106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SANTOSH KUMARI STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. HARKESH MANUJA By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 05.12.1996 passed by the learned Reference Court District Judge, Jind whereby, a reference petition preferred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) a appellant-landowner 2. Briefly stating, some land owned by the appellant forming part of Municipal Committee, Jind came to be acquired vide notifications dated 11.07.1980 (published on 29.07.198 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively followed by award dated 09.03.1982. The acquisition was carried out for public purpose namely for establishment of sub its award asse compensation in terms of aforesaid award was released in favour of appellant-landowner appellant filed objections under Section 18 of the Act. On 11.07.1986, t reference petition was dismissed by learned Reference Court being barred by limitation. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper 4. In the present case, there is no evidence available on record to show that eit the time of passing of the award. Further, no evidence has been led by IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: SANTOSH KUMARI D/O POKHAR DASS Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 05.12.1996 passed by the learned Reference Court District Judge, Jind whereby, a reference petition preferred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) a landowner was dismissed being barred by limitation. Briefly stating, some land owned by the appellant forming part of Municipal Committee, Jind came to be acquired vide notifications dated 11.07.1980 (published on 29.07.198 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively followed by award dated 09.03.1982. The acquisition was carried out for public purpose namely for establishment of sub-jail at Jind. The Land acquisition Collector vide its award assessed market value @ Rs.22,000/ compensation in terms of aforesaid award was released in favour of landowner on 31.05.1986. Being aggrieved of the quantum, the appellant filed objections under Section 18 of the Act. On 11.07.1986, t reference petition was dismissed by learned Reference Court being barred by limitation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. In the present case, there is no evidence available on record to show that either the appellant or her representatives were present at the time of passing of the award. Further, no evidence has been led by IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-732-1997 Date of Decision: April 01, 2026 ........Appellant ........Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 05.12.1996 passed by the learned Reference Court-cum- District Judge, Jind whereby, a reference petition preferred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) at the instance of was dismissed being barred by limitation. Briefly stating, some land owned by the appellant forming part of Municipal Committee, Jind came to be acquired vide notifications dated 11.07.1980 (published on 29.07.1980) and 01.09.1981 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively followed by award dated 09.03.1982. The acquisition was carried out for public purpose namely jail at Jind. The Land acquisition Collector vide ssed market value @ Rs.22,000/- per acre. The compensation in terms of aforesaid award was released in favour of on 31.05.1986. Being aggrieved of the quantum, the appellant filed objections under Section 18 of the Act. On 11.07.1986, the reference petition was dismissed by learned Reference Court being I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone In the present case, there is no evidence available on record her the appellant or her representatives were present at the time of passing of the award. Further, no evidence has been led by 1997 April 01, 2026 By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an - District Judge, Jind whereby, a reference petition preferred under Section t the instance of Briefly stating, some land owned by the appellant forming part of Municipal Committee, Jind came to be acquired vide notifications 0) and 01.09.1981 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively followed by award dated 09.03.1982. The acquisition was carried out for public purpose namely jail at Jind. The Land acquisition Collector vide per acre. The compensation in terms of aforesaid award was released in favour of on 31.05.1986. Being aggrieved of the quantum, the he reference petition was dismissed by learned Reference Court being I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone In the present case, there is no evidence available on record her the appellant or her representatives were present at TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.04.09 09:39 I agree to specified portions of this document RFA-732-1997 -2- the respondents to show that notice in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act or the copy of the award dated 09.03.1982 was ever served upon the appellant-landowner. Admittedly, the amount of compensation in terms of the award dated 09.03.1982 was released in favour of the appellant- landowner only on 31.05.1986. Thus, in such circumstances, in the absence of any evidence been led by respondents to establish either the presence of the award or service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act along with copy of the award upon her; the date of receipt of payment by her i.e. 31.05.1986 in terms of Award dated 09.03.1982 was to be taken as the date about the knowledge of the award to her. The objections preferred by her on 10.07.1986 in terms of Section 18 of the Act were well within 6 months and as such, in accordance with Section 18(2)(b) of the Act, the reference petition preferred by her was required to be treated within statutory period of limitation. 5. Accordingly, the evidence recorded by the learned Reference Court with respect to the dismissal of the Reference petition preferred at the instance of appellant-landowner, to be barred by limitation, is hereby set aside. 6. With respect to the re-assessment of market value against the acquired land, both the learned counsel are ad idem that the matter already stands finally determined by this Court vide decision dated 05.04.1989 passed in RFA-644-1986 titled as “Siri Chand and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana” whereby, the market value with respect to the same acquisition proceedings stands determined @Rs.27/- per square yard besides award of all other statutory benefits and interest payable under the Act. In terms thereof, the appellant-landowner herein is entitled for award of Rs.27/- per square yard with all other statutory benefits as well as interest payable under the Act. 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 01.04.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.04.09 09:39 I agree to specified portions of this document