[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishna Sharma And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 April, 2026
1
CWP No.28458 of 2025 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
206-U
CWP No.28458 of 2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision:
Decision:21
21.
21.04.202
04.2026
.2026
KRISHNA SHARMA AND OTHERS ......Petitioners
......Petitioners
Vs
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ....Respondents
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Shivansh Malik, Advocate
for the petitioners.
petitioner
Ms. Komal Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. N.C. Manchanda, Advocate and
Mr. Akash Chaudhary, Advocate
for respondent nos.2 & 3.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)
[1]. By way of present petition, the short grouse raised on behalf of the
petitioners is that on account of inadvertence, the petitioners/landowners could not
mention complete details of their acquired land in objections preferred under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the 1894 Act') and for the
said reason, they have been deprived of due compensation in respect thereto.
[2]. Briefly stating, in addition to 12 Kanals 8 Marlas of land whi
which
ch was
expressed in detail by the petitioners/landowners in their objections under Section
18 of the Act, another chunk of land measuring 01 Kanal 13 Marlas forming part
of Rectangle No.12, Killa No.2/2 situated in the revenue estate of village
Pehrawar, Tehsil
ehsil and District Rohtak was also acquired vide notifications dated
15.12.2006 and 14.12.2007 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the 1894 Act
respectively. Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land
Acquisition Collector (for short 'the LAC')
LAC') on 03.07.2009 whereby the market
value was assessed @ Rs.20 lakhs per acre.
[3]. Pertinently, the reference petitions filed at the instance of the
landowners including the petitioners under Section 18 of the 1894 Act were
dismissed. However, Regular First
First Appeal No.10621 of 2014 filed by
petitioners/landowners was partly allowed by this Court vide decision dated
16.03.2022 and the market value was re-assessed
re assessed @ Rs.42,51,000/
Rs.42,51,000/- per acre
besides award of other statutory benefits and interest thereupon.
[4]. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the petitioners
submitted their objections against the award dated 03.07.2009, it was incumbent
upon the LAC to furnish complete details of the acquired land pertaining to the
petitioners in terms of
of Section 19 of the 1894 Act. Learned counsel contends that
in view of the statutory obligation casted upon the LAC to provide details of the
acquired land to the learned Reference Court, the omission on the part of the
petitioners/landowners was not to be treated as fatal. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel relies upon the decision passed by this Court in CWP No.7225 of
2023 titled 'Amit @ Amit Bhadana Vs. State of Haryana and others' decided on
31.10.2023 and the decision passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ram
Kumar Vs. Union of India, 1991(2) SCC 247.
[5]. Learned counsel thus, submits that though the petitioners were entitled
for award of enhanced amount of compensation with respect to their entire
acquired land parcel including 01
01 Kanal 13 Marla comprised in Rect. No.12 Kill
No.2/2 as well. He thus submits that necessary direction in this regard were
required to be issued to the respondents.
[6]. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned Senior
counsel representing
representing respondent Nos.2 and 3 vehemently submits that it was
required of the petitioners/landowners to furnish complete particulars of their
acquired land in their objection petition preferred under Section 18 of the 1894
Act. However, having failed to do so, it was impossible for the
petitioners/landowners to have claimed enhanced compensation at this stage, in
respect of their land measuring 01 Kanal 13 Marlas comprised in Rectangle No.12
Killa No.2/2 situated within the revenue estate of village Pehrawar, T
Tehsil
ehsil and
District Rohtak. It is thus, contended that the present petition was liable to be
dismissed.
[7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
paper book.
[8]. Before delving upon the issue in hand, it may be relevant to ta
take
ke note
of Section 19 of the 1894 Act, the same reads as under:
under:-
Section 19 Collector's statement to the Court :
(1) In making the reference, the Collector shall state for the information
of the Court, in writing under his hand:
hand:-
(a) the situation and extent of the land, with particulars of any trees,
buildings or standing crops thereon;
(b) the names of the persons whom he has reason to think interested
in such land,
(c) the amount awarded for damages and paid or tendered under
section 5 and 17, or either of them, and the amount of compensation
awarded under section 11;and
(d) if the objection be to the amount of the compensation, grounds
on which the amount of compensation was determined.
