RFA-2553 117 (13 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA State of Haryana Smt. Prahladi Devi and others CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from 2. laid to the decision dated 30.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, (for short the ‘ whereby the reference petition filed on behalf of the respondents/ landowners for enhancement of compensation was partly allowed. 3. 2553-2004 (O&M) & other connected cases 117 (13 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: 02.02.2026 State of Haryana Versus Smt. Prahladi Devi and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Ms.Mansi Majoka, Advocate for Mr.BS. Tewatia, Advocate for the landowners. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Vide this common order, a bunch of 13 Regular First Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For ake of brevity, facts are being taken from By way of filing the present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the decision dated 30.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, (for short the ‘ whereby the reference petition filed on behalf of the respondents/ landowners for enhancement of compensation was partly allowed. Briefly stating, 2.36 acres of land, situated in Village & other connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-2553-2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.02.2026 …….Appellant Versus ..….Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Mr.Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Ms.Mansi Majoka, Advocate for Mr.BS. Tewatia, Advocate Vide this common order, a bunch of 13 Regular First Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For ake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.2553-2004. way of filing the present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the decision dated 30.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, (for short the ‘Reference Court’) whereby the reference petition filed on behalf of the respondents/ landowners for enhancement of compensation was partly allowed. , 2.36 acres of land, situated in Village Vide this common order, a bunch of 13 Regular First Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For 2004. way of filing the present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the decision dated 30.08.2004 passed by the learned Reference Court’); whereby the reference petition filed on behalf of the respondents/ landowners for enhancement of compensation was partly allowed. , 2.36 acres of land, situated in Village SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.09 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2553 Baswa, H.B. No. 98, Tehsil Hodal, District Faridabad, was acqui by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated 09.06.1998 (published on 12.06.1998) and 26.06.1998 (published on 24.07.1998), Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), respectively, for public purpos ‘construction of Baswa Link Drain (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 24.09.1998 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs. besides all other statutory benefits under the Act. 4. landowners filed which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 30.08.2004 enhancement of the market value by the respondents/ landowners and granting compensation awarded by LAC under the Act. 5. the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellant State as well as respondents/ landowners. 6. through the paper 7. 2553-2004 (O&M) & other connected cases Baswa, H.B. No. 98, Tehsil Hodal, District Faridabad, was acqui by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated 09.06.1998 (published on 12.06.1998) and 26.06.1998 (published on 24.07.1998), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), respectively, for public purpos construction of Baswa Link Drain’. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 24.09.1998 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs. besides all other statutory benefits under the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the respondents/ landowners filed reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 30.08.2004; partly enhancement of the market value by the respondents/ landowners granting an appreciation @ 25% over and above the compensation awarded by LAC besides all other statutory benefits under the Act. Aggrieved of the decision of the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellant State as well as respondents/ landowners. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book as well as the records. A perusal of the record shows that the sale deed dated & other connected cases [2] Baswa, H.B. No. 98, Tehsil Hodal, District Faridabad, was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated 09.06.1998 (published on 12.06.1998) and 26.06.1998 (published on issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), respectively, for public purpose i.e. for The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 24.09.1998 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.1,40,000/- per acre, besides all other statutory benefits under the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the respondents/ reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide partly accepting the plea for enhancement of the market value by the respondents/ landowners appreciation @ 25% over and above the besides all other statutory benefits Aggrieved of the decision of the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellant State I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone s the records. A perusal of the record shows that the sale deed dated red