- (1.) THIS petition has been referred to a Full Bench for decision in pursuance of the order made by a Division Bench of this Court doubting the correctness of the decision of an earlier Division Bench in Hari Krishan Khosla v. The State of Pepsu, ILR (1958) 1 Punj 854 = (AIR 1958 Puni 490 ).
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the erstwhile State of Punjab issued notifications for the acquisition of some land under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (hereinafter called the Act) situate in village Itmadpur, Tahsil Ballabsarh. District Gurgaon, for a public purpose, namely, construction of Gurgaon Canal Feeder along Agra Canal from RD-30,000 to RD-79,200. The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on March 18. 1966. at Ballabsarh, to the persons present and notices under Section 12 (2) of the Act were issued to the other owners who were not present. The petitioner-company claimed that it had purchased some parcels of the acquired land through registered sale deeds dated March 28. June 28, November 11, 1963. and March 26. 1966. from the landowners. The Managing Director of the Companv was informed that Zamindars of the village were going to Ballabgarh to receive compensation, from the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Palwal. in respect of the land acquired bv the Government for the Gurgaon Canal Feeder. He went to Ballabgarh and came to know that the entire land, which the Company had purchased bv various sale deeds, still stood in the names of land-owners and mutation in the name of the companv had not been effected, with the result that the compensation in respect of that land was going to be paid to the recorded owners. He brought this fact of company's ownership of the land to the notice of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil ). The petitioner-company was. however, paid compensation in respect of the land, which had been mutated in its name, on August 30. 1967, which the Managing Director of the company received under protest. The compensation in respect of the land, which the petitioner-companv alleged to have purchased and in respect of which mutations had not been effected was deposited by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) in the Treasury and was not paid to any one. The companv thereupon filed an application before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) on October 5. 1967. for making a reference to the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act. It is not necessary to detail all the objections raised by the petitioner-companv in its application. Suffice it to sav that the claim was made for the enhancement of the compensation already paid and for the payment of the compensation at enhanced rate in respect of the land, which the company had purchased but mutation in respect of which had not been effected. The Sub Divisional Officer, acting as Collector, referred the application to the District Judge for decision under Section 19 of the Act. The District Judge entrusted that petition to the Additional District Judge, who issued notice to the State of Haryana under Section 20 of the Act. The State of Haryana raised various objections, one of them being that the reference was barred bv time. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge framed the following issues:-1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ? 2. What improvements were effected by the claimant on the disputed land, and if so. its effect?
(3.) WHETHER the reference is barred bv time;