(2) To the said statement shall be at
attached
tached a schedule giving the
particulars of the notices served upon, and of the statements in writing
made or delivered by the parties interested respectively."
A bare reading of Section 19 of the 1984 Act makes it evident that it
casts statutory obligation
obligation upon the Land Acquisition Collector to provide necessary
information in writing to the learned Reference Court with respect to the situation
and extent of land acquired, besides providing other relevant particulars. In the
present case, apparently the LAC failed to exercise the said mandatory obligation,
inasmuch as the land measuring 01 Kanal 13 Marlas of land comprised in
Rectangle No.12 Killa No.2/2 situated within the revenue estate of village
Pehrawar, Tehsil and District Rohtak, was not reflected in the statement submitted
to the learned Reference Court. In such circumstances, the Land Acquisition
Collector having failed to discharge its statutory obligation, the petitioners-
petitioners
landowners were not to suffer loss of enhanced compensation qua their entire
ent
acquired land even if the complete particulars in this regard were not provide
provided
d by
them in their objections under Section 18 of the 1894 Act.
[9]. The aforesaid view of derived from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Ram Kumar Vs. Union
Union of India reported as '1991(2) SCC 247,
whereby it was held that it is the duty of the Collector to send full information to
the Court. The relevant excerpt thereof is reproduced hereunder:
hereunder:-
"Under Section 18 of the Act the only requirement for the person
interested who had not accepted the award was to move a written
application to the Collector requiring that the matter be referred for
the determination of the Court. One of the grounds for tthe
he accepting
the award was the amount of compensation. Once such application
was moved it was the duty of the Collector to make a reference to the
Court. Under Section 19 of the Act while making the reference the
Collector was required to state for the inf
information
ormation of the Court the
particulars as mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Sub
Sub-section
section (1) of
Section 19 of the Act. Thus it was the duty of the Collector to mention
not only the situation and extent of land but even particulars of any
trees, buildings or standing crops thereon. The agriculturist whose
land is acquired may not be fully conversant with the khasra No. or
area as entered in the Revenue records and the Union of India or the
State acquiring such land should not be allowed to take any advantage
of such ignorance of the agriculturists. Once an application is moved
for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act it becomes the
duty of the Collector to send full information to the Court regarding
the entire land acquired and it is thereafter the duty of the Court to
decide the matter in accordance with law."
[10]. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present writ petition
is allowed. Respondent No.3 is directed to submit the amended/corrected Form 19,
in terms of Section 19 of the 1894 Act before the learned Reference Court
Court-cum
cum-
Executing Court by incorporating complete details of the acquired land owned by
the petitioners/landowners thereby including the land parcel measuring 01 Kanal
13 Marlas comprised in Rectangle No.12 Killa No.
No.2/2.
[11]. The aforesaid exercise be carried out by respondent No.3 within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing
which respondent No.3 be burdened with the cost(s) of Rs.50,000/
Rs.50,000/- to be paid to
the petitioners/landowners.
ioners/landowners. It is made clear that the amount of cost(s) shall be
borne personally by respondent No.3 and shall not be treated as a burden on the
State Exchequer.
[12]. Furthermore, the learned Executing Court is directed to make sure that
the enhanced
nced amount of compensation against the complete acquired land owned
by the petitioners is released to them at the earliest with all other statutory benefits
and interest under the 1894 Act, preferably within a period of 6 months from the
date of filing of the amended/corrected Form No.19, particularly keeping in view
that the acquisition commenced way back in the year 2006.
[13]. Pending application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
April 21,
21, 2026
2026 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