by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated 09.06.1998 (published on 12.06.1998) and 26.06.1998 (published on issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition e i.e. for The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 24.09.1998 assessed market per acre, Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the respondents/ reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide the plea for enhancement of the market value by the respondents/ landowners appreciation @ 25% over and above the besides all other statutory benefits Aggrieved of the decision of the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellant State I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone A perusal of the record shows that the sale deed dated SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.09 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2553 01.06.1998 (Ex.P1) vide which land measuring 7K Rs.3,50,000/ Rect. Nos.75 the acquired land formed part of Rect. No. 93, village Baswa, the then District Faridabad. Thus apparently, the abovementioned the same revenue estate. In such circ Court was required to take into account the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 01.06.1998 vide which 7K Rs.3,50,000/ wrongly discarded the same merely for the r comparative location and potential of the land forming part thereof and the acquired land was not proved on record. 8. produced by the respondents as Ex.R2 pertained to the period post notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand, was thus rightly discarded by the learned Reference Court and no interference is called for on this account. Accordingly, the market value of the acquired land while relying on the sale instance E Rs.3,56,688/ close proximity to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 9. instance 2553-2004 (O&M) & other connected cases 01.06.1998 (Ex.P1) vide which land measuring 7K Rs.3,50,000/- with base price per acre @ Rs.3,56,688/ Rect. Nos.75-76 of the revenue estate of Village the acquired land formed part of Rect. No. 93, village Baswa, the then District Faridabad. Thus apparently, the abovementioned two parcels of land were not located too far within the same revenue estate. In such circ Court was required to take into account the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 01.06.1998 vide which 7K- Rs.3,50,000/- with market price per acre was Rs.3,56,688/ wrongly discarded the same merely for the r comparative location and potential of the land forming part thereof and the acquired land was not proved on record. On the other hand, the sale instance dated 13.01.1999 produced by the respondents as Ex.R2 pertained to the period post otification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand, was thus rightly discarded by the learned Reference Court and no interference is called for on this account. Accordingly, the market value of the acquired land while relying on the sale instance E Rs.3,56,688/- per acre, especially when its date of execution is in close proximity to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Moreover, taking into account the fact that the sale instance dated 01.06.1998 (Ex.P1) perta & other connected cases [3] 01.06.1998 (Ex.P1) vide which land measuring 7K-17M was sold for with base price per acre @ Rs.3,56,688/-, consisted of 76 of the revenue estate of Village Baswa. Meanwhile, the acquired land formed part of Rect. No. 93, in revenue estate of village Baswa, the then District Faridabad. Thus apparently, the two parcels of land were not located too far within the same revenue estate. In such circumstances, learned Reference Court was required to take into account the sale instance Ex.P1 -17M of land was sold for with market price per acre was Rs.3,56,688/- and wrongly discarded the same merely for the reason that the comparative location and potential of the land forming part thereof and the acquired land was not proved on record. On the other hand, the sale instance dated 13.01.1999 produced by the respondents as Ex.R2 pertained to the period post otification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand, was thus rightly discarded by the learned Reference Court and no interference is called for on this account. Accordingly, the market value of the acquired land while relying on the sale instance Ex.P1 is assessed at per acre, especially when its date of execution is in close proximity to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Moreover, taking into account the fact that the sale 01.06.1998 (Ex.P1) pertained to 7K-17M of land and 17M was sold for , consisted of Baswa. Meanwhile, revenue estate of village Baswa, the then District Faridabad. Thus apparently, the two parcels of land were not located too far within umstances, learned Reference Court was required to take into account the sale instance Ex.P1 17M of land was sold for and eason that the comparative location and potential of the land forming part thereof On the other hand, the sale instance dated 13.01.1999 produced by the respondents as Ex.R2 pertained to the period post- otification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand, was thus rightly discarded by the learned Reference Court and no interference is called for on this account. Accordingly, the market value of the x.P1 is assessed at per acre, especially when its date of execution is in close proximity to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Moreover, taking into account the fact that the sale 17M of land and SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.09 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2553 the acquired land deduction the land comprised in sale deed