IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

215-U Date of Decision:23.03.2026 BALWANT SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH LRS......Petitioners Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

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

Mr. Shubham Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.4.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

The petitioners, by way of present petition, seek quashing of an order dated 19.02.2025 (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 petitioner(s)-landowner(s) forming part of the revenue estate of Village Raqba, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, came to be acquired vide notifications dated 13.06.2001 & 10.06.2002 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act respectively for the public purpose of setting up a New Grain Market at Mullapur Dakha, District Ludhiana. An Award under Section 11 of the Act was announced by the LAC on 13.11.2003 and the compensation was determined at the rate of Rs.6 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 24.12.2013 (Annexure P-1) by the learned Reference Court while determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- 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 30.03.2022 (Annexure P-2), which came to be dismissed being barred by limitation vide order dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure P-5). Hence, the present writ petition.

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

[5] A perusal of the record shows that, based on the Award dated 24.12.2013 passed by the learned Reference Court, the petitioner(s)-landowner(s) preferred an application under Section 28-A of the Act on 30.03.2022 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. Moreover, it has also come on record that aggrieved of the determination dated 24.12.2013 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 petitioner(s), is RFA-8830-2014 etc.

[6] 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 vide judgment and order dated 2nd May 2016 was in respect of the land which was covered by the same notification under which notification the appellants’ land is also covered. It is also not in dispute that the amount awarded by the High Court in the said First Appeal is in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the 1894 Act in the case of the land of the appellants. It is also not in dispute that the appellants had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. It is also not in dispute that the application made by the appellants under Section