- (1.) The first and second defendants, namely, the State of Haryana through Collector, Sirsa and Executive Engineer, Ghaggar Water Services Division, Sirsa have preferred the present second appeal challenging the mandates issued to them to consider the case of the plaintiff praying for compensation of the left out land measuring 13 kanals 4 marlas in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
(2.) The unfortunate plaintiff preferred to file a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Addl. District Judge, Sirsa only with respect to his land measuring 13 kanals 14 marlas leaving inadvertently the remaining land of 13 kanals 4 marlas out of the total extent of 26 kanals 18 marlas acquired from him. The reference Court, namely, the Addl.District Judge, Sirsa, of course, passed the award on 11.9.1997 enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1 lac per acre fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector vide award passed by him on 1.2.1994 to '1.38 lacs per acre. The plaintiff having come to know that the remaining extent of land, namely, 13 kanals 4 marlas had not been included in the reference by inadvertence filed an application under Section 151 and 152 of CPC for correction of the extent of land found mentioned in the reference filed by him before the reference Court. The reference Court took up the matter for hearing on 5.6.1998 and dismissed the same as it had felt that it had become functus officio after passing the necessary award on 11.9.1997 within the ambit of the extent of land referred to in the reference by the plaintiff. The plaintiff invoking the provision under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 filed a fresh application before the Land Acquisition Collector to determine the compensation for the remaining extent of land, namely, 13 kanals 4 marlas which was not the subject matter of the original reference. True it is that the plaintiff had not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing such an application beyond the period of three months as contemplated under the aforesaid provision of law, but the Land Acquisition Collector was pleased to take up the application on merit and dismissed it with a direction to the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court for suitable remedies. The plaintiff having been pushed from pillar to post again approached the Civil Court seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendants to make payment of enhanced compensation with respect to the remaining extent of land which was acquired.
(3.) The suit was decreed by the trial Court having held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the legal right canvassed before it by the plaintiff. The State, not content with the verdict passed by the trial Court, took up the matter in appeal before the first appellate Court. The appellate Court chose to confirm the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the State.;