Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed against the award dated 6.5.1992, whereby the learned court below has dismissed the objections filed by the land owner on account of delay as well as on merits.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that land as well as the super structure existing thereon situated within the revenue estate of village Mataur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar, was sought to be acquired by the State of Punjab for setting up of Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project Colony, vide notification dated 12.11.1976, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide award dated 9.12.1987 assessed the market value of the acquired land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owner filed objections, which were referred to District Judge, Ropar, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, dismissed the objections filed by the landowner being time barred vide award dated 6.5.1992. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings recorded by the learned court below on both the counts, namely, that the reference filed by the land owner was time barred and on merits, that no case for further enhancement had been made out, are totally erroneous. He submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, the objections could be filed within six weeks from the date of award in case the land owners are present at the time of pronouncement of the award. In other cases, it would be within 6 weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period expires first. The submission is that in the present case, the land was acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 12.11.1976. Though the award was announced on 9.12.1987, but the amount of compensation was not paid to the land owner, and the objections, which were filed in February 1989 were within limitation of six months as enumerated under Section 18(2) of the Act. The period of limitation provided for therein has been interpreted to mean that the same has to be filed within six months from the date of knowledge of the award. In January, 1989, he came to know about the announcement of award from Ram Kishan Lamberdar and in February, 1989, he filed the objections, the same should be considered as the date of knowledge.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that delay in filing objections cannot be condoned. The learned court below has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant being time barred.;