##PAGE1##

173

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RFA No. 1736 of 2023 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 28.01.2026

Moti Lal (now deceased) through LRs

...Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate,

for the appellants.

Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana

for the respondent(s).

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to

the award dated 13.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional

District Judge, Jhajjar (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference

Court”) whereby, the reference petition under Section 28 (3) of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “1894 Act”), at the instance

of appellants-landowners, stood rejected against the order dated

05.09.2017 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban

Estates, Rohtak (for short “LAC”) vide which application under

Section 28-A of the 1894 Act has been dismissed being barred by

limitation.

[2] Briefly stating, some land owned by the petitioner,

along with the land of few other landowners, situated within the

revenue estate of Village Jhajjar, District Jhajjar, came to be

acquired vide notifications dated 14.08.2003 and 10.08.2004,

DINESH KUMAR

2026.02.09 13:55

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

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

(cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)

issued under Sections 4 and 6, respectively of the 1894 Act, for the

public purpose, namely, development and utilization of land as

residential and commercial Sector-9, Jhajjar. The LAC Rohtak,

vide its award dated 27.07.2006, assessed the market value @

Rs.12.50 lacs per acre.

[2.1] Feeling aggrieved, some of the landowners preferred

separate reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came

to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide award dated

23.02.2015, thereby determining the market value @

Rs.14,89,052/- per acre alongwith solatium and other statutory

benefits.

[2.2] The aforesaid determination was challenged before

this Court, and vide decision dated 27.11.2015 passed in RFA-

3192-2015, titled as “Ramkala vs. State of Haryana and others”,

this Court upheld the market value @ Rs.14,89,052/- per acre,

besides even upholding the award of other statutory benefits. The

said determination was further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

SLP (C) Nos. 023826-023841 Appeal Nos.11913-11945 of 2016

vide judgment dated 07.07.2017.

[2.3] In the meanwhile, the appellant(s)-landowner, on

01.04.2016, preferred an application under Section 28-A of the

1894 Act seeking re-determination of compensation qua their 36

kanal and 08 marlas of land situated within the revenue estate of

village Jhajjar which formed part of the present acquisition. The

said application came to be dismissed by respondent No.2-Land

Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Rohtak, while recording that

DINESH KUMAR

2026.02.09 13:55

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

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

(cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)

the same was barred by limitation having been filed beyond 03

months from the date of award dated 23.02.2015, passed by the

Reference Court under Section 18 of the 1894 Act; against which

reference under Section 28-A (3) also was declined vide impugned

judgment passed by the learned Reference Court.

[3] Impugning the aforesaid judgment, learned coun