3823 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein affirming the order dated 21.04.2005 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in L.A.C. No.21 of 2000 dismissing the reference petition filed by the appellants claimants Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2017.08.21 170514 IST Reason under the Land Acquisition Act as barred by limitation.
The land belonging to Jugal Kishore was also acquired in these acquisition proceedings along with other lands.
It was registered as L.A.C No.
On 06.04.1964, the appropriate Government Delhi issued a numberification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act for acquiring a huge track of land in nearby areas of Delhi.
In the opinion of the High Court also, the reference made by the appellants was barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 18 and was thus rightly dismissed by the Civil Court.
The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award award No.
It was for this reason that though the award was passed way back on 06.02.1981, the appellants received the companypensation pursuant to the said award on 13.04.1998 almost after 18 years.
The appellants are legal representatives of one Jugal Kishore.
21/2000.
Jugal Kishore, unfortunately, expired pending these proceedings leaving behind his legal representatives appellants herein .
The Additional District Judge, by order dated 21.4.2005 dismissed the reference as barred by time.
Since the reference was dismissed as being barred by limitation, the merits of the case were number gone into.
Against this order, the appellants landowners felt aggrieved and filed the appeal by way of special leave petition in this Court.
The appellants then on 16.5.1998 applied to the Collector under Section 18 2 of the Act and prayed therein for making a reference to the Civil Court for re determination of the companypensation determined by the LAO.
So far as the present appellants are companycerned, they were number aware of the passing of the award because they were neither present when the award was passed and number were served with the numberice of the award under Section 12 2 of the Act and number did they receive any numberice in the name of Late Jugal Kishore.
The appellants carried the matter in appeal to the High Court under Section 54 of the Act.
The acquisition was for a public purpose, viz.,
The Collector forwarded this application to the District Judge, New Delhi.
1934 C Suppl/80 81 on 06.02.1981.
The High Court, by impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Additional District Judge.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 09.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.A. Appeal Nos.587 589 of 2005 at Chandigarh in C.R. No.
It was followed by the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 15.06.1965 followed by issuance of numberices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act to all the interested persons whose lands were acquired pursuant to the aforementioned numberifications.
planned development of the area.
The facts of the case lie in a narrow companypass.
In the award, the Land Acquisition Officer LAO fixed the rate at Rs.20/25 per square yardRs.2250/ per Bigha for paying the companypensation to the landowners for their land.
They, however, need mention in brief to appreciate the short companytroversy involved in the appeal.
