RFA-2464 116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Vasdev State of Haryana and another CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) the decision dated 22.07.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, hereinafter referred to as whereby reference petition preferred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for appellant/ landowner was dismissed for want of evidence. 2. through the paper 3. same acquisition 2464-2000 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: Versus State of Haryana and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Madan Pal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By filing the present appeal, the decision dated 22.07.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, hereinafter referred to as whereby reference petition preferred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the 1894 Act’ at the instance of appellant/ landowner was dismissed for want of evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. A perusal of the record shows that with respect to the same acquisition proceedings which commenced IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-2464-2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.12.2025 …….Appellant Versus ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. By filing the present appeal, challenge has been laid to the decision dated 22.07.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, hereinafter referred to as ‘Reference Court whereby reference petition preferred under Section 18 of the Land short ‘the 1894 Act’ at the instance of appellant/ landowner was dismissed for want of evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone A perusal of the record shows that with respect to the proceedings which commenced vide notification challenge has been laid to the decision dated 22.07.1999 passed by the learned Additional Reference Court’, whereby reference petition preferred under Section 18 of the Land short ‘the 1894 Act’ at the instance of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone A perusal of the record shows that with respect to the vide notification SANJAY GUPTA 2025.12.02 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2464 dated 23.02.1989 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act followed by notification dated 22.02.1990 issued under Section 6 thereof pertaining to the revenue estate of Village market value later 1991-1992 dated 21.02.1992 already stands determined finally by t per sq. yard vide decision dated No. 31/C others Vs. State of Haryana and another 3. learned State counsel. 4. in the same te benefits including interest as well as interest on solatium as prescribed in 1894 Act 5. disposed of. 01.12.2025 sanjay 2464-2000 (O&M) [2] dated 23.02.1989 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act followed by notification dated 22.02.1990 issued under Section 6 thereof pertaining to the revenue estate of Village value later been assessed vide award No.12 for the year 1992 dated 21.02.1992, the compensation/ market value already stands determined finally by t per sq. yard vide decision dated 31.08.2007 in Review Application No. 31/C1 of 2007 in RFA No. 1379 others Vs. State of Haryana and another The said factual position learned State counsel. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is disposed of in the same terms as Nand Lal’s case (supra) along with all statutory benefits including interest as well as interest on solatium as prescribed in 1894 Act (Amended upto All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? dated 23.02.1989 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act followed by notification dated 22.02.1990 issued under Section 6 thereof pertaining to the revenue estate of Village Patti Insar, Panipat and the assessed vide award No.12 for the year he compensation/ market value already stands determined finally by this Court at the rate of Rs.139/ 31.08.2007 in Review Application 1 of 2007 in RFA No. 1379-1994, titled as Nand Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and another. factual position has not been disputed by the In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is disposed of case (supra) along with all statutory benefits including interest as well as interest on solatium as o-date). All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No dated 23.02.1989 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act followed by notification dated 22.02.1990 issued under Section 6 thereof Patti Insar, Panipat and the assessed vide award No.12 for the year he compensation/ market value his Court at the rate of Rs.139/- 31.08.2007 in Review Application Nand Lal and has not been disputed by the In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is disposed of case (supra) along with all statutory benefits including interest as well as interest on solatium as All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2025.12.02 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document