Ex. P1. Further, since the acquisition in the case(s the public purpose, namely, ‘ and as such the respondents did not suffer any loss towards optimum utilization of the area acquired and also did not incur expenditure towards providing green belts, roads and community buildings etc., no cut towards development costs needs to be imposed. discussion made hereinabove, the market value of the land as on the date of noti instance 01.06.1998 (Ex.P1) acre. 10. counsel for the respondent of the market value awarded in favour of landowners towards severance being excessive; in the humble opinion of the Court, no merits can be found with the same records, copy of depicts the bifurcation of the land holdings owned by the landowners. Taking into account that severance causes reduction in value of remaining land due to alteration in access, useability, irregularity of 2553-2004 (O&M) & other connected cases the acquired land was measuring 18K deduction was warranted even on account of the smallness of area of the land comprised in sale deed Ex. P1. Further, since the acquisition in the case(s) in hand has been carried out for the public purpose, namely, ‘for construction of Baswa Link Drain and as such the respondents did not suffer any loss towards optimum utilization of the area acquired and also did not incur expenditure towards providing of additional infrastructural amenities like parks, green belts, roads and community buildings etc., no cut towards development costs needs to be imposed. discussion made hereinabove, the market value of the land as on the date of notification issued under Section 4 instance 01.06.1998 (Ex.P1) is assessed to be @ With respect to the contention raised on behalf of the counsel for the respondent-State pertaining to the damages @ 25% the market value awarded in favour of landowners towards severance being excessive; in the humble opinion of the Court, no merits can be found with the same records, copy of aks shajra has been proved as Ex.P2 which clearly picts the bifurcation of the land holdings owned by the landowners. Taking into account that severance causes reduction in value of remaining land due to alteration in access, useability, irregularity of & other connected cases [4] measuring 18K-13M, consequently, no on account of the smallness of area of the land comprised in sale deed Ex. P1. Further, in the given facts ) in hand has been carried out for for construction of Baswa Link Drain and as such the respondents did not suffer any loss towards optimum utilization of the area acquired and also did not incur expenditure of additional infrastructural amenities like parks, green belts, roads and community buildings etc., no cut towards development costs needs to be imposed. Thus, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the market value of the land as on the fication issued under Section 4 as derived from the sale is assessed to be @ Rs.3,56,688/- per With respect to the contention raised on behalf of the State pertaining to the damages @ 25% the market value awarded in favour of landowners towards severance being excessive; in the humble opinion of the Court, no merits can be found with the same, especially, when as per the has been proved as Ex.P2 which clearly picts the bifurcation of the land holdings owned by the landowners. Taking into account that severance causes reduction in value of remaining land due to alteration in access, useability, irregularity of 13M, consequently, no on account of the smallness of area of in the given facts ) in hand has been carried out for for construction of Baswa Link Drain’ and as such the respondents did not suffer any loss towards optimum utilization of the area acquired and also did not incur expenditure of additional infrastructural amenities like parks, green belts, roads and community buildings etc., no cut towards Thus, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the market value of the land as on the sale per With respect to the contention raised on behalf of the State pertaining to the damages @ 25% the market value awarded in favour of landowners towards severance being excessive; in the humble opinion of the Court, no when as per the has been proved as Ex.P2 which clearly picts the bifurcation of the land holdings owned by the landowners. Taking into account that severance causes reduction in value of remaining land due to alteration in access, useability, irregularity of SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.09 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2553 shape and loss of agricultural viability etc., the b awarded in favour 11. though some of the respondents have not approached this Court by way of filing any ap objections for seeking further enhancement of compensation, however, in the wake of enhancement been awarded by this Court in favour of similarly situated landowners, in relation to the same acquisition proceedings, it would be a travesty of powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC are not invoked and similar enhancement is not awarded in favour of the respondents landowners being identically placed grant of just and fair compensation. placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Pralhad and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported as paragraphs thereof are reproduced hereunder: 2553-2004 (O&M) & other connected cases shape and loss of agricultural viability etc., the b awarded in favour of landowners calls for no interference. At this stage, it may be relevant to mention here that though some of the respondents-landowners in the present case have not approached this Court by way of filing any ap objections for seeking further enhancement of