CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 259+260+264+265 JOGINDER SINGH JOGINDER SINGH JOGINDER SINGH JOGINDER SINGH Vs Vs Vs Vs STATE OF STATE OF STATE OF STATE OF PUNJAB PUNJAB PUNJAB PUNJAB CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the Mr. Puru Jarewal, D.A.G., Punjab. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) [1]. Vide this common order, 3059, 3085, 3107, 3110, 3115, 3674, 3682, 3688, 3616, 3993, 3994, 3998 of 2026 (O&M) cause of action brevity, facts are b [2]. By way of present order dated 05.05.2017 (hereinafter to be referred as the seeking reference preferred at the instance of the petitioner(s)/landowner(s) structures were rejected. [3]. In the present case(s), petitioner(s)/landowner(s) Khas, Tehsil Dhar Kalan, District Pathankot CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 259+260+264+265 CR No.3033 of 2026 CR No.3033 of 2026 CR No.3033 of 2026 CR No.3033 of 2026 with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: JOGINDER SINGH JOGINDER SINGH JOGINDER SINGH JOGINDER SINGH PUNJAB PUNJAB PUNJAB PUNJAB AND ORS. AND ORS. AND ORS. AND ORS. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Puru Jarewal, D.A.G., Punjab. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) Vide this common order, CR Nos. 3059, 3085, 3107, 3110, 3115, 3674, 3682, 3688, 3616, 3993, 3994, 6 (O&M), are being decided as the same cause of action involving identical facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from CR CR CR CR No. No. No. No.3033 3033 3033 3033 By way of present revision petition 05.05.2017 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’ ‘Reference Court’ ‘Reference Court’ ‘Reference Court’ seeking reference preferred at the instance of the petitioner(s)/landowner(s) were rejected. In the present case(s), some petitioner(s)/landowner(s) situated within the revenue estate of village Khas, Tehsil Dhar Kalan, District Pathankot was with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3033 of 2026 CR No.3033 of 2026 CR No.3033 of 2026 CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: 21 21 21 21....00005555.202 .202 .202 .2026666 ...... ...... ...... ......Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner .........Respondent .Respondent .Respondent .Respondent((((ssss)))) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJAAAA Nos.3033, 3040, 3046, 3048, 3050, 3059, 3085, 3107, 3110, 3115, 3674, 3682, 3688, 3616, 3993, 3994, 4001 and the same have arisen out of common facts and question of law. For the sake of of 20 of 20 of 20 of 2026 26 26 26. petition(s), challenge has been laid to the passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Pathankot ‘Reference Court’ ‘Reference Court’ ‘Reference Court’ ‘Reference Court’), whereby the application(s) seeking reference preferred at the instance of the petitioner(s)/landowner(s) qua some land owned by the situated within the revenue estate of village Phangota was acquired vide Notification dated 1 3050, and have arisen out of common facts and question of law. For the sake of , challenge has been laid to the Pathankot the application(s) qua owned by the angota acquired vide Notification dated MOHMED ATIK 2026.05.26 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) 07.08.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act’) for the public purpose, namely, of the village Phangota Khas by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on [4]. Aggrieved of the determination made by the LAC, the petitioner(s)/landowner(s) Act, which remained pending with the Authorities. On account of inaction on the part of the officials, some of the landowners approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.26814 of 2016 which was disposed of vide orde said order is extracted hereunder: ““““Rajesh Bindal, J. Rajesh Bindal, J. Rajesh Bindal, J. Rajesh Bindal, J. objections filed by them against the award of the Land Acquisition Collector on court below for determination of compensation. LAO, Shahpur Kandi Dam, submitted that total 1440 objections received, out of which 1117 have alrea Judge, Pathankot and 323 are still pending. acquisition in the present case was carried out way back in the year and the objections filed by the landow compensation have not been referred to the court for the last more than decades, respondent No.4 is directed to refer all the objections lying pending with him to the court within four weeks from today. He will send not o objections lying pending with him with reference to the acquisition carried out earlier or later. CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act’) for the public purpose, namely, “for the construction of of the village Phangota Khas’. Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on Aggrieved of the determination made by the LAC, the petitioner(s)/landowner(s) preferred their objections which remained pending with the Authorities. On account of inaction on the part of the officials, some of the landowners approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.26814 of 2016 which was disposed of vide orde said order is extracted hereunder:- Rajesh Bindal, J. Rajesh Bindal, J. Rajesh Bindal, J. Rajesh Bindal, J. The grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is that objections filed by them against the award of the Land Acquisition Collector on ccount of acquisition of court below for determination of compensation. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from Manjit LAO, Shahpur Kandi Dam, submitted that total 1440 objections received, out of which 1117 have alrea Judge, Pathankot and 323 are still pending. After hearing learned counsel for the State and finding that acquisition in the present case was carried out way back in the year and the objections filed by the landow compensation have not been referred to the court for the last more than decades, respondent No.4 is directed to refer all the objections lying pending with him to the court within four weeks from today. He will send not only the objections pertaining to the present acquisition, but all other objections lying pending with him with reference to the acquisition carried out earlier or later. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the “for the construction of Reservoir area . Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on 25.08.1998. Aggrieved of the determination made by the LAC, the bjections under Section 18 of the 1894 which remained pending with the Authorities. On account of inaction on the part of the officials, some of the landowners approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.26814 of 2016 which was disposed of vide order dated 27.03.2017. The The grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is that objections filed by them against the award of the Land Acquisition ccount of acquisition of land, have not been referred to the court below for determination of compensation. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from Manjit Singh, LAO, Shahpur Kandi Dam, submitted that total 1440 objections were received, out of which 1117 have already been referred to the District Judge, Pathankot and 323 are still pending. After hearing learned counsel for the State and finding that acquisition in the present case was carried out way back in the year 1995 and the objections filed by the landowners for fair determination of compensation have not been referred to the court for the last more than two decades, respondent No.4 is directed to refer all the objections lying pending with him to the court within four weeks from today. He will send nly the objections pertaining to the present acquisition, but all other objections lying pending with him with reference to the acquisition carried The petition stands disposed of accordingly.” 2 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Reservoir area . Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed Aggrieved of the determination made by the LAC, the under Section 18 of the 1894 which remained pending with the Authorities. On account of inaction on the part of the officials, some of the landowners approached this Court by way of filing r dated 27.03.2017. The the objections filed by them against the award of the Land Acquisition land, have not been referred to the Singh, were dy been referred to the District the 1995 ners for fair determination of two decades, respondent No.4 is directed to refer all the objections lying pending with him to the court within four weeks from today. He will send nly the objections pertaining to the present acquisition, but all other objections lying pending with him with reference to the acquisition carried MOHMED ATIK 2026.05.26 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) [5]. Later, the objections petitioner(s)/landowner(s) impugned order with the observation that the documents/reference were presented before the Court in a deceitful manner by committing forgery. revision petition(s). [6]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as records of the case(s). [7]. A perusal of the record shows that the learned Reference Court went on to decline the petitioner(s)/landowner(s) merely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. The relevant portion from the impugned order is extracted hereunder: ““““…… …… …… …… Collector that no such reference was pending relating to the award which Collector that no such reference was pending relating to the award which Collector that no such reference was pending relating to the award which Collector that no such reference was pending relating to the award which relates to the year 1995 to 1998 relating to Ranjit Sagar Dam, had it been relates to the year 1995 to 1998 relating to Ranjit Sagar Dam, had it been relates to the year 1995 to 1998 relating to Ranjit Sagar Dam, had it been relates to the year 1995 to 1998 relating to Ranjit Sagar Dam, had it been pending the same was required to be incorporated in the register pending the same was required to be incorporated in the register pending the same was required to be incorporated in the register pending the same was required to be incorporated in the register was no possibilit was no possibilit was no possibilit was no possibilit of more than 20 years to incur a huge liability upon the department of more than 20 years to incur a huge liability upon the department of more than 20 years to incur a huge liability upon the department of more than 20 years to incur a huge liability upon the department there are categoric allegations that all the references have been forged there are categoric allegations that all the references have been forged there are categoric allegations that all the references have been forged there are categoric allegations that all the references have been forged [8]. Further, a perusal of the aforementioned o Reference Court went on to rely upon the solemn affidavit by the Land Acquisition Collector wherein it was stat in question especially pending. The aforesaid observations made by the learned Reference Court complete contradiction to the information provided by Manjit Singh, LAO, Shahpur Kandi Dam before this Court at the time of dis CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases Later, the objections preferred at the instance of the petitioner(s)/landowner(s) were declined by the learned Reference Court vide the impugned order with the observation that the documents/reference were presented before the Court in a deceitful manner by committing forgery. revision petition(s). