As per case facts, land was acquired, and an award was passed. The landowner sought higher compensation through a reference petition, which the acquiring authority claimed was time-barred due to ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
150
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran,
Shyam Kumari and others
CORAM:
Present:
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
CM-3170-
Rule 27 of CPC, moved by the applicant
seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the shape of copy of
CWP No. 4753 of 2013, annexed with the paper
1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No. 1209 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 17.09.2025
Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Gurugram
Versus
Shyam Kumari and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Advocate and
Mr. Siddhanth Arora, Advocate
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Sanskar Dhanda, Advocate
for contesting respondent No. 1
Mr. Abhinash Jain, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
for pro forma respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
-CI-2022
Prayer in the present application
Rule 27 of CPC, moved by the applicant
seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the shape of copy of
CWP No. 4753 of 2013, annexed with the paper
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No. 1209 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 17.09.2025
Gurugram
...Appellant
...Respondents
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Advocate and
Mr. Siddhanth Arora, Advocate for
Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Sanskar Dhanda, Advocate
respondent No. 1-landowner (Shyam Kumari)
Mr. Abhinash Jain, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
Prayer in the present application, filed under Order 41
Rule 27 of CPC, moved by the applicant-appellant/HSVP, is for
seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the shape of copy of
CWP No. 4753 of 2013, annexed with the paper-book as Annexure A-
RFA No. 1209 of 2022 (O&M) -2-
This Court, vide order dated 09.11.2022, admitted the
main appeal while passing orders to hear the instant application with
the main case.
Notice of the application.
Learned counsel for the non-applicant/respondent No. 1
accepts notice and does not oppose the prayer made in the application.
Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
A copy of the CWP-4753-2013 is necessary for
adjudication of the appeal in hand as the same would help even this
Court to adjudicate the rights of the parties; finally and conclusively.
There being no dispute raised at the instance of non-
applicant/respondent No. 1 about the veracity and contents of the copy
of the aforesaid writ petition, especially when the document forms part
of the judicial record and no objection has been raised as to their
admissibility or the mode of proof at the instance of non-
applicant/respondent No. 1-landowner.
In view thereof, the prayer made in the application is
allowed and the copy of aforesaid writ petition is taken on record as
Annexure A-1.
Instant application is disposed off.
MAIN CASE
[1] By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an
award dated 01.10.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional
District Judge, Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as “Reference
Court”), whereby a reference petition filed under Section 18 of the
RFA No. 1209 of 2022 (O&M) -3-
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1894 Act’)
preferred at the instance of respondent No.1-landowner, was allowed.
FACTS
[2] Briefly stating, some land owned by respondent No.1-
landowner, situated within the revenue estate of Village Choma, Tehsil
and District Gurugram came to be acquired vide Notifications dated
25.01.2008 and 18.03.2008 issued under Section 4 read with Section
17(1) and Section 6 respectively of the 1894 Act, for the public
purpose, namely, “development and utilisation of land for 150 Mtr.
Periphery Road linking Dwarika Township Delhi from Haryana
Boundary to NH-8, near Village Kherki Daula at Gurugram.” An
Award under Section 11 of 1894 Act was passed by the Land
Acquisition Collector, Gurugram (for short “LAC’) on 23.12.2009,
whereby the market value was assessed at Rs.60,00,000/- per acre.
[3] Aggrieved thereof, respondent No.1-landowner (Shyam
Kumari) filed reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act on
12.11.2013 for the purpose of seeking enhancement of market value.
The aforesaid reference was opposed at the instance of the appellant-
HSVP, being barred by limitation.
[4] Learned Reference Court, vide its award dated 01.10.2019,
allowed the reference petition filed at the instance of respondent No.1-
landowner on merits, while holding it to be within limitation.