compensation, however, in the wake of enhancement been awarded by this Court in favour of similarly situated landowners, in relation to the same acquisition proceedings, it would be a travesty of powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC are not invoked and similar enhancement is not awarded in favour of the respondents landowners being identically placed so as to maintain parity besides grant of just and fair compensation. placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pralhad and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported as 2010(3) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 653 paragraphs thereof are reproduced hereunder: “20. In Vanarsi v. Ramphal, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1989, this Court construing the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of Civil Procedure Code held that this provision confers powers of the widest amplitude on the appellate court so as to do complete justice between the parties. This Court further held that such power is unfettered by considerations as to what is the subject matter of appeal or & other connected cases [5] shape and loss of agricultural viability etc., the benefit of severance calls for no interference. At this stage, it may be relevant to mention here that landowners in the present case have not approached this Court by way of filing any appeal or cross objections for seeking further enhancement of compensation, however, in the wake of enhancement been awarded by this Court in favour of similarly situated landowners, in relation to the same acquisition proceedings, it would be a travesty of justice, in case, the powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC are not invoked and similar enhancement is not awarded in favour of the respondents so as to maintain parity besides Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pralhad and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2010(3) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 653 and relevant paragraphs thereof are reproduced hereunder:- In Vanarsi v. Ramphal, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1989, this Court construing the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of Civil Procedure Code held that this provision confers powers of the widest amplitude on the appellate court so as to do complete justice n the parties. This Court further held that such power is unfettered by considerations as to what is the subject matter of appeal or enefit of severance At this stage, it may be relevant to mention here that landowners in the present case peal or cross- objections for seeking further enhancement of compensation, however, in the wake of enhancement been awarded by this Court in favour of similarly situated landowners, in relation to the same justice, in case, the powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC are not invoked and similar enhancement is not awarded in favour of the respondents- so as to maintain parity besides n this regard can be placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pralhad and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another”, and relevant In Vanarsi v. Ramphal, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1989, this Court construing the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of Civil Procedure Code held that this provision confers powers of the widest amplitude on the appellate court so as to do complete justice n the parties. This Court further held that such power is unfettered by considerations as to what is the subject matter of appeal or SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.09 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2553 by Hon’ble Division Bench of Madras High Court in case of Srinivasan vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Department, Tirupattur Relevant paragraph thereof is reproduced hereunder: 2553-2004 (O&M) & other connected cases who has filed the appeal or whether the appeal is being dismissed, allowed or disposed of while modifying the judgments app against. The learned Judges held that one of the objects in conferring such power is to avoid inconsistency, inequity and inequality in granting reliefs and the overriding consideration is achieving the ends of justice. The learned Judges also held t exercised subject to three limitations: firstly, this power cannot be exercised to the prejudice of a person who is not a party before the Court; secondly, this power cannot be exercised in favour of a claim which has been given up or lost; and thirdly, the power cannot be exercised when such part of the decree which has been permitted to become final by a party is reversed to the advantage of that party. (See para 15 at pg. (See para 15 at pg. 1997).” Furthermore, the aforementioned decision was followed by Hon’ble Division Bench of Madras High Court in case of Srinivasan vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Department, Tirupattur” reported as Relevant paragraph thereof is reproduced hereunder: “14. The ratio laid down in the above decision squarely applies to the case on hand. Once the Court has taken the view that claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation, he should not be denied the same on the mere technical grounds of non-filing of the appeal & other connected cases [6] who has filed the appeal or whether the appeal is being dismissed, allowed or disposed of while modifying the judgments appealed against. The learned Judges held that one of the objects in conferring such power is to avoid inconsistency, inequity and inequality in granting reliefs and the overriding consideration is achieving the ends of