IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 16, 2026 KULDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS ......Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present writ petition, challenge has been laid to the order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum- Land Acquisition Collector, RSD and Shahpurkandi Dam Project, Shahpurkandi Township, whereby Reference preferred at the instance of the petitioners/landowners having invoked Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the 1894 Act') was dismissed.

[2]. Briefly stating, in the present case, some land owned by the petitioners/landowners situated within the revenue estate of village Kot Tikka Majra, Tehsil Dhar Kalan, Distt. Gurdaspur, came to be acquired vide Notifications dated 16.06.1994 and 28.10.1994 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 respectively for the public purpose namely for construction of Shahpurkandi Dam Project. The Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the LAC") on 04.12.1996.

[3]. Being aggrieved thereof, some of the other landowners pertaining to this very acquisition sought reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act which came to be decided on 02.05.2018 and the market value was assessed @ Rs.1600/- per marla along with all the statutory benefits under the 1894 Act.

[4]. Based on the aforesaid Award, the petitioners/landowners preferred reference under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act before the LAC on 22.12.2008. The said application was kept pending. In the meanwhile, the other landowners being aggrieved of the Award dated 02.05.2008, approached this Court having filed Regular First Appeal, which were disposed of on different dates; one such RFA No.1233 of 2017 titled Durgi Devi and others vs. Punjab State and others' decided on 16.03.2017 vide which the market value was enhanced to Rs. 1754/- per malra for the acquired land pertaining to the village Kot Tikka Majra. Further the appeals preferred at the instance of the respondents were dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 20.09.2017.

[5]. On the basis of the aforesaid final determination of the market value qua the present acquisition proceedings, the petitioners/landowners moved an application dated 28.12.2017 before respondent No.2 for Award of similar compensation being identically placed landowners of the same acquisition proceedings. The said prayer came to be dismissed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 24.08.2021 while holding that the application filed by the petitioners, under Section

28-A of the 1894 Act was barred by limitation.

[6]. Impugning the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once during pendency of the application preferred under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act before respondent No.2, the final determination qua the market value stood adjudicated upon by this Court to the tune of Rs.1754/- per marla; in view of decision made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of “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 should have been awarded the same market value and as such the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 was liable to be set aside.

[7] On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that once the application dated 22.12.2008 preferred under Section 28-A of the 1984 Act at the instance of the petitioners/landowners was beyond 90 days of the learned Reference Court Award dated 02.05.2008, the same was rightly declined being barred by limitation and as such the impugned order calls for no interference.

[8]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. I find substance in