IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RFA No. 1892 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.01.2026

State of Haryana

...Appellant

Versus

Smt. Jamuna Devi and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. Abhinash Jain, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana

for the appellant.

Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate

for the respondents.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

The appellant-State of Haryana, by instituting the present

appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “1894 Act”), seeks setting aside of the award dated 20.04.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”) while restoring the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector,

Faridabad (for short “LAC’)

[2] Briefly stating, some land owned by the respondents- landowners situated within the revenue estate of District Faridabad came to be acquired for public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land as residential and commercial in Sector-21D, Faridabad, Ballabgarh-Controlled Area. Vide Award No. 2 dated

05.05.1993, the LAC assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre.

[2.1] Being aggrieved, some of the other landowners sought reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to be accepted, whereby the market value of the land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 360/- per square yard in terms of judgment dated 15.12.1997 passed by the then Reference Court in LA Case No. 355 of 1995, titled “Meena Dua Versus State of Haryana”.

[2.2] Thereafter, based on the aforementioned Reference Court’s Award dated 15.12.1997, the respondents who did not chose to file objections under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, filed an application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act on 20.04.1998, which was dismissed being barred by limitation by the LAC.

[2.3] Aggrieved thereof, the respondents-landowners moved an application under Section 28-A (3) of the 1894 Act which was allowed by the learned Reference Court vide award dated 20.04.2000 and the same came to be challenged by the appellant-State of Haryana by way of present appeal.

[3] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the paper-book / records, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

[4] A perusal of the record shows that the respondents- landowners, based on the then learned Reference Court’s Award dated 15.12.1997, moved an application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act before the LAC on 20.04.1998, which apparently was beyond three months. However, it can be seen that the certified copy of the aforesaid award dated 15.12.1997 was applied on 12.03.1998;

the same was prepared on 17.04.1998; thereafter, the application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act was filed on 20.04.1998 which apparently was within the prescribed period of limitation of three months and the respondents-landowners were rightly provided the benefit of exclusion of the time period for obtaining the copy of award in terms of proviso to Section 28-A (1) of the 1894 Act. Consequently, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

[5] In view of the above, the present appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.

[6] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off.

January 09, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA )

JUDGE ‘dk kamra’

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:6)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:6) (cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:6) (cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:6) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:6) (cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:6) (cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:6)