justice. The learned Judges also held that the power can be exercised subject to three limitations: firstly, this power cannot be exercised to the prejudice of a person who is not a party before the Court; secondly, this power cannot be exercised in favour of a claim which has been given up or lost; and thirdly, the power cannot be exercised when such part of the decree which has been permitted to become final by a party is reversed to the advantage of that party. (See para 15 at Furthermore, the aforementioned decision was followed by Hon’ble Division Bench of Madras High Court in case of “P.R. Srinivasan vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare ” reported as 2013(20) RCR (Civil) 624 Relevant paragraph thereof is reproduced hereunder:- The ratio laid down in the above decision squarely applies to the case on hand. Once the Court has taken the view that claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation, he should not be denied the same on the mere technical grounds filing of the appeal by the claimant. who has filed the appeal or whether the appeal is being dismissed, allowed or disposed of ealed against. The learned Judges held that one of the objects in conferring such power is to avoid inconsistency, inequity and inequality in granting reliefs and the overriding consideration is achieving the ends of justice. The learned hat the power can be exercised subject to three limitations: firstly, this power cannot be exercised to the prejudice of a person who is not a party before the Court; secondly, this power cannot be exercised in favour of a claim which has been given up or lost; and thirdly, the power cannot be exercised when such part of the decree which has been permitted to become final by a party is reversed to the advantage of that party. (See para 15 at Furthermore, the aforementioned decision was followed “P.R. Dravidar Welfare 2013(20) RCR (Civil) 624. The ratio laid down in the above decision squarely applies to the case on hand. Once the Court has taken the view that claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation, he should not be denied the same on the mere technical grounds by the claimant. SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.09 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2553 12. benefit of aw Rs.3,56,688 their favour @ 25% of the market value as assessed by this Court The respondents other statutory benefits and interest under the 1894 Act besides, grant of interest on solatium as well. 13. hereby dismissed respondent(s) 14. unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the presen appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. 15. disposed of. 02.02.2026 sanjay 2553-2004 (O&M) & other connected cases Notwithstanding that the claimant has not preferred any appeal, to award fair and adequate compensation to the claimant, this review application has to be allowed.” Accordingly, all the landowners shall be entitled for benefit of award of enhanced market value at the rate of Rs.3,56,688/- per acre besides damages against severance of land in favour @ 25% of the market value as assessed by this Court The respondents-landowners shall also be entitled for award of all statutory benefits and interest under the 1894 Act besides, grant of interest on solatium as well. All the appeals filed at the instance of appellant hereby dismissed and appeals preferred at the instance of the respondent(s)-landowner(s) are hereby partly allowed. Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the presen appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 02.02.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? & other connected cases [7] Notwithstanding that the claimant has not preferred any appeal, to award fair and adequate compensation to the claimant, this review application has to be allowed.” Accordingly, all the landowners shall be entitled for ard of enhanced market value at the rate of damages against severance of land in favour @ 25% of the market value as assessed by this Court landowners shall also be entitled for award of all statutory benefits and interest under the 1894 Act besides, All the appeals filed at the instance of appellant-State are and appeals preferred at the instance of the e hereby partly allowed. Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE ing/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No Notwithstanding that the claimant has not preferred any appeal, to award fair and adequate compensation to the claimant, this review Accordingly, all the landowners shall be entitled for ard of enhanced market value at the rate of damages against severance of land in favour @ 25% of the market value as assessed by this Court. landowners shall also be entitled for award of all statutory benefits and interest under the 1894 Act besides, State are and appeals preferred at the instance of the Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at t decision by moving Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.09 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2553 SR. NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 02.02.2026 sanjay 2553-2004 (O&M) & other connected cases SR. NO. RFA NO. RFA-2554-2004 (O&M) RFA-2555-2004 (O&M) RFA-2556-2004 (O&M) RFA-2557-2004 (O&M) RFA-2558-2004 (O&M) RFA-2559-2004 (O&M) RFA-2560-2004 (O&M) RFA-1945-2005 (O&M) RFA-1946-2005 (O&M) 10. RFA-1947-2005 (O&M) 11. RFA-2147-2005 (O&M) 12. RFA-2148-2005 (O&M) 02.02.2026 & other connected cases [8] 2004 (O&M) 2004 (O&M) 2004 (O&M) 2004 (O&M) 2004 (O&M) 2004 (O&M) 2004 (O&M) (O&M) 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.09 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document