JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J. 

The petitioners, by way of present petition, seek quashing of an order dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 2-Land Acquisition Collector, Mohali (for short “LAC”), whereby their application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) stands rejected being barred by limitation.

[2] Briefly stating, some land owned by the petitioners- landowners as well as pro forma respondents forming part of the revenue estate of Village Malakpur (Jandali Khurd), Sub Tehsil Ahmedgarh, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur, came to be acquired vide notifications dated 29.03.2011 & 27.09.2011 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act respectively for the public purpose of New Grain Market, Ahmedgarh, Malerkotla. An Award under Section 11 of the Act was announced by the LAC on 05.03.2013 and the compensation was determined at the rate of Rs.35 lakhs per acre besides grant of other statutory benefits. Aggrieved thereof, some of the other landowners preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be decided on 11.03.2019 (Annexure P-1) by the learned Reference Court while determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 42,50,000/- per acre.

[3] Based on the aforesaid award, the petitioners preferred an application under Section 28-A of the Act before respondent No. 2-LAC on 01.11.2019 (Annexure P-2), which came to be dismissed being barred by limitation vide order dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure P-5). Hence, the present writ petition.

[4] At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that service upon respondent Nos. 5 to 7 is not necessary being pro forma respondents; accordingly, their service is ordered to be dispensed with.

[5] Upon notice, separate replies dated 07.01.2026 and 12.01.2026 have been filed on behalf of respondent(s)-State and Punjab Mandi Board, SAS Nagar (Mohali), respectively, with the prayer for dismissal of the present writ petition. The same are taken on record. Copies thereof have been supplied to the opposite side. Registry to do the needful.

[6] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.

[7] A perusal of the record shows that, based on the Award dated 11.03.2019 passed by the learned Reference Court, the petitioners- landowners preferred an application under Section 28-A of the Act on 01.11.2019 before respondent No. 2-LAC, which was apparently filed beyond a period of three months from the date of award passed by the learned Reference Court. The paper-book further reveals that during the pendency of application under Section 28-A of the Act before the LAC, another award with respect to re-determination of market value qua the same acquisition was passed by the learned Reference Court on 04.11.2024 (Annexure P-8) on a petition preferred at the instance of some other landowners, however, the same was not taken into account. Moreover, it has also come on record that aggrieved of the determination dated 11.03.2019 by the learned Reference Court, the other landowners approached this Court by preferring Regular First Appeals for further enhancement, and the same are still pending for adjudication. One of such appeals, as pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners, is RFA-2314-2019.

[8] It may be noticed here that, in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Banwari and others vs. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and another’ reported as “2025(1) RCR (Civil) 232”, the petitioners-landowners have the right to invoke Section 28-A of the Act even in pursuance of the final determination made by this Court in the pending Regular First Appeals, preferred at the instance of petitioners-landowners pertaining to the same acquisition. Relevant paragraph Nos.15 & 16 of the aforementioned judgment are extracted hereunder:-

“15. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the First Appeal which was allowed by the High Court