Respondent No.1-landowner was as such awarded the benefit of market
value of Rs.4,06,34,750/- besides grant of other statutory benefits in
view of the market value determined by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide
RFA No. 1209 of 2022 (O&M) -4-
order dated 05.09.2017 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 11814-11864 of
2017, titled “State of Haryana & Ors. Versus
Ram Chander and
Anr.”. The aforementioned award dated 01.10.2019 passed by the
Reference Court has been impugned by the appellant in the present
appeal.
CONTENTION(S) ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
[5] Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned
Reference Court went wrong while holding the reference petition filed
at the instance of respondent No.1-landowner to be within limitation.
He points out that on 26.02.2013, respondent No.1-landowner being
one of the petitioners in CWP-4753-2013, titled “Sukhwinder Singh
Gill and others Versus The State of Haryana and others”, challenged
the Notifications dated 25.01.2008 and 18.03.2008 issued under
Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act relating to present acquisition with a
further prayer for setting aside all consequential proceedings in terms
of the said notifications. He contends that in the aforesaid writ petition,
in para-10, it finds mention that the award under Section 11 of 1894
Act was passed by the LAC on 23.12.2009. Learned counsel for the
appellant thus submits that once respondent No.1-landowner was aware
about passing of the award dated 23.12.2009 at the time of filing of
CWP-4753-2013 on 26.02.2013 and challenged the acquisition
proceedings initiated in terms of Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act with
a prayer for setting aside of all the consequential proceedings, reference
petition under Section 18 of the 1894 Act filed on 12.11.2013 was
clearly barred by limitation. Learned counsel argues that the date of
RFA No. 1209 of 2022 (O&M) -5-
filing of the writ petition i.e. 26.02.2013 was at least required to be
taken as the date of constructive knowledge of the award to respondent
No.1-landowner and as such, the reference petition filed at her instance
on 12.11.2013 was to be dismissed being barred by limitation.
[5.1] In support, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon
decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Bhagwan Das and
Ors. Versus
State of UP and Ors.” reported as AIR 2010 Supreme
Court 1532. Relevant Para Nos.30 and 31 thereof are extracted
hereunder:-
“ 30. When a person interested makes an application for
reference seeking the benefit of six months' period
from the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on
him to prove that he (or his representative) was not
present when the award was made, that he did not
receive any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act,
and that he did not have the knowledge of the
contents of the award during a period of six months
prior to the filing the application for reference.
This onus is discharged by asserting these facts on
oath. He is not expected to prove the negative.
Once the initial onus is discharged by the
claimant/person interested, it is for the Land
Acquisition Collector to establish that the person
interested was present either in person or through
his representative when the award was made, or
that he had received a notice under Section 12(2)
of the Act, or that he had knowledge of the contents
of the award.
31. Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of
the award can be established by the Collector by
proving that the person interested had received or
RFA No. 1209 of 2022 (O&M) -6-
drawn the compensation amount for the acquired
land, or had attested the mahazar / panchnama /
proceedings delivering possession of the acquired
land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a
case challenging the award or had acknowledged
the making of the award in any document or in
statement on oath or evidence. The person
interested, not being in possession of the acquired
land and the name of the State or its transferee
being entered in the revenue municipal records
coupled with delay, can also lead to an inference of
constructive knowledge. In the absence of any such
evidence by the Collector, the claim of the person
interested that he did not have knowledge earlier
will be accepted, unless there are compelling
circumstances not to do so.
[5.2] In addition, learned counsel for the appellant also places
reliance upon a decision dated 13.10.2023 rendered by this Court in
RFA-442-2015 titled as “Dinesh Kumar and Others Versus
State of
Haryana and others” to submit that once respondent No.1-landowner
became aware of the date of the award on the date of filing of the writ
petition, the period of six months was required to be utilized by her for
the purpose of obtaining the award and filing of reference under
Section 18 of 1894 Act and thus, filed beyond that was to be dismissed
being barred by limitation. Relevant para No. 13 of the said judgment is
reproduced hereunder for reference:-
“13. However, reliance placed by learned Senior
counsel in this regard is misplaced. The purpose
of giving 6 months, when limitation in a
particular reference is covered by the second
RFA No. 1209 of 2022 (O&M) -7-
part of Section 18(2)(b) of 1894 Act, is that once
the landowner gets knowledge of the award, he
could make sincere efforts to get a copy of the
award and then accordingly make a reference.
