IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 RAJINDER KUMAR ......Appellant Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s).

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Sushil K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants/landowner.

Mr. Abhinash Jain, D.A.G., Haryana.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the decision dated 06.02.2006 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Hisar (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’), whereby Reference Petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) at the instance of landowner was rejected being barred by limitation.

[2]. Briefly stating, in the present case, some land owned by the appellant/landowner situated within the revenue estate of village Hisar Hadbast No.146, Tehsil and District Hisar, came to be acquired vide Notifications dated 20.08.1992 and 17.08.1993 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act respectively for the public purpose of development and utilization of the land for residential purposes, followed by Award No.1 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on 19.01.1995 in terms of Section 11 of the 1894 Act, thereby determining the market value of the acquired land to be Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for chahi land and Rs.42,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land. The compensation in terms of the aforementioned award was released in favour of the appellant/landowner on 21.09.1999.

[3]. Aggrieved of the assessment made by the learned Land Acquisition Collector, the appellant-landowner filed Reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was forwarded to the learned Reference Court, however the same came to be dismissed vide decision dated 06.02.2006; being time barred.

[4]. Impugning the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the appellant/landowner submits that in the present case no notice of the Award or a copy thereof as contemplated under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act was ever served upon the appellant/landowner. It has also been pointed out that the learned Reference Court went wrong while non-suiting the appellant by recording that he was having knowledge about the acquisition proceedings as notice under Section 9 of the 1894 Act was served upon him and a reply thereto even been filed before the LAC. Learned counsel further submits that notice under Section 9 of the 1894 Act cannot be equated with the notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act and, thus the order passed by the Reference Court was liable to be set aside.

[5]. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no illegality can be found with the reasoning recorded by the learned Reference Court as the reference preferred under Section 18 of the 1894 Act at the instance of appellant/landowner was clearly barred by limitation. Learned State counsel further submits that the Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act in the present case was passed on 19.01.1995 by the learned LAC whereas the reference was filed on 03.02.2000; though the payment of compensation was released to the appellant/landowner on 21.09.1999 and he was having complete knowledge of the acquisition proceedings having filed reply to the notice under Section 9 of the 1894 Act served upon him; thus the present appeal was liable to be dismissed.

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

[7]. Before delving upon the issue in hand, it is necessary to go through the provisions of Sections 9 and 12(2) of the 1894 Act, the same are reproduced as under:-

Section 9 of 1894 Act “Notice to persons interested. –

(1) The Collector shall then cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensations for all interests in such land may be made to him.

(2) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land s