(O&M) SUBH RAM & OTHERS v. RAJINDER SINGH & ANOTHER
RFA/4/1995 · 2026-03-10
Harkesh Manuja
body1994
DailyLaw.ai
[ 1994 DAILYLAW 8 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 1994 DAILYLAW 8 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
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