RFA-176 107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Smt. Satinder Kaur and others State of Haryana and ors. CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) laid to the decision dated Additional District Judge, Reference Court’) 3. estate of acquired by the Government of 09.02.1988 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ r purpose, namely, afforestation in village Bazidpur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra award dated acquired land @ Rs. acre for Barani land, Rs.13,000/ 176-2000 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA Date of Decision: Smt. Satinder Kaur and others Versus State of Haryana and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH Present: Mr.Anand Chhibbar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Sahni, Advocate Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 13.10.1999 Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’). Briefly stating, some land estate of Village Bazidpur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra acquired by the Government of Haryana 09.02.1988 and 16.11.1988, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ r purpose, namely, for ‘preservation of wild life de afforestation in village Bazidpur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra’. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide dated 15.11.1990 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.26,000/- per acre for Chahi land, R acre for Barani land, Rs.13,000/- per acre for Banjar ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-176-2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.02.2026 …….Appellants Versus ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA .Anand Chhibbar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Sahni, Advocate for the appellants. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been 13.10.1999 passed by the learned Kurukshetra, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the land, situated within the revenue Bazidpur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, was Haryana vide notifications dated issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public preservation of wild life deer park and afforestation in village Bazidpur, Tehsil Thanesar, District The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide assessed market value in respect of the per acre for Chahi land, Rs.19,500/- per per acre for Banjar Kadim land and way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been passed by the learned Kurukshetra, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the , situated within the revenue was vide notifications dated issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the espectively, for public k and afforestation in village Bazidpur, Tehsil Thanesar, District The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide assessed market value in respect of the per land and SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-176 Rs.6500/ and 12% additional amount the Act. 4. landowners Act, which came to be decision dated 5. the present appeal landowners 6. through the paper behalf of the appellants. 7. was issued on 09.02.1988 for purpose, namely, for ‘ wild life de Thanesar, District Kurukshetra’ passed by the LAC on owner Sh.Gurdarshan Singh expired on 15.07.1988. Pleading ignorance to the acquisition proceeding, objections under Section 18 of the Act came to be filed on behalf of the legal representatives of Sh.Gurdarshan by the learned Reference Hence, the present appeal. 176-2000 (O&M) [2] Rs.6500/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land and 12% additional amount, besides all Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ landowners preferred reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be dismissed being barred by limitation decision dated 13.10.1999. Aggrieved of the decision of present appeal was preferred at the instance of landowners. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. In the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 09.02.1988 for purpose, namely, for ‘ wild life deer park and afforestation in village Bazidpur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra’’. The award under Section 11 was passed by the LAC on 15.11.1990. In the meanwhile, the original owner Sh.Gurdarshan Singh expired on 15.07.1988. Pleading ignorance to the acquisition proceeding, objections under Section 18 of the Act came to be filed on behalf of the legal representatives of Sh.Gurdarshan Singh on 21.07.1997. The same came to be rejected by the learned Reference Court holding it to be barred by limitation. Hence, the present appeal. ] land along with solatium @ 30% besides all other statutory benefits under foresaid award, the appellants/ reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the being barred by limitation vide decision of the learned Reference Court, preferred at the instance of appellants/ I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and gone book. I find substance in the submissions made on tification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 09.02.1988 for purpose, namely, for ‘preservation of r park and afforestation in village Bazidpur, Tehsil ’. The award under Section 11 was 15.11.1990. In the meanwhile, the original owner Sh.Gurdarshan Singh expired on 15.07.1988. Pleading ignorance to the acquisition proceeding, objections under Section 18 of the Act came to be filed on behalf of the legal representatives of Singh on 21.07.1997. The same came to be rejected ourt holding it to be barred by limitation. along with solatium @ 30% other statutory benefits under foresaid award, the appellants/ reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the vide the learned Reference Court, appellants/ I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and gone book. I find substance in the submissions made on tification under Section 4 of the Act preservation of r park and afforestation in village Bazidpur, Tehsil ’. The award under Section 11 was 15.11.1990. In the meanwhile, the original owner Sh.Gurdarshan Singh expired on 15.07.1988. Pleading ignorance to the acquisition proceeding, objections under Section 18 of the Act came to be filed on behalf of the legal representatives of Singh on 21.07.1997. The same came to be rejected ourt holding it to be barred by limitation. SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-176 8. mentions about notice under Section 12(2) of the Act t upon the landowners, however, from the entire record and the material available on the file, it cannot be traced out that any notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was ever served by the respondents about service of any notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act upon the appellants/ landowners Reference Court heirs were Award. 9. learned Reference Court for having dismissed the reference petition preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners to be barred by limitation were wholly incorrect. 10. for release of the amount of compensation in terms of award passed by the LAC was made by the appellants/ landowners only on 13.06.1997 proceedings and admittedly was not even deposited by the respondents before the learned Reference Court. 