1 137 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH PREM SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Vipul Mahajan, Sr. Ms. Manju Fulara, Advocate Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. HARKESH MANUJA By way of award dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur 2. Briefly stating, certain land owned by the landowner(s) forming part of (Hadbast No.337) District Gurdaspur 21.05.2004 issued under Section 4 of the Lan short ‘the Act’) followed by notification dated 07.02.20 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 depth of 1 killa, Rs.12,00,000/ killas and Rs.10,00,000/ 3. Aggrieved thereof, the reference under Section 18 of the Act by moving their objections before the LAC on 08.05.2007. 4. The learned petition holding appellant(s)-landowner(s) having filed their RFA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Vipul Mahajan, Sr. Advocate Ms. Manju Fulara, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to an award dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur-cum-Reference Court. Briefly stating, certain land owned by the forming part of the revenue estate (Hadbast No.337) and village Nabipur (Hadbast No.339), Tehsil and District Gurdaspur came to be acquired vide notification dated 21.05.2004 issued under Section 4 of the Lan short ‘the Act’) followed by notification dated 07.02.20 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/ depth of 1 killa, Rs.12,00,000/- per acre for land upto depth of 2 to 6 and Rs.10,00,000/- per acre for the rest of the land. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant(s) nder Section 18 of the Act by moving their objections before the LAC on 08.05.2007. The learned Reference Court dismissed the reference holding it to be barred by limitation while landowner(s) were aware of the acquisition proceedings their objections under Section 5 RFA-2514-2016 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-2514-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 05, 2026 .....Appellants ......Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate with for the appellants-landowners. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. 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(s)- revenue estates of village Gurdaspur and village Nabipur (Hadbast No.339), Tehsil and 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 07.02.2005 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 assessed at Rs.15,00,000/- per acre for land up to for land upto depth of 2 to 6 per acre for the rest of the land. appellant(s)-landowner(s) sought nder Section 18 of the Act by moving their objections before Reference Court dismissed the reference to be barred by limitation while stating that since the of the acquisition proceedings objections under Section 5-A of the Act and as the (O&M) March 05, 2026 present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to an award dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Court of learned Additional - of village Gurdaspur and village Nabipur (Hadbast No.339), Tehsil and came to be acquired vide notification dated d Acquisition Act, 1894 (for 5 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 per acre for land up to for land upto depth of 2 to 6 sought nder Section 18 of the Act by moving their objections before Reference Court dismissed the reference that since the of the acquisition proceedings the TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.19 09:35 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 RFA-2514-2016 (O&M) 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 08.05.2007 before LAC were clearly barred by limitation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. 6. 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(s)-landowner(s) was preferred on 08.05.2007. The Reference petition was held to be barred by limitation merely for the reason that the appellant(s)-landowner(s) being aware of the initiation of acquisition proceedings having preferred objections under Section 5-A of the Act were required to prefer the objections under Section18(2)(b) of the Act within 6 weeks of the passing of the Award dated 22.03.2007. 7. In the humble opinion of this Court, the aforesaid reasoning cannot be sustained in the given facts and circumstances. There is no evidence on record to the effect that either the appellant(s)-landowner(s) or any of the representative was present at the time of passing of the award. Further, no document was produced on record to show that the appellant(s)-landowner(s) were ever served with any notice about passing of the award or any copy thereof, 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(s)- landowner(s) to be barred by limitation. 8. Thus, the said finding being unsustainable in the given facts and circumstances is, therefore, set aside. Resultantly, the objections preferred at the instance of appellant(s)-landowner(s) are held to be within limitation in terms of Section 18(2) of the Act. 9. With respect to the assessment of market value, both the parties are ad idem that the claim of the appellant(s)-landowner(s) is squarely covered by decision dated 04.04.2025 rendered by this Court in RFA-641-2016 titled as “House and Urban Development Department (PUDA) Punjab Vs. Bhan Singh and Ors.” TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.19 09:35 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 RFA-2514-2016 (O&M) 10. Accordingly, the appellant(s)-landowner(s) are held entitled to the market value of Rs.24,97,265/- per acre along with all other statutory benefits, as awarded by this Court in case of “Bhan Singh” (Supra). 11. The present appeal thus, stands disposed of. 12. 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. 13. 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 2026.03.19 09:35 I agree to specified portions of this document