeal is competent.
(3.) SO far as the market value of the acquired land is concerned, the parties are not at variance and they are agreed that it would be Rs. 140 per Maria in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr., 1979 P.L.J. 416 which related to more than three years earlier acquisition in the same -village.;