Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

1994 DAILYLAW 8 (PNJ)

(O&M) SUBH RAM & OTHERS v. RAJINDER SINGH & ANOTHER

RFA/4/1995 · 2026-03-10

Harkesh Manuja

body1994

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

104 IN TH Subh Ram Rajinder Sin CORAM: Present: HARKESH appeal pref (for short “ 10.12.1994 to be refe petition und while order and two-thi respectively [2] information appellants b IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RFA Date Ram and others Versus er Singh and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR Mr. Chander Pal Tiwana, Advo Mr. R.S. Chahar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for Mr. Aman Priye Jain, Advocate for the respondents. **** KESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) The appellants-landowners, l preferred under Section 54 of the L hort “1894 Act”), are seeking settin .1994 passed by learned District Jud referred as “Reference Court”) n under Section 30 of the 1894 Act ordering to disburse the compensa third share in favour of the ap ctively against the joint khasra No. 89 Learned counsel for the appe ation provided by the learned lants before the learned Reference UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH RFA No. 4 of 1995 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 ...Appellants ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA , Advocate for e for vocate ers, by instituting the present f the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 setting aside of an award dated ict Judge, Gurgaon (hereinafter ourt”) whereby their reference 4 Act was decided/disposed off, ensation amount with one-third he appellants and respondents o. 89/13/1. appellants submits that as per ned counsel representing the ence Court, the appellants have DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.11 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document          -2-     unfortunately died and despite having made all sincere efforts, learned counsel for the appellants herein has not been able to persuade the LRs to come forward and pursue the present appeal; he thus submits that the present appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution, however, seeks liberty to revive the present appeal in case the LRs of appellants come forward and any cause survives in their favour. [3] In view of the above, there is no option except to dispose off the appeal for want of prosecution. [4] Disposed off for want of prosecution with the liberty as prayed for. [5] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off.  March 10, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE            DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.11 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document