RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Item No.219+231+110 (93 cases) RFA-964-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructural Development Corporation Limited …Appellant Versus Raj Pal Singh and others …Respondents With Sr. No. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s) 2. RFA-952-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Mamta Rani and others 3. RFA-953-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ranjit Singh and others 4. RFA-954-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Surjeet Singh and others 5. RFA-955-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Lekh Raj and others 6. RFA-956-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Kumari Alankrita Aggarwal and another 7. RFA-957-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Jaswant Singh and another 8. RFA-958-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Meena Garg and another 9. RFA-959-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Raj Kumar and another 10. RFA-960-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Jaswinder Singh alias Sant and another 11. RFA-961-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Paramjit Singh and others 12. RFA-962-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Som Nath and another 13. RFA-963-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Jabbar Singh and others 14. RFA-965-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Pardeep Singh and others 15. RFA-966-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Pritam Singh and others 16. RFA-967-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Urmila Devi and another 17. RFA-968-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Kanta and another 18. RFA-969-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Jagjit Singh and others 19. RFA-970-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Jaipal Singh and others 20. RFA-971-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Harbans Singh and others 21. RFA-972-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Des Raj and others 22. RFA-973-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Meenu Gupta and another 23. RFA-974-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Gurbachan Singh and others 24. RFA-975-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Manjit Singh and others 25. RFA-976-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Onkar Singh and others 26. RFA-977-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Sahab Singh and others 27. RFA-978-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Tejo and others 28. RFA-979-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Swapna Garg and another 29. RFA-980-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Kirti Sharma and another 30. RFA-981-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Arun Kumar Jain and another 31. RFA-982-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Sandeep Singh and others 32. RFA-983-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Amarjit Singh and others 33. RFA-984-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Anup Sharma and others 34. RFA-985-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Surjit Singh and others 35. RFA-986-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Lakhmir Singh and others 36. RFA-987-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Sudesh and another 37. RFA-988-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Nirmal Singh and others 38. RFA-989-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Dayal Chand and others MOHIT KUMAR 2026.09.11 16:49 I am the author of this document RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -2- Sr. No. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s) 39. RFA-990-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Madan Gopal and others 40. RFA-991-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Kuldeep Singh and others 41. RFA-992-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Karamjit Singh and others 42. RFA-993-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Balwant Singh and others 43. RFA-994-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Jai Singh and others 44. RFA-995-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Surinder Singh and others 45. RFA-996-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ajay Kumar and another 46. RFA-997-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Radha Rani and another 47. RFA-998-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Manjit Singh and others 48. RFA-999-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Narinder Singh and another 49. RFA-1000-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Vikram Singh and another 50. RFA-1001-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Rameshwar and others 51. RFA-1002-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Jangsher Singh alias Sherjang and others 52. RFA-1003-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Davinder Singh and others 53. RFA-1004-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Jai Singh and others 54. RFA-1005-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Aklesh Goel and others 55. RFA-1006-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Baljit Kaur and another 56. RFA-1007-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Krishna Wanti and others 57. RFA-1008-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Rattan Singh and others 58. RFA-1009-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Urmil Jain and another 59. RFA-1010-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Vishal Gupta and another 60. RFA-1011-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ritu Rani and another 61. RFA-1012-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Amar Singh and others 62. RFA-1014-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Ranjit Singh and others 63. RFA-1015-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Gurmej Singh and others 64. RFA-1017-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Gurmeet Singh and others 65. RFA-1018-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Dalip Singh and others 66. RFA-1019-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Virender Singh and others 67. RFA-1020-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Gulab Singh and another 68. RFA-1021-2025 (O&M) HSIIDC Vijay Kumar and another 69. RFA-1221-2025 (O&M) Kumari Alankrita Aggarwal State of Haryana and another 70. RFA-1222-2025 (O&M) Mamta Rani and another State of Haryana and another 71. RFA-1226-2025 (O&M) Meenu Gupta State of Haryana and another 72. RFA-1227-2025 (O&M) Kirti Sharma State of Haryana and another 73. RFA-1234-2025 (O&M) Vijay Kumar State of Haryana and another 74. RFA-1236-2025 (O&M) Meena Garg State of Haryana and another 75. RFA-1237-2025 (O&M) Aklesh Goel and another State of Haryana and another 76. RFA-1238-2025 (O&M) Baljit Kaur State of Haryana and another 77. RFA-1239-2025 (O&M) Radha Rani State of Haryana and another 78. RFA-1240-2025 (O&M) Vishal Gupta State of Haryana and another 79. RFA-1243-2025 (O&M) Swapna Garg State of Haryana and another 80. RFA-1325-2025 (O&M) Ajay Kumar State of Haryana and another 81. XOBJR-111-2025 IN/AND RFA-953-2025 HSIIDC Ranjit Singh and others MOHIT KUMAR 2026.09.11 16:49 I am the author of this document RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -3- Sr. No. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s) 82. XOBJR-130-2025 (O&M) IN RFA-954-2025 HSIIDC Surjeet Singh and others 83. XOBJR-126-2025 IN RFA-963-2025 HSIIDC Jabbar Singh and others 84. XOBJR-127-2025 IN RFA-970-2025 HSIIDC Jaipal Singh and others 85. XOBJR-132-2025 IN RFA-971-2025 HSIIDC Harbans Singh and others 86. XOBJR-135-2025 IN RFA-974-2025 HSIIDC Gurbachan Singh and others 87. XOBJR-131-2025 IN RFA-986-2025 HSIIDC Lakhmir Singh and others 88. XOBJR-129-2025 IN RFA-995-2025 HSIIDC Surinder Singh and others 89. XOBJR-133-2025 IN RFA-1015-2025 HSIIDC Gurmej Singh and others 90. XOBJR-128-2025 IN RFA-1018-2025 HSIIDC Dalip Singh and others 91. XOBJR-147-2025 IN RFA-1020-2025 HSIIDC Gulab Singh and another 92. XOBJR-91-2026 (O&M) IN RFA-982-2025 HSIIDC Sandeep Singh and others 93. XOBJR-88-2026 (O&M) IN RFA-964-2025 HSIIDC Raj Pal Singh and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate, Ms. Vamika Johar, Advocate, Ms. Parul Saini, Advocate, Mr. Paramjit Singh, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Singh Saini, Advocate Ms. Rajdeep Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Dakshi Saini, Advocate for HSIIDC Mr. Sandeep Singh Jattan, Advocate and Ms. Varsha Choudhary, Advocate for the appellant(s) in RFA-1221-2025, RFA-1222-2025, RFA-1226-2025, RFA-1227-2025, RFA-1228-2025, RFA-1234-2025, RFA-1236-2025, RFA-1237-2025, RFA-1239-2025, RFA-1240-2025, RFA-1243-2025 for respondent No.1 in RFA-956-2025, RFA-958-2025, RFA-973-2025, RFA-979-2025, RFA-980-2025, RFA-996-2025, RFA-997-2025, RFA-1006-2025, RFA-1010-2025, RFA-1021-2025 and for respondent Nos.1 & 2 in RFA-952-2025 & RFA-1005-2025 Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for landowners (in RFA-964-2025 & RFA-982-2025) Mr. Abhinash Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Abhinav Kalia, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana *** MOHIT KUMAR 2026.09.11 16:49 I am the author of this document RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -4- JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. These appeals under Section 74 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘2013 Act’) are directed against awards passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. The landowners are claiming enhancement of the assessed market value and HSIIDC is claiming otherwise. In the instant appeals, the Authorities have determined market value applying provisions of 2013 Act and provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) have been applied for other aspects. Tabulated details of the assessment made till date read as: - Date of notification under Section 4 28.10.2013 Date of notification under Section 6 27.10.2014 Purpose of acquisition i. Construction of effluent channel to dispose of storm/sewer effluent from Industrial Growth Centre and Food Park, Saha of HSIIDC ii. Setting up of Growth Centre, Phase-II (Ambala) of HSIIDC Location Villages Shergarh, Dhakola, Jawahargarh, Bihta, District Ambala Area Shergarh:24 Kanals 12.175 Marlas Dhakola: 67 Kanals 2.26 Marlas Jawahargarh: 89 Kanals 16 Marlas Bihta: 49 Bighas 7 Biswas Date of order of Collector (LAC) 21.10.2016 Market value as per LAC (per acre) i. Shergarh: ₹43,00,000/- for land upto 200 meter depth from Saha to Shahabad Road and ₹18,00,000/- for the remaining land. ii. Dhakola: MOHIT KUMAR 2026.09.11 16:49 I am the author of this document RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -5- ₹43,00,000/- for the land upto 200 meter depth from National Highway Saha to Shahabad Road and ₹20,00,000/- for the remaining land. iii. Jawahargarh: ₹20,00,000/- iv. Bihta: ₹32,00,000/- for land upto 200 meter depth from Bihta to Dhakola Road and ₹26,00,000/- for the remaining land. Date of order by Authority 28.02.2025 Market Value as per Authority (per acre) i. Dhakola: ₹43,00,000/- x 1.25 = ₹53,75,000/- ₹20,00,000/- x 1.25 = ₹25,00,000/- ii. Jawahargarh: ₹20,00,000/- x 1.25 = ₹25,00,000/- iii. Shergarh: ₹43,00,000/- x 1.5 = ₹64,50,000/- ₹18,00,000/- x 1.5 = ₹27,00,000/- iv. Bihta: ₹32,00,000/- x 1.5 = ₹48,00,000/- ₹26,00,000/- x 1.5 = ₹39,00,000/- 2. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, with the consent of all sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from RFA No.964 of 2025. 3. The appellant-HSIIDC through instant appeal is seeking modification of award dated 28.02.2025 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Ambala-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (hereinafter called as ‘Authority’) has enhanced the multiplying factor from MOHIT KUMAR 2026.09.11 16:49 I am the author of this document RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -6- 1 to 1.25 for the land situated in Villages Dhakola & Jawahargarh and 1.5 for the land situated in Villages Bihta and Shergarh, District Ambala. 4. The State Government issued notification dated 28.10.2013 under Section 4 of the of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) for the acquisition of land situated within the revenue estate of four villages i.e. Shergarh, Dhakola, Jawahargarh and Bihta, District Ambala for the construction of effluent channel to dispose of storm/sewer effluent from Industrial Growth Centre and Food Park, Saha of HSIIDC and for setting up of Growth Centre, Phase-II (Ambala) of HSIIDC. The said notification was followed by notification dated 27.10.2014 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act. 5. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’) vide Award dated 21.10.2016, in terms of provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘2013 Act’), determined compensation payable to the landowners. Market value of the acquired land was determined as under: i. For village Shergarh: ₹43,00,000/- per acre for the land upto 200 meter depth from Saha to Shahbad Road and ₹18,00,000/- per acre for the remaining land. ii. For village Dhakola: ₹43,00,000/- per acre for the land upto 200 meter depth from National Highway Saha to Shahabad Road and ₹20,00,000/- per acre for the remaining land. iii. Jawahargarh: ₹20,00,000/- per acre. MOHIT KUMAR 2026.09.11 16:49 I am the author of this document RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -7- iv. Bihta: ₹32,00,000/- per acre for land upto 200 meter depth from Bihta to Dhakola Road and ₹26,00,000/- per acre for the remaining land. 6. Feeling dis-satisfied from the aforesaid award, landowners preferred petitions under Section 64 of 2013 Act before the Collector who referred the matter to Authority constituted under Section 51 of the 2013 Act. The landowners as well as HSIIDC, in support of their contentions, led their evidence. HSIIDC attempted to justify market value determined by the Collector, however, landowners vehemently pleaded that value of their land has been assessed on the lower side. 7. The Authority, appreciating evidence led by both sides, by impugned common award adjudicated the petitions. The Authority by impugned award dated 28.02.2025 has enhanced the multiplying factor from 1 to 1.25 for the land situated in Villages Dhakola & Jawahargarh and 1.5 for the land situated in Villages Bihta & Shergarh, District Ambala. HSIIDC is mainly in appeal. There are 12 appeals of the landowners besides 13 cross-objections in the appeals of the HSIIDC. 8. Learned counsel for HSIIDC submits that many reference petitions were filed after two years from the date of award, thus, reference petitions were barred by limitation because reference under Section 18 of 1894 Act can be filed within 6 months from the date of award. The Authority has further relied upon notification of 2018 whereby multiplier factor has been notified. The notification under Section 4 in the present case was issued much prior to 22.01.2018 and Collector passed award on 21.10.2016, thus, there was no occasion to apply notification of 2018. MOHIT KUMAR 2026.09.11 16:49 I am the author of this document RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -8- 9. Learned counsel for the landowners submit that application seeking reference under Section 18 was filed within limitation before the Collector who forwarded the matter to Court after 1½ years. The delay, if any, was on the part of Collector, thus, it cannot be held that there was delay on the part of landowners. There may be few cases where there is delay, however, delay in those cases had occurred because of non-receipt of notice under Section 12(2) as well as non-receipt of compensation. The moment landowners received compensation or came to know about the award, preferred application under Section 18. This Court in bunch of appeals including RFA No.366 of 2026 titled as ‘Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana and others v. Jamila’ has already held that notification dated 22.01.2018 is applicable for determining multiplier factor even to cases where notification under Section 4 or award under Section 11 was passed prior to the date of notification. 10. All the arguments raised by both sides have been recorded in the presence of counsel for the parties. They have not raised any other argument. 11. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 12. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that delay in filing any appeal which is part of present bunch may be condoned. Accordingly, delay, if any, in any case, stands condoned. It is clarified that appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period. 