IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 13.11.2025 ZILE SINGH ......Appellant Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr. Ishaan, Advocate for the appellant/landowner.

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

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award dated 15.05.1998 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sonipat (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’), whereby Reference Petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’) at the instance of the appellant-landowner was dismissed being barred by limitation.

[2]. Briefly stating, some land owned by the appellant/landowner situated within the revenue estate of village Garhi Brahman, Tehsil and District Sonipat, came to be acquired vide Notifications dated 16.12.1988 and 13.12.1989 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the 1894 Act respectively for the public purpose namely for the development and utilization of land as Residential and Commercial area in Sector 23 Sonipat. An Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Haryana, Gurgaon (now Gurugram) Camp at Sonipat (for short ‘the LAC’) in exercise of powers under Section 11 of the 1894 Act on 28.03.1990 thereby determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre besides award of other statutory benefits/interest under the 1894 Act.

[3]. Dis-satisfied with the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellant-landowner invoked Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to dismissed being barred by limitation by the learned Reference Court vide the impugned Award dated 15.05.1998 while recording that the Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed on 28.03.1990, whereas the Reference Petition was preferred on 12.04.1996. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal was preferred at the instance of landowner.

[4]. Impugning the aforesaid Award, learned counsel for the appellant/landowner submits that though as per the records the Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed on 28.03.1990, however the appellant/landowner was never served with any notice as contemplated under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act. He also submits that neither the appellant nor any of his representative was present at the time of passing of the Award by the LAC. He also points out that the appellant came to know about the Award dated 28.03.1990 passed by the LAC only on receipt of compensation in terms of cheque No.94112425 dated 06.03.1996 and, thus the Reference Petition preferred at the instance of the appellant on 12.04.1996 was within the statutory period of limitation. Accordingly, learned counsel emphasizes that the impugned Award was liable to be set aside and the appellant was required to be awarded similar amount of compensation as has been granted to other identically placed landowners in terms of the present acquisition proceedings.

[5]. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that a well-reasoned and justified Award has been passed by the learned Reference Court upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence available on record which, thus calls for no interference. Learned State counsel further points out that the Award in the present case was passed by the LAC on 28.03.1990 whereas the Reference Petition was filed on 12.04.1996 and, thus the same was apparently barred by limitation and as such prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

[6]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant/landowner.

[7]. Admittedly, in the present case the Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 28.03.1990, however perusal of the entire record shows that no notice as contemplated under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act abou