IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

221 RSA-554-2016(O&M)

Date of decision: 23.02.2026 Smt. Rajrani ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

State of Haryana & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Naveen Kumar, Addl. AG Haryana.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The plaintiff No.3 is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs i.e. the appellant and plaintiffs No.1 and 2/pro-forma respondents No.13 and 14 herein, had filed Civil Suit seeking a decree that plaintiffs be declared entitled for compensation from the contesting defendants/respondents no.1 to 3 herein because in LAC Case No.3 and 4 of 2001/1990 titled as Parbhati Lal Versus State of Haryana pending under reference under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act before the Id. Addl. District Judge, Narnaul for adjudication upon question of title, wherein vide Order dated 01.10.1990 Id. Addl. District Judge Narnaul had directed to deposit the compensation amount in New Bank of India in a scheme fetching maximum interest, but the same Order was not complied with by the ministerial staff of Court.

3. It was pleaded in the plaint that land measuring 14 bigha 18 biswa as described in the plaint was acquired by the defendant No.1-State of Haryana for developing a residential colony in the name of Employees Society. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) were published on 15.12.1988 and 05.05.1989 respectively. Award in respect of the acquisition was announced on 14.02.1990; and possession of the suit land was taken from the landowners on the same day. Some dispute had arisen in respect of ownership of land as a result of which, the compensation was not disbursed. A reference was also made under Section 30 of the Act. As the matter was pending, compensation was deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, an application was made on behalf of the landowners to the concerned Court for taking custody of the compensation and for depositing the same in some Nationalised Bank; as also required under Section 31 of the Act. However, the Land Acquisition Collector failed to deposit the same and amount of compensation was retained by him from 14.02.1990 upto 13.8.1991. It was accordingly contended that the Land Acquisition Collector was liable to pay interest for the said period.

4. It was further averred that the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide order dated 01.10.1990 had directed to deposit the compensation amount in some Nationalised Bank but the said order had not been complied with by the Ministerial Staff. It is only when the Reference was decided on 14.05.2003 and DROs were issued in favour of the owners that the plaintiffs came to know that compensation amount of Rs.13,09,050/- had not been deposited in Government Security of Nationalised Bank due to lapse on part of the Ministerial Staff of the Court. It was contended in the plaint that accordingly, the plaintiffs had suffered a loss for which the contesting defendants were liable either jointly or severally to compensate the plaintiffs equivalent to the loss suffered by them. With these pleadings, present suit was filed on 16.05.2006.

5. Upon appraisal of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narnaul, dismissed suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 22.02.2012. The Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated

24.09.2015. Hence, present second appeal by the plaintiff No.3.

6. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that it is admitted fact on record that pending reference under Section 30 of the Act, Daya