Disposed¶17

Lakhmi Chand v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Oct 2025RFA/3450/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, RFA-3450-1999 (O&M), decided 27.10.2025 by Deepak Gupta, J. (oral). Land acquisition compensation reference (Section 18, Land Acquisition Act) dismissed by Additional District Judge, Panipat on 18.12.1998 for non-appearance of claimant and want of sale deed/mutation; Statement No.19 showed respondents 3, 5, 6 and 7 as owners. Remand sought but refused for want of evidence; appeal disposed of without consideration on merits.

What did the court decide?

Since the only impugned order before this Court is the dismissal dated 18.12.1998 for want of evidence, the Court has no reason to remand the matter or to consider it on merits in the absence of any evidence. ¶16

Lakhmi Chand Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

��

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

RFA-3450-1999 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.10.2025

¶4

Lakhmi Chand ...Appellant

¶5

Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶6

Present: Mr. Gaurav Tyagi, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Kharb, Advocate for the appellant.

¶7

Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana.

¶8

¶9

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

The reference under Sec6on 18 of the Land Acquisi6on Act was dismissed by Learned Addi6onal District Judge, Panipat on 18.12.1998, a;er no6cing that pe66oner-Lakhmi Chand (appellant herein) was not appearing. Learned Addi6onal District Judge proceeded to dismiss the reference a;er no6cing that though pe66oner had claimed himself as owner of the land by way of purchase but no sale deed was placed on record. Even the statement No.19 of the Land Acquisi6on Act reflected respondents No.3, 5, 6 and 7 to be owners of the land in dispute. It was no6ced that pe66oner had neither placed on record the sale deed nor the muta6on to show him as the owner of land in ques6on. Faced with these circumstances, the reference was dismissed.

¶11

Learned counsel submits that since the reference was also dismissed in the absence of the pe66oner, therefore, maAer is required to be remanded.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to inform as to whether the reference Court was moved for seBng aside the order dated

¶13

Yogesh Mehta 2025.10.27 17:17 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶14

��

¶15

18.12.1998, so as to hear him on merits and so as to provide him opportunity to lead the evidence.

¶16

However, since the only impugned order before this Court is 18.12.1998, whereby the pe66on was dismissed for want of evidence, so this Court has no reason to remand the maAer or to consider on merits in the absence of any evidence. Not only above, counsel for the appellant also submits that appellant is not even in his contact, which also reflects that appellant is no longer interested in pursuing the appeal.

¶17

Disposed of.

¶18

27.10.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:Yes/No

¶19

Yogesh Mehta 2025.10.27 17:17 I agree to specified portions of this document

Lakhmi Chand v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhmi Chand v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarsem Lal through Lts Bandana and Ors. Vs Gurdial Chand and Ors.

Joga Singh Vs State of Haryana

Smt.Karamjit Tiwari Vs Sugreev Krishan etc.

Vijay Kumar Vs Pawan Kumar and Ors.

Khushi Mohd. Vs Harjit Kaur

(O&M) Banto Vs Ajmer Singh and Ors.