Reliance in this regard can be placed on
“Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat and Anr.”,
reported as AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1624,
relevant para of which is reproduced here
under:
“11. The reason for providing six months
from the date of the award for making
an application seeking reference,
where the applicant did not receive a
notice under Section 12(2) of the Act,
while providing only six weeks from
the date of receipt of notice under
Section 12(2) of the Act for making an
application for reference where the
applicant has received a notice under
Section 12(2) of the Act is obvious.
When a notice under Section 12(2) of
the Act is received, the landowner or
person interested is made aware of all
relevant particulars of the award
which enables him to decide whether
he should seek reference or not. On the
other hand, if he only comes to know
that an award has been made, he
would require further time to make
enquiries or secure copies so that he
can ascertain the relevant particulars
of the award. What needs to be
emphasised is that along with the
notice issued under Section 12(2) of
the Act, the land owner who is not
RFA No. 1209 of 2022 (O&M) -8-
present or is not represented before the
Collector at the time of making of
award should be supplied with a copy
thereof so that he may effectively
exercise his right under Section 18(1)
to seek reference to the Court.”
[5.3] Learned counsel for the appellant also contends that the
initial burden to prove the fact that no notice under Section 12(2) of
1894 Act was served upon respondent No. 1-landowner in this case was
upon her, however, no such pleadings were ever made in the reference
and thus, respondent No.1-landowner having failed to discharge the
primary burden; the onus never shifted upon the appellant for the
purpose of establishing the factum of service of notice under Section
12(2) of 1894 Act upon respondent No.1-landowner. He thus submits
that respondent No. 1-landowner in this case was not entitled to draw
benefit of non-service of notice under Section 12(2) of 1894 Act.
[5.4] Thus, in view of the aforesaid submission(s), learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the award dated 01.10.2019
passed by the learned Reference Court was required to be set aside.
CONTENTION(S) ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 1-
LANDOWNER
[6] Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-
landowner submits that in the given facts, once no notice under Section
12(2) of the 1894 Act was ever served upon respondent No.1-
landowner, reference petition could not have been dismissed being
barred by limitation as she was never made aware of the contents of the
RFA No. 1209 of 2022 (O&M) -9-
award by the appellant. He also points out that neither respondent No.1-
landowner nor even any of her representative/authorized person was
present at the time of passing of the award and a specific finding to this
effect was recorded in favour of respondent No.1-landowner by the
learned Reference Court. He thus submits that neither in terms of
Section12(1) nor even as per Section 12(2) of 1894 Act, reference
petition preferred at the instance of respondent No. 1 can be treated to
be barred by limitation and no interference is, therefore, called for in
the impugned award.
[6.1] Learned counsel also submits that respondent No.1-
landowner duly discharged the primary burden casted upon her by
making a specific statement in the cross-examination while appearing
as PW-2 to the effect that no notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894
Act pertaining to the award passed by the LAC on 23.12.2009 was ever
served upon respondent No. 1 and no suggestion to contradict the same
was ever put to her. In support of his submissions, learned counsel
relies upon a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “State of
Punjab Versus
Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum and another”, reported as
“AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1604”. He also places reliance upon an
order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C)
No.5123 of 2023, titled “Rati Ram and Ors. Versus State of Hayrana
and Ors.”
RFA No. 1209 of 2022 (O&M) -10-
DISCUSSION
[7] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the relevant record/paper-book, I am unable to find substance
in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.
