1 195 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RAM KANWAR AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Sandeep Prakash Chah Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate with Ms. Surbhi Rana, HARKESH MANUJA CM No.108-CI of 2025 Prayer made in this application is for seeking permission to lead additional evidence by placing on record some relevant document(s) viz. photocopies of the Register maintained by the office of D.R.O. LAC, Rohtak and application with report dated A-1 and A-2 respectively Notice of the application. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents-State whereas, Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and does objection to the prayer made in the application. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties; the authenticity of the documents sought to be produced not being in dispute at the hands of respondent Nos.3 & 4; taking into account the findin by the learned Reference Court wherein the claim of the appellants landowners was to be produced are very much required for the complete and effective adjudication of the appeal(s) in han the rights of the parties in an effective manner; otherwise also, the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: RAM KANWAR AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Sandeep Prakash Chahar, Advocate for the Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate with Ms. Surbhi Rana, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4. **** MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CI of 2025 Prayer made in this application is for seeking permission to lead additional evidence by placing on record some relevant document(s) viz. photocopies of the Register maintained by the office of D.R.O. LAC, Rohtak and application with report dated respectively. Notice of the application. r. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of State whereas, Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and does objection to the prayer made in the application. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties; the authenticity of the documents sought to be produced not being in dispute at the hands of respondent Nos.3 & 4; taking into account the findin by the learned Reference Court wherein the claim of the appellants was denied being barred by limitation, the documents sought to be produced are very much required for the complete and effective adjudication of the appeal(s) in hand. It would help the Court to decide the rights of the parties in an effective manner; otherwise also, the RFA-31-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-31-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 16, 2026 ......Appellants ......Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate with respondent Nos.3 and 4. Prayer made in this application is for seeking permission to lead additional evidence by placing on record some relevant document(s) viz. photocopies of the Register maintained by the office of D.R.O.-cum- LAC, Rohtak and application with report dated 03.09.2024 as Annexures r. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of State whereas, Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and does not raise any objection to the prayer made in the application. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties; the authenticity of the documents sought to be produced not being in dispute at the hands of respondent Nos.3 & 4; taking into account the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court wherein the claim of the appellants- denied being barred by limitation, the documents sought to be produced are very much required for the complete and effective d. It would help the Court to decide the rights of the parties in an effective manner; otherwise also, the (O&M) April 16, 2026 Prayer made in this application is for seeking permission to lead additional evidence by placing on record some relevant document(s) - .2024 as Annexures r. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of State whereas, Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate accepts not raise any Having heard learned Counsel for the parties; the authenticity of the documents sought to be produced not being in dispute at the gs recorded - denied being barred by limitation, the documents sought to be produced are very much required for the complete and effective d. It would help the Court to decide the rights of the parties in an effective manner; otherwise also, the TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.04.24 17:30 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 RFA-31-2025 (O&M) document sought to be produced are from the records of the respondent(s) only which they suppressed before the learned Reference Court. Accordingly the prayer is allowed and the same are taken on record as additional evidence. CM No.107-CI of 2025 This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 2964 days in filing the present appeal. Notice in the present case was issued on 29.09.2025, however, no reply has been filed despite sufficient opportunity having been granted to the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the application. As a matter of fact, on the reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of appellants-landowners, previously an award passed by the learned Reference Court was challenged before this Court by way of RFA No. 10772 of 2014, however, the said RFA was withdrawn by the appellant(s)-landowner(s) vide order dated 22.08.2016 with liberty to move Review Application before the learned Reference Court. Thereafter, the reference petition(s) preferred by the appellant(s)- landowner(s) have again been dismissed being barred by limitation without appreciating the receipts/records maintained by the office of DRO-cum-LAC, Rohtak about filing of objections by the appellant(s)- landowner(s) under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No complaints-cum-receipts dated 22.09.2009, as referred to in the impugned award as well as application and report dated 03.09.2024 was placed on record by the respondents. On the other hand, the documents taken on record in the form of additional evidence as Annexures A-1 and A-2 have neither been referred to, nor dealt with, by the learned Reference Court. In such circumstances, there being no delay on the part of the applicants-appellants/landowners while preferring objections under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which as per Annexure A-1 were within time, the present appeal preferred at the instance of applicants-appellants was not to be held being barred by limitation, TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.04.24 17:30 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 RFA-31-2025 (O&M) especially when they were diligently pursuing their remedies. In fact, it is the learned Reference Court which, on account of the oversight, failed to take into consideration the correct records of receipts of reference petition(s)-objections filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and thus, the delay was not to be attributed to the applicants- appellants/landowners by putting them to any disadvantageous position. Moreover, no evidence was led by the respondents so as to establish that any notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was ever served upon the appellants-landowners or any copy of the award passed under Section 11 thereof was forwarded to them. Even no evidence was brought on record by the respondents to show that the amount of compensation assessed under the award passed by the LAC was disbursed to the appellants-landowners before the filing of reference petition(s). Concededly, the other similarly situated landowners pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings have already been held entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation pertaining to the acquired land falling in the same revenue estate, i.e. Village Garhi Bohar, District Rohtak, in view of judgment/order dated 14.11.2022 passed by this Court in a bunch of appeals, lead case of which was RFA-10335-2014, titled “Malho and others Versus State of Haryana and others”. Based thereupon and applying the principle of parity, besides grant of just and fair compensation, the landowners/applicants being similarly situated are held entitled for grant of similar amount of compensation. In view of the discussion made hereinabove as well as from the contents of the application(s), the prayer is allowed and delay of 2964 days in filing the present appeal(s), as mentioned above, is hereby condoned. However, the applicants shall be entitled for interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal as well; as in the present case, admittedly, the applicants-appellants were not responsible for any delay and were even continuously pursuing their claim through different proceedings. RFA No.31 of 2025 (O&M) [1]. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the Award dated 26.08.2014 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Rohtak (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’). TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.04.24 17:30 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 RFA-31-2025 (O&M) [2]. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment dated 14.11.2022 passed by this Court in a bunch of appeals, lead case of which was RFA-10335-2014, titled “Malho and others Versus State of Haryana and others” whereby the market value on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act was assessed @ Rs.41,38,750/- per acre. [3]. Learned counsel for the respondents are not in a position to controvert the above factual position. [4]. After going through the judgment referred to above as well as the present case, this Court agrees with the assertion made by the learned counsel for the appellants. [5]. Consequently, the present appeal(s) are disposed of in the same terms as Malho’s case (supra) and the landowners are held entitled to market value @ Rs.41,38,750/- besides granting all other statutory benefits under the Act. [6]. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 16.04.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.04.24 17:30 I agree to specified portions of this document