Dismissed

Leelawati and Others v. State of Haryana and Anotehr

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Jul 2026RA-RF/2/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three common review applications filed by the State of Haryana. The State challenged the condonation of delay in filing reference petitions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court rejected the challenge, noting the State never challenged the award, thus depriving it of the right to seek review.

What did the court decide?

The review applications filed by the State of Haryana were dismissed.

Leelawati and Others Vs State of Haryana and Anotehr — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

RA-RF-1- 2 022 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

		Date of decision : 06.07.2026
1.		RA-RF-1-2022 (O&M) in RFA-5165-2018
Som Natha nd others		….Applicants-appella nts
	Versus
State of Ha ryana and another		….Respondents
2.		RA-RF-2-2022 (O&M) in RFA-5167-2018
Leelawatia nd others		….Applicants-appella nts
	Versus
State of Ha ryana and another		….Respondents
3.		RA-RF-3-2022 (O&M) in RFA-5166-2018
Achro Dev i and others		….Applicants-appella nts
	Versus
State of Ha ryana and another		….Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.	JUSTICE JA	GMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Abhinash Jai	n, Addl. A.G .,	Haryana.
None for the non ****	applicant-app	ellants.

¶4

AJAY PRASHER 2026.07.06 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶5

RA-RF-1-2022 (O&M) -2-

¶6

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. ( Oral )

¶7

As common issues are involved in the captioned applications, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from RA-RF-1-2022 in RFA-5165-2018.

¶8

The applicant-State through instant applications under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 read with Sections 114 and 151 CPC, 1908 is seeking review of judgment dated 10.01.2020 passed by this Court in RFA No.5165-2018, titled as Somnath & others vs. State of Haryana and another.

¶9

The State vide notification dated 28.11.2007 issued under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) acquired appellant’s land. The Land Acquisition Collector announced award on 26.11.2009. The land owners filed reference petition under Section 18 of 1894 Act on 09.07.2015 i.e. after five years from the date of knowledge of award. The matter was referred to Reference Court. Learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide award dated 20.07.2018 condoned the delay and passed final order. Land owners preferred RFA-5165-2018 before this Court which was allowed along with Bunch of appeals vide judgment dated 10.01.2020. The applicant-State has preferred the present review applications on the ground that delay in filing reference under Section 18 of 1894 Act could not be condoned.

¶10

Learned State counsel submits that Land Acquisition Collector or Reference Court had no jurisdiction to condone delay in filing reference under Section 18 of 1894 Act. Despite said fact, learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula condoned the delay and allowed land owner’s reference application.

¶11

AJAY PRASHER 2026.07.06 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶12

RA-RF-1-2022 (O&M) -3-

¶13

On being asked, learned State counsel on instructions from Mr. Amit, Patwari, LAO Panchkula states that award dated 20.07.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge was never challenged by State.

¶14

Learned ADJ, Panchkula rightly or wrongly condoned the delay in filing the reference u/s 18 of 1894 Act. The order passed by learned ADJ, Panchkula attained finality qua the State because it never challenged the said order. It was the land owners who preferred appeals before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶15

In aforesaid circumstances, the review applications are liable to

¶16

be dismissed. The same stand dismissed accordingly.

¶17

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶18

Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected

¶19

matters.

¶20

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) July, 06, 2026 JUDGE Ajay Prasher

¶21

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶22

AJAY PRASHER 2026.07.06 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Leelawati and Others v. State of Haryana and Anotehr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leelawati and Others v. State of Haryana and Anotehr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chanderwati and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Labh Singh Sidhu and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajender Vs State of Haryana and Others

Hsiidc Vs Rakesh and Others

Ramphal and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Som Nath and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another