1 135 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RESHAM SINGH AND ORS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. R.K. Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. Ankush Chauhan, Mr. Parminder Singh, Mr. Mr. Sumit Kalyan, Advocate for Mr. Bhanu Partap Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1 in RFA HARKESH MANUJA Vide this common order, a batch of 8 Regular First Appeals shall stand disposed of, details wher the judgment. For convenience, the facts are drawn from RFA 2. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to award dated 02.01.2014 passed by Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Reference Court’) whereby, reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of have been dismissed being barred by limitation. 3. In the present case, certain land owned by the landowners, forming part of and District Hoshiarpur came to be acquired vide notifications dated 07.01.2005 and 0 RFA-598-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-598-2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: RESHAM SINGH AND ORS Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. R.K. Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. Ankush Chauhan, Advocate Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Sumit Kalyan, Advocate for Mr. Bhanu Partap Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1 in RFA-10437-2014. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Vide this common order, a batch of 8 Regular First Appeals disposed of, details whereof are mentioned in the footno the judgment. For convenience, the facts are drawn from RFA By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to award dated 02.01.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Reference Court’) whereby, reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of have been dismissed being barred by limitation. In the present case, certain land owned by the , forming part of the revenue estate of Village Singhpur, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur came to be acquired vide notifications dated 07.01.2005 and 04.05.2005 issued under Section and other connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH and other connected cases Date of Decision: February 12, 2026 ......Appellants ......Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Mr. R.K. Chauhan, Advocate with Advocate for the appellants. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Bhanu Partap Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1 Vide this common order, a batch of 8 Regular First Appeals eof are mentioned in the footnote of the judgment. For convenience, the facts are drawn from RFA-598-2015. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to award learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Reference Court’) whereby, reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of appellants-landowners have been dismissed being barred by limitation. In the present case, certain land owned by the appellants- revenue estate of Village Singhpur, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur came to be acquired vide notifications dated 4.05.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land and other connected cases February 12, 2026 Vide this common order, a batch of 8 Regular First Appeals e of By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to award learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Reference Court’) whereby, landowners - revenue estate of Village Singhpur, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur came to be acquired vide notifications dated of the Land TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.16 17:10 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 RFA-598-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) followed by award No.18 dated 29.03.2007. The acquisition was carried out for the public purpose namely, for construction of scheme Kandi Canal Stage-II in District Hoshiarpur. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) assessed the market value at the following rates:- 1. Chahi Rs.2250.00 per marla 2. Banjar Qadim Rs.906.25 per marla 3. Jangi Drakhtam Rs.1343.75 per marla 4. Gair Mumkin Abadi Rs.13000.00 per marla 5. G.M. Rasta Rs.906.25 per marla 6. G.M. Choe Rs.468.75 per marla. 4. Upon receipt of the compensation amount in terms of award passed by LAC, the appellants-landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act. The details of the date of receipt of compensation along with dates of filing of land reference(s) are as follows:- Sr. No. Case No. Date of receipt of compensation Date of filing of land reference 1. 07/2011 17.08.07 12.06.2008 2. 03/2011 17.08.07 12.06.2008 3. 04/2011 17.08.07 12.06.2008 4. 05/2011 17.08.07 12.06.2008 5. 06/2011 17.08.07 12.06.2008 6. 08/2011 17.08.07 12.06.2008 7. 09/2011 17.08.07 12.06.2008 8. 10/2011 17.08.07 12.06.2008 5. In view of the fact that the land reference(s) were preferred at the instance of appellants-landowners after about 10 months of receipt of compensation in terms of award passed under Section 11 of the Act, the learned Reference Court dismissed all the reference(s) being barred by limitation. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal(s) have been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants-landowners submits that in the present case, neither any notice in terms of Section 12(2) of the TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.16 17:10 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 RFA-598-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases Act was ever served upon appellants-landowners, nor they were even supplied the copy of award and as such, the reference petitions preferred at the their instance were required to be treated within limitation. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent(s)-State submits that once the appellants-landowners had received the amount of compensation in terms of award, they were estopped from raising any such plea with respect to the non-receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act or the copy of the award and thus, prays that the present appeals were to be rejected, in absence of any illegality or perversity in the award passed by the learned Reference Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the respondent(s)-State. 9. In the present case, a perusal of the record shows that the appellants-landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act after about 10 months of receipt of compensation in terms of the award passed under Section 11 of the Act by the LAC. Having received the amount of compensation under the award, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants-landowners to raise objection about non-compliance of Section 12(2) of the Act. The only purpose of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act to the appellants-landowners is to make them aware of the passing of the award and also the contents thereof. Thus, once the appellants-landowners had received the amount of compensation in August 2007, in terms of the award, they were presumed to be having knowledge of the contents thereof and as such, the non-service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act or even the copy of the award was not to be termed as fatal to their cause. TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.16 17:10 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 RFA-598-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases 10. In such circumstances, finding no illegality or perversity with the award passed by the Reference Court, the present appeal(s) being devoid of merits are thus, dismissed. However, since the reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of appellants-landowners are rejected being barred by limitation, they shall be at liberty to avail their other statutory remedies, if at all, in law. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 12.02.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Other connected cases RFA-599-2015 RFA-8191-2014 RFA-8225-2014 RFA-8226-2014 RFA-8227-2014 RFA-8228-2014 RFA-441-2015 TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.16 17:10 I agree to specified portions of this document