11. learned Reference Court 176-2000 (O&M) [3] Although, the award dated 15.11.1990 specifically mentions about notice under Section 12(2) of the Act t the landowners, however, from the entire record and the material available on the file, it cannot be traced out that any notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was ever served by the respondents. No such averment even was made by the about service of any notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act upon the appellants/ landowners in their written statement before the learned Reference Court; nor even it was pleaded that heirs were present before the LAC at the time of passing of the In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court for having dismissed the reference petition preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners to be barred by itation were wholly incorrect. Moreover, it has also come on record that the application for release of the amount of compensation in terms of award passed by the LAC was made by the appellants/ landowners only on .1997 i.e. as soon as they came proceedings and admittedly by that time, the compensation amount was not even deposited by the respondents before the learned Reference Court. Furthermore, even no such finding learned Reference Court that any notice under Section 12 (2) of the ] Although, the award dated 15.11.1990 specifically mentions about notice under Section 12(2) of the Act to be served the landowners, however, from the entire record and the material available on the file, it cannot be traced out that any such notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was ever served by the No such averment even was made by the respondents about service of any notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act upon the in their written statement before the learned ; nor even it was pleaded that the landowner or his present before the LAC at the time of passing of the In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court for having dismissed the reference petition preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners to be barred by Moreover, it has also come on record that the application for release of the amount of compensation in terms of award passed by the LAC was made by the appellants/ landowners only on as soon as they came to know about the acquisition time, the compensation amount was not even deposited by the respondents before the learned Furthermore, even no such finding was recorded by the that any notice under Section 12 (2) of the Although, the award dated 15.11.1990 specifically be served the landowners, however, from the entire record and the such notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was ever served by the respondents about service of any notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act upon the in their written statement before the learned the landowner or his present before the LAC at the time of passing of the In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court for having dismissed the reference petition preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners to be barred by Moreover, it has also come on record that the application for release of the amount of compensation in terms of award passed by the LAC was made by the appellants/ landowners only on to know about the acquisition time, the compensation amount was not even deposited by the respondents before the learned ded by the that any notice under Section 12 (2) of the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-176 Act was ever served upon the appellants/landowners along with the copy of the Award. 12. filed by the appellants/ landowners on 21.07.1997 cannot be h be barred by limitation. Accordingly, the impugned decision dated 13.10.1999 passed by the learned Reference Court is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Reference Court for its fresh adjudication. 13. Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra 17.03.2026 afresh within 04 months from opportunities each to requested to expedite the hearing of reference petition keeping in mind the fact that the acquisition in the present case relates to the year 1988 by and the appellants/ landowners are awaiting proper adjudi their rights/ claims towards just and fair compensation against compulsory acquisition of their land holdings. 14. disposed of. 20.02.2026 sanjay 176-2000 (O&M) [4] Act was ever served upon the appellants/landowners along with the copy of the Award. In view of the aforesaid discussion filed by the appellants/ landowners on 21.07.1997 cannot be h be barred by limitation. Accordingly, the impugned decision dated 13.10.1999 passed by the learned Reference Court is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Reference Court for its fresh adjudication. The parties are thus directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra 17.03.2026, with a request to decide the reference petition on merits afresh within 04 months from the said date opportunities each to both the parties requested to expedite the hearing of reference petition keeping in mind the fact that the acquisition in the present case relates to the 1988 and more than three and half and the appellants/ landowners are awaiting proper adjudi their rights/ claims towards just and fair compensation against compulsory acquisition of their land holdings. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? ] Act was ever served upon the appellants/landowners along with the discussion, the objection petition filed by the appellants/ landowners on 21.07.1997 cannot be held to be barred by limitation. Accordingly, the impugned decision dated 13.10.1999 passed by the learned Reference Court is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Reference Court for rected to appear before the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra-cum-Reference Court on to decide the reference petition on merits the said date by giving two effective both the parties. Learned District Judge is also requested to expedite the hearing of reference petition keeping in mind the fact that the acquisition in the present case relates to the three and half decades have already gone and the appellants/ landowners are awaiting proper adjudication of their rights/ claims towards just and fair compensation against compulsory acquisition of their land holdings. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No Act was ever served upon the appellants/landowners along with the , the objection petition eld to be barred by limitation. Accordingly, the impugned decision dated 13.10.1999 passed by the learned Reference Court is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Reference Court for rected to appear before the learned Reference Court on to decide the reference petition on merits by giving two effective . Learned District Judge is also requested to expedite the hearing of reference petition keeping in mind the fact that the acquisition in the present case relates to the decades have already gone cation of their rights/ claims towards just and fair compensation against Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document