RFA-889-1994 & RFA-931-1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107 (2 cases) RFA-889-1994 Date of Decision: 13.07.2026 Gopi Krishan Khanna …Appellant Versus State of Haryana …Respondent And RFA-931-1994 Shakuntla Nagpal …Appellant Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate Ms. Indu Bala, Advocate and Mr. Vinayak Atri, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Abhinash Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from RFA No.889 of 1994. 2. The appellant through instant appeal is seeking setting aside of award dated 04.01.1994 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Panipat MOHIT KUMAR 2026.07.13 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RFA-889-1994 & RFA-931-1994 -2- has rejected his claim for compensation under Section 48 and 48A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’). 3. The State Government issued notification under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of 1894 Act for acquisition of land situated within the revenue estate of village Gaddiwara, Tehsil & District Panipat with intent to construct Buffer Godowns for Food Corporation of India (‘FCI’). 4. Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’) vide letter dated 22.09.1987 directed FCI to deposit ₹90 Lakhs as 80% of the tentative compensation for acquisition of land before the pronouncement of award as acquisition was made under the Section 17 of 1894 Act, however, FCI failed to deposit the requisite amount. On account of scarcity of funds, Sub- Divisional Officer (Construction), FCI made a statement before Collector on 19.10.1987 and requested him to drop acquisition proceedings and not to announce the award. Land acquisition proceedings as per Section 11A of the 1894 Act lapsed because could not be concluded within 2 years from the date of notification under Section 6 of 1894 Act. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent was liable to pay damages for the period land remained unutilized because of notification under Section 4. The respondent has conceded that State could not utilize the acquired land due to non-deposit of ₹90 Lakhs by FCI for which land was going to be acquired. 6. Learned State counsel submits that relying upon judgment of Supreme Court in Rajinder Singh Bhatti and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009 (11) SCC 480, this Court vide order dated 18.08.2015 in RFA No.2591 of 1999, Kehar Singh v. State of Haryana, has already held MOHIT KUMAR 2026.07.13 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RFA-889-1994 & RFA-931-1994 -3- that compensation is not payable under Section 48 of 1894 Act where notification issued under Section 4 is not withdrawn. In the present case, notification was not withdrawn, thus, no compensation was payable. Section 48A of 1894 Act was not applicable as land was not acquired for trust. 7. Faced with this, learned counsel for the appellant expressed his inability to controvert applicability of aforesaid judgment to the present case. 8. In the backdrop and in view of aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that present appeals deserve to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 13.07.2026 Mohit Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHIT KUMAR 2026.07.13 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.