RAJESH BINDAL J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.04.1988 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Bathinda delivered on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda dismissed the claim of the present appellants/claimants as time-barred.
(2.) THE facts leading to the present appeal are as under : Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 9.10.1974, a large chunk of land measuring 10768 bighas forming part of the revenue estate of District Bathinda was acquired for establishing a military cantonment. The Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jallandhar, pronounced the award on 11.06.1975. Some landowners, feeling dissatisfied with the award, moved the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jallandhar for making a reference to the District Court under Section 18 of the Act and some of those references were disposed off in the due course. The present appellants/claimants who also owned land in the revenue estate of village Mehna Patti, District Bathinda claimed to have moved an application before the Special Land Acquisition Collector for making a reference to the District Court for enhancement of the compensation under Section 18 of the Act which as per their version was never referred by the authorities to the District Court. Consequently the present appellants/claimants moved this Court by filing a Civil Writ Petition No. 570 of 1982 submitting that they had filed application under Section 18 of the Act within the prescribed time which was not referred to the Court by the Land Acquisition Collector and prayed for a direction to the Land Acquisition Collector to make a reference of their claim in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This writ petition was disposed of in line with the orders passed by the Full bench of this court in Civil Writ Petition No. 5628 of 1982 (reported as Sher Singh v. Union of India, 1984 RRR 655 : (1983) 85 PLR 86) wherein the court observed that as per the ratio of the full bench judgment of this Court in Guru Nanak University v. Dr. Iqbal Kaur Sandhu and Others, AIR 1976 P&H 69, writ court is not and cannot be made a substitute for a regular trial for determination of contentions and disputed facts and as such the diametrically opposite contentions of the parties regarding the filing of application to make a reference, cannot be decided by court exercising writ jurisdiction. The following directions were made by the Court : "Accordingly, we would herein direct that on a proper application (precisely detailing his claim of having filed an application under Section 18 of the Act) made by the writ petitioner to the collector, the latter shall refer the same to the District Court, which will then proceed to decide the contentions in dispute between the parties, whether the stand of the petitioner herein is correct or otherwise. In the event of the matter decided in favour of the writ petitioner, the District Court would inevitably proceed to try and adjudicate on the reference under Section 18 of the Act." In this writ petition, the Court also resolved another issue regarding the sustainability of the claim of the petitioners in case they had accepted the amount of compensation without an express protest, irrespective of the fact that they may have earlier preferred the reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Court observed that the filing of a reference application under Section 18 is in itself a recorded protest within the meaning of the provisos to Section 31(2) of the Act. The present appellants, on the strength of the abovementioned order in the writ petition, filed application before the Land Acquisition Collector for making a reference, whereafter a reference was made to the Court of Additional District Judge, Bathinda. On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties, the Court framed the following issues for the determination of the reference : "(1) What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act ? OPA. (2) Whether a notice under Section 9 of the Act was served on the claimants and they did not file the objections, if so, its effect ? OPR. (3) Whether the Land Reference is time barred ? OPA (4) Relief."
(3.) THE learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda decided the issue no. 3 against the appellants/claimants observing that the applicants in fact had not filed any application under Section 18 of the Act before the Collector for making reference at any point of time, much less within time. As regards, Issue No. 1, the Court observed that the learned counsel for the applicants had pressed into service certified copies of RFA no. 1543 of 1980 (Ex. AX/6) and RFA No. 1865 of 1979(Ex. AX/7) for establishing their claim for enhancement of compensation which certainly makes the applicants entitled for compensation but for the fact that they had not filed the application under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Court below in view of the findings on issue no. 3 dismissed the reference. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.04.1988 passed by the learned Court of Additional District Judge, Bathinda, the appellants preferred present appeal before this Court primarily assailing findings on issue no. 3 and praying for enhancement of compensation.;