107 IN TH State of Har Smt. Jamun CORAM: Present: HARKESH appeal pref (for short 20.04.2000 Faridabad restoring th Faridabad [2] landowners came to be and utilizati Faridabad, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RFA Date of Haryana Versus amuna Devi and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR Mr. Abhinash Jain, Deputy Adv for the appellant. Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Adv for the respondents. **** KESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) The appellant-State of Haryan l preferred under Section 54 of the L hort “1894 Act”), seeks setting a .2000 passed by the learned A bad (hereinafter to be referred as ring the award passed by the La abad (for short “LAC’). Briefly stating, some land ow wners situated within the revenue e to be acquired for public purpose, na tilization of land as residential and bad, Ballabgarh-Controlled Area. UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH RFA No. 1892 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.01.2026 ...Appellant ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate General, Haryana , Advocate aryana, by instituting the present f the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 tting aside of the award dated ed Additional District Judge, d as “Reference Court”) while he Land Acquisition Collector, nd owned by the respondents- nue estate of District Faridabad se, namely, for the development and commercial in Sector-21D, Vide Award No. 2 dated DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.12 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -2- 05.05.1993, the LAC assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre. [2.1] Being aggrieved, some of the other landowners sought reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to be accepted, whereby the market value of the land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 360/- per square yard in terms of judgment dated 15.12.1997 passed by the then Reference Court in LA Case No. 355 of 1995, titled “Meena Dua Versus State of Haryana”. [2.2] Thereafter, based on the aforementioned Reference Court’s Award dated 15.12.1997, the respondents who did not chose to file objections under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, filed an application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act on 20.04.1998, which was dismissed being barred by limitation by the LAC. [2.3] Aggrieved thereof, the respondents-landowners moved an application under Section 28-A (3) of the 1894 Act which was allowed by the learned Reference Court vide award dated 20.04.2000 and the same came to be challenged by the appellant-State of Haryana by way of present appeal. [3] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the paper-book / records, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. [4] A perusal of the record shows that the respondents- landowners, based on the then learned Reference Court’s Award dated 15.12.1997, moved an application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act before the LAC on 20.04.1998, which apparently was beyond three months. However, it can be seen that the certified copy of the aforesaid award dated 15.12.1997 was applied on 12.03.1998; DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.12 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -3- the same was prepared on 17.04.1998; thereafter, the application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act was filed on 20.04.1998 which apparently was within the prescribed period of limitation of three months and the respondents-landowners were rightly provided the benefit of exclusion of the time period for obtaining the copy of award in terms of proviso to Section 28-A (1) of the 1894 Act. Consequently, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. [5] In view of the above, the present appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. [6] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off.
January 09, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE

    
    DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.12 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document