1 137 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ASHWANI KUMAR THE PUNJAB STATE KISHORI LAL THE PUNJAB STATE CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Mr. Nitish Kaushal, Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. HARKESH MANUJA Vide this common order, aforesaid two Regular First Appeal(s) shall stand disposed of. For convenience, the facts are drawn from RFA-2640 2. By way of award dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Court of le District Judge, Gurdaspur 3. Briefly stating, certain land owned by the forming part of revenue estate of village Gurdaspur (Hadbast No.337) came to be acquired vide notification dated 21.05.2004 Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) followed by notification dated 07.02.2025 issued under Section 6 thereof. Subsequently, award dated 22.03.2007 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) was assessed at Rs.15,00,000/ Rs.12,00,000/- acre for the rest of the land. RFA-2640 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: ASHWANI KUMAR Versus THE PUNJAB STATE AND OTHERS Versus STATE AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate with Mr. Nitish Kaushal, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Vide this common order, aforesaid two Regular First Appeal(s) shall stand disposed of. For convenience, the facts are drawn 2640-2016. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to an award dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Court of le District Judge, Gurdaspur-cum-Reference Court. Briefly stating, certain land owned by the forming part of revenue estate of village Gurdaspur (Hadbast No.337) came to be acquired vide notification dated 21.05.2004 Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) followed by notification dated 07.02.2025 issued under Section 6 thereof. Subsequently, award dated 22.03.2007 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide which the compensation was assessed at Rs.15,00,000/- per acre for land up for land upto depth of 2 to 6 acres and Rs.10,00,000/ acre for the rest of the land. 2640-2016 and RFA-2735-2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-2640-2016 Date of Decision: March 05, 2026 ......Appellant ......Respondents RFA-2735-2016 ......Appellant ......Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate with Advocate for the appellants-landowners. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Vide this common order, aforesaid two Regular First Appeal(s) shall stand disposed of. For convenience, the facts are drawn present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to an award dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Court of learned Additional Reference Court. Briefly stating, certain land owned by the appellant-landowner forming part of revenue estate of village Gurdaspur (Hadbast No.337) came to be acquired vide notification dated 21.05.2004 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) followed by notification dated 07.02.2025 issued under Section 6 thereof. Subsequently, award dated 22.03.2007 was passed by the Land vide which the compensation per acre for land up to depth of 1 killa, for land upto depth of 2 to 6 acres and Rs.10,00,000/- per 2016 March 05, 2026 2016 Vide this common order, aforesaid two Regular First Appeal(s) shall stand disposed of. For convenience, the facts are drawn present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to an arned Additional landowner forming part of revenue estate of village Gurdaspur (Hadbast No.337) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) followed by notification dated 07.02.2025 issued under Section 6 thereof. Subsequently, award dated 22.03.2007 was passed by the Land vide which the compensation to depth of 1 killa, per TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.13 17:20 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 RFA-2640-2016 and RFA-2735-2016 4. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant-landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act by moving their objections before the LAC on 30.07.2007. 5. Learned Reference Court dismissed the reference petition to be barred by limitation while holding that since the appellant-landowner was aware of the acquisition proceedings having filed his objections under Section 5-A of the Act and the award under Section 11 of the Act was passed by LAC on 22.03.2007, the objections under Section 18(2)(b) were required to be filed within 6 weeks therefrom i.e. before 02.05.2007. It was thus recorded that objections filed under Section 18 of the Act on 30.07.2007 before LAC were clearly barred by limitation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. 7. A perusal of record shows that in pursuance to an award passed by the LAC in exercise of power under Section 11 of the Act on 22.03.2007, the petition under Section 18(2)(b) of the Act by the appellant-landowner was preferred on 13.07.2007. The Reference petition was held to be barred by limitation merely for the reason that the appellant-landowner being aware of the initiation of acquisition proceedings, preferred his petition under Section 5-A of the Act, as such the objections under Section18(2)(b) of the Act were to be preferred within 6 weeks of the passing of the Award dated 22.03.2007. 8. In the humble opinion of this Court, the aforesaid reasoning cannot be sustained in the given facts and circumstances. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to the effect that any representative of appellant-landowner was present at the time of passing of the award, further, no document has been produced on record to show that the appellant-landowner was ever served with any notice about passing of the award or any copy thereof was ever served upon him in terms of Section 18(2)(b) of the Act. In such circumstances, the learned Reference Court went wrong having dismissed the objections preferred at the instance of appellant-landowner to be barred by limitation. 9. Thus, the said finding being unsustainable in the given facts and circumstances is therefore set aside. Resultantly, the objections TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.13 17:20 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 RFA-2640-2016 and RFA-2735-2016 preferred at the instance of appellant-landowner are held to be within limitation in terms of Section 18(2) of the Act. 10. With respect to the assessment of market value, both the parties are ad idem that the claim of the appellant-landowner is squarely covered by decision rendered by this Court in RFA-641-2016 titled as “House and Urban Development Department (PUDA) Punjab Vs. Bhan Singh and Ors.” 11. Accordingly, the appellant-landowner is held entitled to market value of Rs.24,97,265/- per acre as awarded by this Court in case of “Bhan Singh” (Supra). 12. The present appeal thus, stands disposed of. 13. 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 applications before the learned Executing Court. 14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 05.03.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.13 17:20 I agree to specified portions of this document