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as records of the case(s). A perusal of the record shows that the learned Reference Court went on to decline the reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of the petitioner(s)/landowner(s) merely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. The relevant portion from the impugned order is extracted hereunder: …… …… …… ……Since there is a solemn affidavit filed by the L Since there is a solemn affidavit filed by the L Since there is a solemn affidavit filed by the L Since there is a solemn affidavit filed by the L Collector that no such reference was pending relating to the award which Collector that no such reference was pending relating to the award which Collector that no such reference was pending relating to the award which Collector that no such reference was pending relating to the award which relates to the year 1995 to 1998 relating to Ranjit Sagar Dam, had it been relates to the year 1995 to 1998 relating to Ranjit Sagar Dam, had it been relates to the year 1995 to 1998 relating to Ranjit Sagar Dam, had it been relates to the year 1995 to 1998 relating to Ranjit Sagar Dam, had it been pending the same was required to be incorporated in the register pending the same was required to be incorporated in the register pending the same was required to be incorporated in the register pending the same was required to be incorporated in the register was no possibilit was no possibilit was no possibilit was no possibility that such references could be kept pending for a period y that such references could be kept pending for a period y that such references could be kept pending for a period y that such references could be kept pending for a period of more than 20 years to incur a huge liability upon the department of more than 20 years to incur a huge liability upon the department of more than 20 years to incur a huge liability upon the department of more than 20 years to incur a huge liability upon the department there are categoric allegations that all the references have been forged there are categoric allegations that all the references have been forged there are categoric allegations that all the references have been forged there are categoric allegations that all the references have been forged Further, a perusal of the aforementioned o Reference Court went on to rely upon the solemn affidavit by the Land Acquisition Collector wherein it was stated that no reference petitions pertaining to the award in question especially relating to the year 1995 to 1998 (Ranjit Sagar Dam) were pending. The aforesaid observations made by the learned Reference Court contradiction to the information provided by Manjit Singh, LAO, Shahpur Kandi Dam before this Court at the time of dis with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases preferred at the instance of the were declined by the learned Reference Court vide the impugned order with the observation that the documents/reference were presented before the Court in a deceitful manner by committing forgery. Hence the present I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the A perusal of the record shows that the learned Reference Court went reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of the petitioner(s)/landowner(s) merely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. The relevant portion from the impugned order is extracted hereunder:- Since there is a solemn affidavit filed by the L Since there is a solemn affidavit filed by the L Since there is a solemn affidavit filed by the L Since there is a solemn affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition and Acquisition and Acquisition and Acquisition Collector that no such reference was pending relating to the award which Collector that no such reference was pending relating to the award which Collector that no such reference was pending relating to the award which Collector that no such reference was pending relating to the award which relates to the year 1995 to 1998 relating to Ranjit Sagar Dam, had it been relates to the year 1995 to 1998 relating to Ranjit Sagar Dam, had it been relates to the year 1995 to 1998 relating to Ranjit Sagar Dam, had it been relates to the year 1995 to 1998 relating to Ranjit Sagar Dam, had it been pending the same was required to be incorporated in the register pending the same was required to be incorporated in the register pending the same was required to be incorporated in the register pending the same was required to be incorporated in the register and there there there there y that such references could be kept pending for a period y that such references could be kept pending for a period y that such references could be kept pending for a period y that such references could be kept pending for a period