13. From the perusal of Lower Court Record, it is evident beyond the pale of doubt that many applications under Section 18 were filed well within limitation period prescribed under Section 18(2). MOHIT KUMAR 2026.09.11 16:49 I am the author of this document RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -9- 14. In Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 140, the Supreme Court has held that actual or constructive knowledge of Award is necessary. Where award is passed in the absence of person interested, limitation period of six months cannot be counted from the date of award and it should be counted from the date of knowledge to the aggrieved party. Mere passing of Award and filing in the office of Collector is not sufficient. Award in terms of Section 12(2) must be communicated to the affected party because his rights are affected. The Court has held: “6. There is yet another point which leads to the same conclusion. If the award is treated as an administrative decision taken by the Collector in the matter of the valuation of the property sought to be acquired it is clear that the said decision ultimately affects the rights of the owner of the property and in that sense, like all decisions which affect persons, it is essentially fair and just that the said decision should be communicated to the said party. The knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either actual or constructive, is an essential element which must be satisfied before the decision can be brought into force. Thus considered the making of the award cannot consist merely in the physical act of writing the award or signing it or even filing it in the office of the Collector; it must involve the communication of the said award to the party concerned either actually or constructively. If the award is pronounced in the presence of the party whose rights are affected by it can be said to be made when pronounced. If the date for the pronouncement of the award is communicated to the party and it is accordingly pronounced on the date previously announced the award is said to be communicated to the said party even if the said party is not actually present on the date of its pronouncement. Similarly if without notice of the date of its MOHIT KUMAR 2026.09.11 16:49 I am the author of this document RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -10- pronouncement, an award is pronounced and a party is not present the award can be said to be made when it is communicated to the party later. The knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fair play and natural justice the expression “the date of the award” used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. In our opinion, therefore, it would be unreasonable to construe the words “from the date of the Collector's award” used in the proviso to Section 18 in a literal or mechanical way. 7. In this connection it is material to recall the fact that under Section 12(2) it is obligatory on the Collector to give immediate notice of the award to the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. This requirement itself postulates the necessity of the communication of the award to the party concerned. The legislature recognised that the making of the award under Section 11 followed by its filing under Section 12(1) would not meet the requirements of justice before bringing the award into force. It thought that the communication of the award to the party concerned was also necessary, and so by the use of the mandatory words an obligation is placed on the Collector to communicate the award immediately to the person concerned. It is significant that the section requires the Collector to give notice of the award immediately after making it. This provision lends support to the view which we have taken about the construction of the expression “from the date of the Collector's award” in the proviso to Section 18. It is because communication of the order is regarded by the legislature as necessary that Section 12(2) has imposed an obligation on the Collector and if the relevant clause in the proviso is read in the light of this MOHIT KUMAR 2026.09.11 16:49 I am the author of this document RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -11- statutory requirement it tends to show that the literal and mechanical construction of the said clause would be wholly inappropriate. It would indeed be a very curious result that the failure of the Collector to discharge his obligation under Section 12(2) should directly tend to make ineffective the right of the party to make an application under Section 18, and this result could not possibly have been intended by the legislature.” 15. In Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 545 Supreme Court has held that limitation period of six months commences from the date of knowledge where landowner was not present at the time of passing Award. The Collector must establish that there was actual or constructive knowledge of award to the claimant. The Court has held that actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can be established by the Collector by proving that the person interested had received or drawn the compensation amount for the acquired land, or had attested the mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering possession of the acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a case challenging the award or had acknowledged the making of the award in any document or in statement on oath or evidence. “30. When a person interested makes an application for reference seeking the benefit of six months' period from the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove that he (or his representative) was not present when the award was made, that he did not receive any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, and that he did not have the knowledge of the contents of the award during a period of six months prior to the filing the application for reference. This onus is discharged by asserting these facts on oath. He is not expected to prove the negative. Once the initial onus is discharged by the claimant/person interested, it is for the Land MOHIT KUMAR 2026.09.11 16:49 I am the author of this document RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -12- Acquisition Collector to establish that the person interested was present either in person or through his representative when the award was made, or that he had received a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, or that he had knowledge of the contents of the award. 31. Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can be established by the Collector by proving that the person interested had received or drawn the compensation amount for the acquired land, or had attested the mahazar/ panchnama/ proceedings delivering possession of the acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a case challenging the award or had acknowledged the making of the award in any document or in statement on oath or evidence. The person interested, not being in possession of the acquired land and the name of the State or its transferee being entered in the revenue municipal records coupled with delay, can also lead to an inference of constructive knowledge. In the absence of any such evidence by the Collector, the claim of the person interested that he did not have knowledge earlier will be accepted, unless there are compelling circumstances not to do so.” 16. From the above-cited judgments, it can be culled out that there should be actual or constructive knowledge of the award to the landowner. In the absence of actual or constructive knowledge, the limitation period prescribed under Section 18 does not start to run. The Collector is duty bound to serve notice under Section 12(2) and in the absence of notice, the Collector must prove that there was actual/constructive notice to the landowner who was not present at the time of passing award. The constructive knowledge may be established by leading evidence to the effect that landowner has collected compensation or he has signed panchnama whereby possession of the acquired land was taken. MOHIT KUMAR 2026.09.11 16:49 I am the author of this document RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -13- 17. Many landowners have filed applications under Section 18 within limitation and there may be few who had filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The Authority has observed that landowners have filed application under Section 18 within 6 months from the date of knowledge. There was no notice under Section 12(2), thus, all the applications have been treated as filed within limitation. 18. A conspectus of original record reveals that many applications were filed within 6 months from the date of award, thus, those applications were within limitation. This fact is not disputed by HSIIDC. They are only claiming that few applications were filed beyond limitation. 19. The Authority has decided all the petitions by common order i.e. applications which were admittedly within limitation as well as application where there was doubt regarding limitation. As per Section 28A, any landowner who has not filed reference under Section 18, on the basis of Award passed by Authority with respect to other landowners, may file an application before Collector seeking compensation at par with other landowners. Section 28A reads as: “28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court [Inserted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 19 (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).] (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under MOHIT KUMAR 2026.09.11 16:49 I am the author of this document RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -14- section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re- determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court: Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18.” 20. Remedies provided under Sections 18 and 28A of 1894 Act are meant to determine and pay just, fair & reasonable compensation to the landowners. In the present case, the landowners who had filed application under Section 18 within limitation period could file application under Section 28A. They filed reference applications during the pendency of references which were within limitation. Their applications though not directly yet indirectly may be considered as applications under Section 28A MOHIT KUMAR 2026.09.11 16:49 I am the author of this document RFA No.964 of 2025 (O&M) & connected cases -15- because object of Section 28A is to grant equal amount of compensation to all the landowners. 21. In the light of afore-cited judgments and obtained factual position, this Court finds that landowners had filed application under Section 18 within prescribed period of limitation. 22. Learned counsel for HSIIDC conceded that question of applicability of notification dated 23.01.2018 prescribing multiplier factor has already been adjudicated by this Court in Jamila (supra). He concedes that as per order passed in Jamila (supra), the Authority has rightly applied multiplier factor. 23. Learned counsel for the landowners, during the course of hearing, could not point out any infirmity in the basic market value determined by the Collector and upheld by the Authority. Both sides primarily disputed question of multiplier. 24. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that appeals of HSIIDC and landowners as well as their cross-objections deserve to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. 25. In the backdrop, there seems no reason to entertain applications seeking permission to lead additional evidence. Accordingly, the same stand dismissed. 26. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 10.09.2026 Mohit Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHIT KUMAR 2026.09.11 16:49 I am the author of this document