JUDGMENT (Sanjay Karol, J.) (Oral) - The appellants have assailed the impugned award for the following reasons :- (i) The ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Agra Development Authority v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., 2001(2) SCC 646 was not followed by the Collector, Land Acquisition while passing the Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. (ii) The reference petition filed by the claimants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was barred by limitation. 2.In terms of the common impugned Award dated 27.2.2002, the District Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, H.P., partly allowed the land reference petitions filed by the various land owners, under Section 18 of the Act and enhanced the amount of compensation by 15% from what was awarded by the Collector, Land Acquisition. 3.The Court below consolidated the reference petitions and Land Reference Petition No. 44 of 2000 was treated to be a lead case. The present appeals were decided by a common award, hence, are being considered and disposed of as such. 4.The details of the land reference petitions, RFA Nos., the name of the claimants and the extent of the land and the money awarded is as under :- Sr. No.Case No.Title of petitionArea of land and name of structure acquired.Amounts of compensation awarded by the LAO. 1.44/200 (RFA No. 329/2004)Ajay Kumar & Ors. v. GM Ranjit Sagar and Ors.(In bighas) 1-8 & 0-2 bighasRs. amount 2,05,666/- ———Structure2,23,001/- 2.90/2000 (RFA No. 330/2004)Amar Singh v. GM Ranjit Sagar Dam & Ors.1-16-13 (1/3 share)2,88,280/- ———Structure:Nil. 3.91/2000 (RFA No. 331/2004)Sardaru v. GM Thein Dam and Ors.1-16-14 (1/3 share)2,88,280/- ———Structure:Nil. 5.For the public purpose, namely, ‘construction of reservoir for Ranjit Sagar (Thein Dam) Project’ the claimants land as per details mentioned hereinabove situate in Mohal Khairi, Tehsil Dalhousie, Distt. Chamba, H.P., was acquired by the State of H.P. for and on behalf of the appellants. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was published on 9.4.1997. The Collector’s Award under Section 11 of the Act was announced on 25.8.1998. Chamba, H.P., was acquired by the State of H.P. for and on behalf of the appellants. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was published on 9.4.1997. The Collector’s Award under Section 11 of the Act was announced on 25.8.1998. 6.The Collector, determined the market value of the acquired land category-wise as under :- Nature of landKhairi Mohal (in Rupees per bigha) Barani Abble1,67,171/- Barani Doem1,21,576/- Bagicha Barani2,17,106/- Banjar Jadeed36,908/- Banjar Kadeem/Gair Mumkin34,737/- 7.Being dissatisfied with the same, the claimants filed land reference petition under Section 18 of the Act, which was referred to the District Judge for determination of the adequate compensation due and payable to the claimants. 8.Based on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the District Judge :- 1. Whether the reference petition is within limitation ? ....OPP 2. Whether proper and appropriate compensation has not been awarded to the petitioners ? If so, how much compensation should be awarded to the petitioners ? ....OPA 9.Adequate opportunity was afforded to the parties to lead evidence. 10.In support of their claim, the claimants examined six witnesses. The State and the appellants herein choose not to lead any evidence (oral or documentary). 11.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 12.The enhancement from the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector is only by 15%. This was done for the reasons that the claimants were deprived of their valuable rights and were rendered homeless. 13.The Collector passed the Award on 25.8.1998. Record proves that till the filing of the present appeals, the appellants herein had never raised any grievance with regard to the non-adherence/non-compliance of the procedure clarified by the Apex Court in Agra Development Authority (supra). Importantly, in the reply filed by the appellants to the land reference petitions, no such grievance was ever made. The State of Himachal Pradesh had acquired land for and on behalf of the present appellants. It is not the case of the appellants that the Collector Land Acquisition or any of the officials of the State of Himachal Pradesh colluded with the claimants while exercising their statutory duty of awarding compensation which is just, fair and reasonable. The State of Himachal Pradesh had acquired land for and on behalf of the present appellants. It is not the case of the appellants that the Collector Land Acquisition or any of the officials of the State of Himachal Pradesh colluded with the claimants while exercising their statutory duty of awarding compensation which is just, fair and reasonable. It is also a matter of record that no proceedings, challenging the Award passed by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act were ever initiated by the appellants. Even before the Court below no such grievance was ever made. 14.The Award was accepted by the appellants herein and compensation paid in accordance thereof to the claimants. The appellants did not seek any opportunity to show that the award did not reflect true market value. In this background, the appellants cannot be permitted to raise such pleas and more so after a period of six years from passing of the Award. 