of more than 20 years to incur a huge liability upon the department of more than 20 years to incur a huge liability upon the department of more than 20 years to incur a huge liability upon the department of more than 20 years to incur a huge liability upon the department there are categoric allegations that all the references have been forged there are categoric allegations that all the references have been forged there are categoric allegations that all the references have been forged there are categoric allegations that all the references have been forged…. …. …. …. …. …. Further, a perusal of the aforementioned order shows that the learned Reference Court went on to rely upon the solemn affidavit by the Land Acquisition that no reference petitions pertaining to the award to the year 1995 to 1998 (Ranjit Sagar Dam) were pending. The aforesaid observations made by the learned Reference Court are contradiction to the information provided by Manjit Singh, LAO, Shahpur Kandi Dam before this Court at the time of disposal of CWP No.26814 of 3 preferred at the instance of the were declined by the learned Reference Court vide the impugned order with the observation that the documents/reference were presented Hence the present I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the A perusal of the record shows that the learned Reference Court went reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of the petitioner(s)/landowner(s) merely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. and Acquisition and Acquisition and Acquisition and Acquisition Collector that no such reference was pending relating to the award which Collector that no such reference was pending relating to the award which Collector that no such reference was pending relating to the award which Collector that no such reference was pending relating to the award which relates to the year 1995 to 1998 relating to Ranjit Sagar Dam, had it been relates to the year 1995 to 1998 relating to Ranjit Sagar Dam, had it been relates to the year 1995 to 1998 relating to Ranjit Sagar Dam, had it been relates to the year 1995 to 1998 relating to Ranjit Sagar Dam, had it been there there there there y that such references could be kept pending for a period y that such references could be kept pending for a period y that such references could be kept pending for a period y that such references could be kept pending for a period of more than 20 years to incur a huge liability upon the department of more than 20 years to incur a huge liability upon the department of more than 20 years to incur a huge liability upon the department of more than 20 years to incur a huge liability upon the department and …. …. …. …. …. …..”.”.”.” rder shows that the learned Reference Court went on to rely upon the solemn affidavit by the Land Acquisition that no reference petitions pertaining to the award to the year 1995 to 1998 (Ranjit Sagar Dam) were are in contradiction to the information provided by Manjit Singh, LAO, posal of CWP No.26814 of MOHMED ATIK 2026.05.26 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) 2016 on 27.03.2017 (Annexure P reference petitions were still pending with the authorities whereas 1117 stood referred to the learned District Judge, Pathankot. In such circumstances, impugned order(s) passed by the learned Reference Court is primarily based on incorrect information provided by the Land Acquisition Collector. [9]. Moreover, Court raised issue Acquisition Officer on the objection petition as well as the maintainability thereof; the same being barred by limitation aspects were required to be adjudicated up affording of due adjudication was made without following the said procedure. was framed as to whether there was any forgery of Acquisition Officer with respect to receipt landowners nor any issue was framed regarding the objections petitions being barred by limitation. [10]. In such circumstances, the impugned order da 04.07.2017 passed by the learned Reference Court, cannot be sustained in of law being in violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice when the substantial rights of the petitioner(s)/landowner(s) were affected without affording them any opportunity to counter the assumptions/presumptions by the learned Reference Court without any material on record. [11]. According remanded back to the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court is CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases 2016 on 27.03.2017 (Annexure P-2 at page 19) wherein it was recorded that 323 reference petitions were still pending with the authorities whereas 1117 stood referred to the learned District Judge, Pathankot. In such circumstances, impugned order(s) passed by the learned Reference Court is primarily based on incorrect information provided by the Land Acquisition Collector. Moreover, in the impugned order although the learned Reference issues with respect to the alleged Acquisition Officer on the objection petition as well as the maintainability thereof; the same being barred by limitation. In the humble opinion of this Court, al aspects were required to be adjudicated upon only due opportunity to the landowners adjudication was made without following the said procedure. was framed as to whether there was any forgery of Acquisition Officer with respect to receipt or forwar landowners nor any issue was framed regarding the objections petitions being barred by limitation. In such circumstances, the impugned order da 04.07.2017 passed by the learned Reference Court, cannot be sustained in law being in violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice when the substantial rights of the petitioner(s)/landowner(s) were affected without affording them any opportunity to counter the assumptions/presumptions by the learned Reference Court without any material on record. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court is with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases 2 at page 19) wherein it was recorded that 323 reference petitions were still pending with the authorities whereas 1117 stood referred to the learned District Judge, Pathankot. In such circumstances, impugned order(s) passed by the learned Reference Court is primarily based on incorrect information provided by the Land Acquisition Collector. in the impugned order although the learned Reference alleged forgery of signatures of the Land Acquisition Officer on the objection petition as well as the maintainability thereof; In the humble opinion of this Court, all these on only after framing of issues and upon opportunity to the landowners to lead evidence. However, adjudication was made without following the said procedure. Neither any issue was framed as to whether there was any forgery of signatures of the Land or forwarding of the objections by the landowners nor any issue was framed regarding the objections petitions being In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 05.05.2017 and 04.07.2017 passed by the learned Reference Court, cannot be sustained in the eyes law being in violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice, especially when the substantial rights of the petitioner(s)/landowner(s) were affected without affording them any opportunity to counter the assumptions/presumptions recorded by the learned Reference Court without any material on record. ly, the impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court is 4 2 at page 19) wherein it was recorded that 323 reference petitions were still pending with the authorities whereas 1117 stood referred to the learned District Judge, Pathankot. In such circumstances, the impugned order(s) passed by the learned Reference Court is primarily based on in the impugned order although the learned Reference forgery of signatures of the Land Acquisition Officer on the objection petition as well as the maintainability thereof; l these upon the Neither any issue signatures of the Land of the objections by the landowners nor any issue was framed regarding the objections petitions being ted 05.05.2017 and the eyes especially when the substantial rights of the petitioner(s)/landowner(s) were affected without recorded ly, the impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court is MOHMED ATIK 2026.05.26 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) requested to formulate issues with respect to the filing of objections by the landowner(s) any other material fact in issue evidence on the said issues and the adjudication be thus, made afresh by the learned Reference Court. Reference Court on 29.05.2026 for further proceedings. [12]. In view of aforesaid, even the directions issued by the learned Reference Court with respect to the registration of FIR or even about the inquiry/investigation by the SSP Pat [13]. Consequently revision petitions [14]. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. May May May May 21 21 21 21,,,,20 20 20 2026 26 26 26 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) CR No.3033 of 2026 (O&M) with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases to formulate issues with respect to the filing of objections by the landowner(s) or the same being barred by limitation any other material fact in issue. The parties be afforded opportunity to lead evidence on the said issues and the adjudication be thus, made afresh by the learned Reference Court. The parties are directed to appear Reference Court on 29.05.2026 for further proceedings. In view of aforesaid, even the directions issued by the learned Reference Court with respect to the registration of FIR or even about the inquiry/investigation by the SSP Pathankot are also set aside. Consequently, in view of the discussion made herein above, revision petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases with other connected cases to formulate issues with respect to the alleged forgery, if any, regarding or the same being barred by limitation . The parties be afforded opportunity to lead evidence on the said issues and the adjudication be thus, made afresh by the The parties are directed to appear before the learned Reference Court on 29.05.2026 for further proceedings. In view of aforesaid, even the directions issued by the learned Reference Court with respect to the registration of FIR or even about the hankot are also set aside. , in view of the discussion made herein above, all in the aforesaid terms. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 5 regarding or the same being barred by limitation or . The parties be afforded opportunity to lead evidence on the said issues and the adjudication be thus, made afresh by the before the learned In view of aforesaid, even the directions issued by the learned Reference Court with respect to the registration of FIR or even about the all the MOHMED ATIK 2026.05.26 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment