IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

225-U Date of Decision:19.05.2026 SHIVANI DEVI ......Petitioner Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. By way of present writ petition, challenge has been laid to the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by respondent No.3. whereby the objection petition preferred under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘2013 Act’) at the instance of petitioner/landowner was rejected being barred by limitation.

[2]. In the present case, some land owned by the petitioner/landowner situated within the revenue estate of village Kot Teeka Shahpurkandi, Tehsil Dharkalan, District Pathankot was acquired vide notification dated 19.05.2021 issued under Section 11 of the 2013 Act followed by passing of an Award No.23 dated 20.09.2022. Against the said award payment was made to the petitioner/landowner on 05.07.2023. Thereafter on 04.03.2024, objections under Section 64 of the 2013 Act were preferred at the instance of the petitioner/landowner, however the same were declined by respondent No.3 on the ground that the same were barred by limitation.

[3]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as records of the case.

[4]. A perusal of Section 64 of the 2013 Act, shows that at the time of passing of the Award in case the landowner or his/her representative was not present before the Collector, notice under Section 21 of the 2013 Act was required to be served upon the landowner by the Land Acquisition Collector. In the present case, no such material has been placed on record by the respondents that any notice under Section 21 of the 2013 Act was ever served upon the petitioner/landowner. Even no material has been put forth to establish that the copy of award was ever supplied to the petitioner/landowner. In such circumstances, at best it could be implied that the petitioner/landowner became aware of the contents of the award on 05.07.2023 i.e. the date of receipt of payment by them.

[5]. As such, the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by respondent No.3 thereby rejecting the objection petition preferred by the petitioner/landowner, even without exercising its authority and discretion in terms of Clause (b) of Section 64(2) of the 2013 Act, was wholly illegal. Once respondent No.3 itself failed to serve any notice under Section 21 of the 2013 Act upon the petitioner/landowner, there was no justification on the part of the officer concerned to have outrightly declined the objection petition preferred at the instance of the petitioner/landowner for being barred by limitation especially when no opportunity was ever afforded in order to put forth her case in terms of proviso to Clause (b) of Section 64(2) of the 2013 Act. Respondent No.3 was at least required to call upon the petitioner/landowner to examine her claim in terms of the aforementioned proviso.

No such exercise was ever carried out by respondent No.3.

[6]. In view of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 passed by respondent No.3 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to respondent No.3 for carrying out fresh exercise in terms of proviso to Clause (b) of Section 64(2) of the 2013 Act by affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner/landowner to put forth her explanation to the delay, if any in filing of the petition under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.

[7]. In view of the fact that the petitioner was made to approach this Court for no valid reasons, but merely because of non-adherence to the statutory scheme of Section 64 of the 2013 Act by respondent No.3. As such, the officer concerned is held liable to pay a cost(s) of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner. The amount of cost(s) be paid to the petitioner wi