[8] A perusal of the pleadings arising out of CWP-4753-2013
(supra) makes it evident that no specific or categoric challenge to the
award dated 23.12.2009 passed by the LAC in exercise of powers under
Section 11 of the 1894 Act in relation to the acquisition in hand was
ever made therein. The material challenge laid in the writ petition was
only to the Notifications dated 25.01.2008 & 18.03.2008 issued under
Section 4 & 6 read with Section 17 (1) and 17 (4) of 1894 Act,
although the factum of passing of the Award dated 23.12.2009 was
mentioned in para-10 of the said writ petition. Mere fact that a
consequential prayer was made for setting aside of the subsequent
proceedings arising out of the Notifications dated 25.01.2008 &
18.03.2008 could not be taken to be a specific challenge to the award
dated 23.12.2009 as no copy thereof was ever placed on record,
forming it to be part of the writ petition. The prayer clause from the
writ petition alongwith para-10 thereof are re-produced hereunder:-
“ PRAYER CLAUSE
Civil Writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in
the nature of Certiorari so as to quash the impugned
alignment of the proposed V2 (a) road as given in the
Final Drawing dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure P-9)
reiterated vide final Development Plan-2031AD
(Annexure P-15), and made pursuant to the proposals
RFA No. 1209 of 2022 (O&M) -11-
under the Head "Provision of Additional Road Links
between Delhi and Gurgaon" as well as under Head
No. 4 "Transport and Communication" and Dwarka
Residential Complex of Delhi to National Highway No.
8 passing at Gurgaon through Palam Vihar Gurgaon
in the Final Development Plan 2031-AD for Complex;
Gurgaon-Manesar Urban Complex;
AND
a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the
impugned notifications dated 25.1.2008 and
18.03.2008 issued under Sections 4 and 6 read with
Section 17[1] and [4] of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (Annexures P-12 and P-13) respectively and all
subsequent proceedings in furtherance of the said
notifications qua the residential houses/plots of the
petitioners;
And
for issuance of any other order or appropriate writ,
direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and
proper keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case.
PARA-10
10. That even though the said notifications under
Sections 4 and 6 of the said Act were issued in
the year 2008 and the award under Section 11 of
the said Act was passed on 23.12.2009, the
petitioners still continue to be in actual physical
possession of the said houses/plots at the spot.
Before the award, the petitioners in their claim
applications filed under Section 9[2] of the said
Act inter-alia, claimed respective plots of the
same size in lieu of their present houses/plots at
an appropriate location. True copies of the
claims of the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4 are
RFA No. 1209 of 2022 (O&M) -12-
annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-13A
(COLLY).”
[9] Furthermore, no merit can be found in the contention
raised on behalf of the appellant to the effect that respondent No. 1-
landowner failed to discharge the initial burden placed upon her so as
to establish that she was never served the copy of the Award dated
23.12.2009 and thus there was non-compliance of mandatory provision
of Section 12 (2) of 1894 Act. In this regard, reference can be made to
certain portion from the cross-examination of respondent No. 1-
landowner, who appeared as PW-2 before the learned Reference Court.
Relevant portion therefrom is extracted hereunder:-
“ ………..Voluntartily stated, I never received any
notice about acquisition of land and even no amount
towards compensation was paid to me by the LAC till
date………….”
From the record, it is clear that no suggestion to counter
the aforesaid portion of the cross-examination of respondent No. 1-
landowner was ever put to her to rebut the same. In such circumstances,
respondent No. 1 having discharged the primary burden, the onus
shifted upon the appellant to prove the factum of service of notice
under Section 12 (2) of 1894 Act alongwith a copy of Award dated
23.12.2009 passed by the LAC so as to establish their plea of the
reference petition being barred by limitation. Also, no documentary
evidence or even oral deposition has been made on behalf of the
appellant to establish that respondent No. 1-landowner was ever made
RFA No. 1209 of 2022 (O&M) -13-
aware of the contents of the award dated 23.12.2009 having served with
a copy thereof upon her. In such circumstances, mere mentioning about
the date of the award in the writ petition preferred at the instance of
respondent-landowner without there being any specific challenge to the
same, was not sufficient to attribute her with the knowledge regarding
contents thereof and as such, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum (supra) and
another”, no illegality or perversity can be found with the award
passed by the Reference Court to the effect that the reference petition
preferred at the instance of respondent No. 1-landowner was within
limitation. Relevant portion of para-4 of the aforementioned judgment
is extracted hereunder:-
“4. As to the second part of clause (b) of the proviso,
the true scope and effect thereof was considered
by this court in Raja Harish Chandra's case. It
was there observed that a literal and mechanical
construction of the words "six months from the
date of the Collector's award" occurring in the
second part of clause (b) of the proviso would not
be appropriate and "the knowledge of the party
affected by the award, either actual or
constructive, being an essential requirement of
fair play and natural justice, the expression ...