15.In Agra Development Authority (supra), the beneficiary had filed a writ petition, challenging the award, which was dismissed by the High Court and in an appeal taken to the Supreme Court, it was so held that the Land Acquisition Authority was required to issue notice to the beneficiary and afford opportunity to adduce evidence for the purposes of determining the compensation. Therefore, the judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 16.With regard to the second plea, suffice it so say that the Court below has considered the entire material while deciding issue No. 1. It is an admitted case of the parties, evident from the statements of Shri Ajay Kumar (PW-1) as also Shri Umesh Kumar, Patwari (PW-4), that no notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was either issued or received by the claimants. In fact PW-4 who was the Patwari and Incharge of the acquisition proceedings at the relevant time has categorically deposed that the land reference petitions were received by them and forwarded after compliance of Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, which prescribes the period of limitation and lays down the procedure to be followed. 17.PW-1 has categorically deposed that no notice was ever served upon them and it is only when they learnt about the acquisition of the land, they made inquiries and filed the land reference petitions. 17.PW-1 has categorically deposed that no notice was ever served upon them and it is only when they learnt about the acquisition of the land, they made inquiries and filed the land reference petitions. Had there been any delay in filing of the petitions, the statutory authorities who were duty bond to comply with the provisions of the statute ought to have raised objections with regard to the period of limitation. In the absence of the same, it cannot be presumed that the petitions were time barred. 18.The appellants herein, in the reply to the land reference petitions, took a vague plea by any of preliminary objections that “the petitions are barred by limitation.” They have neither substantiated this plea nor proved the same by leading clear and cogent evidence. No doubt, the onus to prove issue No. 1 was on the claimants but, in my view, the same stood sufficiently discharged by them with the examination of the two witnesses, PW-1 and PW-4. The appellants did not lead any evidence. 19.Importantly, Section 19 of the Act provides that along with the reference petitions, the Collector is to state the information to the Court in writing with regard to the various requirements stipulated therein. It is not the case of the state or the appellants herein that the same were not complied with. The record shows that the material as required under Section 19 of the Act was in fact forwarded by the Collector to the District and Sessions Judge, along with the reference petitions. Therefore, the plea is not only frivolous but is also misconceived and apparently taken only for the sake of objections. 20.The material has been considered by the Court below in its entirety. The evidence led by the claimants was totally permissible and admissible in law, as such, it cannot be said that inadmissible evidence was considered and/or there has been any misappreciation thereon. 21.The claimants being agriculturists, having small land holding were not only deprived of their bread and butter but had to uprooted and made to shift their hearth to another place. In fact, the appellants and the State ought to have come out with a concrete proposal of rehabilitating the claimants. It is a pity that the claimants were deprived of their constitutional rights and not informed of the acquisition proceedings initiated against them. In fact, the appellants and the State ought to have come out with a concrete proposal of rehabilitating the claimants. It is a pity that the claimants were deprived of their constitutional rights and not informed of the acquisition proceedings initiated against them. The land revenue official concerned has admitted that statutory notices as required under Section 12(2) of the Act were not issued to the claimants who were left in lurch and had to travel from pillar to post to ascertain the status of the acquisition proceedings. They were unnecessarily harassed and dragged to the Court to defend the instant appeals. The State ought to have played a proactive role in the rehabilitation of these poor litigants rather than dragging them to the Court. In the matter of rehabilitation of population, effected due to the construction of larger Power Projects, the State has to adopt human, practical and pragmatic approach and consider the difficulties faced by the poor defenseless agriculturists belonging to the remotest areas of the State. 22.No other point urged. 23.I see no merit in the present appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. M.R.B. ———————