used in the proviso must mean the date when the
award is either communicated to the party or is
known by him either actually or constructively".
Admittedly the award was never communicated to
the respondents. Therefore the question before us
boils down to this. When did the respondents
know the award either actually or constructively?
RFA No. 1209 of 2022 (O&M) -14-
Learned counsel for the appellant has placed very
strong reliance on the petition which the
respondents made for interim payment of
compensation on December 24, 1954. He has
pointed out that the learned Subordinate Judge
relied on this petition as showing the respondents'
date of knowledge and there are no reasons why
we should take a different view. It seems clear, to
us that the ratio of the decision in Raja Harish
Chandra case (supra) is that the party affected by
the award must know it, actually or
constructively, and the period of six months will
run from the date of that knowledge. Now
knowledge of the award does not mean a mere
knowledge of the fact that an award has been
made, The knowledge must relate to the essential
contents of the award, These contents may be
known either actually or constructively, If the
award is communicated to a partyunder Section
12(2) of the Act, the party must be obviously fixed
with knowledge of the contents of the award
whether he reads it or not. Similarly when a party
is present in court either personally or through
his representative when the award is made by the
Collector, it must be presumed that he knows the
contents of the award. Having regard to the
scheme of the Act we think that knowledge of the
award must mean knowledge of the essential
contents of the award.”
[10] Moreover, the reliance placed upon by the learned counsel
representing the appellant to the decision dated 13.10.2023 passed in
Dinesh Kumar & Others case (supra), is also misplaced as in the said
case, the reference petition preferred at the instance of landowners were
RFA No. 1209 of 2022 (O&M) -15-
held to be barred by limitation for the reasons that it was established on
record that the landowners (petitioners therein) had already received the
amount of compensation and the commencement of limitation for filing
reference petition under Section 18 of the 1894 Act qua them was taken
from the date of receipt of compensation. However, in the present facts,
it has no where been established on record by the appellant that
respondent No. 1-landowner was paid the compensation amount in
terms of the Award passed by the LAC and the reference petition was
preferred six months beyond it. Thus, mere factum of knowledge to
respondent No. 1 about passing of the Award was not to be taken as if
she was aware of the contents thereof. Essentially, the purpose of
service of notice under Section 12 (2) of 1894 Act was to make the
landowner aware about the contents of the award.
[11] Further, on merits, the learned counsel(s) representing the
parties are ad idem that respondent No. 1-landowner has already been
awarded the benefit of market value @ Rs. 4,06,34,750/- besides grant
of all other statutory benefits provided under the 1894 Act in terms of
the final adjudication made on the issue by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
case of Civil Appeal Nos. 11814-11864 of 2017, decided on
05.09.2017, State of Haryana & Ors. Versus
Ram Chander and Anr.”
DECISION
[12] In view of the aforesaid discussion, finding no merits in
the present appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant, the same is thus
dismissed, while upholding the Award dated 01.10.2019 passed by the
learned Reference Court. No order as to costs.
RFA No. 1209 of 2022 (O&M) -16-
[13] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed off.
September 17, 2025 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
‘Tejwinder / dk kamra’ JUDGE
Whether Speaking / Reasoned :
Yes
No
Whether Reportable :
Yes
No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....