Krishan Kumar Vs the State of Haryana and Others

The present appeal is directed against the award dated 14.11.2023 passed by the learned Reference Court, Gurugram, whereby the reference filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensa,on in respect of the super structure exis,ng on the acquired land was dismissed, primarily on the ground of limita,on.

¶16

The factual matrix is largely undisputed. Land situated in Village Kukrola, Tehsil Manesar, District Gurugram was no,fied for acquisi,on under Sec,on 4 of the Land Acquisi,on Act, 1894 on 25.04.2008 for a public purpose, namely, construc,on of a Grade Separator on N.H.-8 (KMP Expressway connec,ng Na,onal Highways No.1, 2, 8 and 10). The declara,on under Sec,on 6 followed on 09.03.2009. Award No.7 determining compensa,on for the acquired land was announced by the Land Acquisi,on Collector on 09.03.2010. On the same date, a supplementary Award No.7 was also announced assessing compensa,on for the super structure exis,ng on a por,on of the acquired land, including the residen,al property of the appellant, Krishan Kumar.

¶17

Dissa,sfied with the compensa,on assessed for the super NEETIKA TUTEJA structure, the appellant sought a reference under Sec,on 18 of the Act on 2026.01.30 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

RFA-162-2024 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

14.03.2016, claiming that the market value of the super structure was ₹71,00,000/-, as allegedly assessed by an approved valuer, and that he had also suffered substan,al business losses. The reference was forwarded for adjudica,on.

¶21

The acquiring authority opposed the reference, inter alia, on the ground that it was hopelessly barred by limita,on.

¶22

The learned Reference Court, upon apprecia,on of the material on record, held that except for the self-serving statement of the appellant regarding the alleged value of the super structure, no cogent or reliable evidence was produced to establish inadequacy of compensa,on assessed by the Collector at ₹19,48,994/-. More importantly, the Reference Court found that the reference itself was filed aAer an inordinate delay of about six years and was barred by limita,on under Sec,on 18(2) of the Act. Consequently, the reference was declined.

¶23

Assailing the award, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Reference Court erred in holding the reference to be ,me-barred and failed to properly appreciate the appellant’s claim for enhanced compensa,on.

¶24

This Court does not find any merit in the aforesaid conten,on.

¶25

The issue of limita,on has been elaborately dealt with by the Reference Court in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the impugned award, which are reproduced hereinbelow as they succinctly answer the controversy:

¶26

“19. Although the pe,,oner has filed an applica,on under Sec,on 5 of the Limita,on Act, 1963 along with the reference pe,,on seeking condona,on of delay, the above said inordinate delay of six years in filing the objec,on pe,,on is not liable to be condoned. The objec,ons could be filed either within six weeks from the date of receipt of the no,ce from the Collector under Sec,on 18(2) of the Act, or within six months from the date of Award of the Collector, whichever period expired first. The provisions of Sec,on 18(2) of the Land Acquisi,on Act, 1894 are mandatory in nature and the ,me period provided therein cannot be extended. The date of award of the

¶27

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.30 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

RFA-162-2024 (O&M)

¶29

-3-

¶30

Collector has been interpreted to mean the date of actual or construc,ve knowledge of the award to the person concerned……...

¶31

In the present case, the pe,,oner was well aware of the acquisi,on proceedings and the passing of the supplementary award dated 09.03.2010, as he received compensa,on of the super structure on 31.03.2010. The objec,on pe,,on was filed on 14.03.2016, clearly beyond the period prescribed under the Act.”

¶32

From the above findings, it is manifest that the appellant received compensa,on for the super structure on 31.03.2010 pursuant to the supplementary award dated 09.03.2010. Receipt of compensa,on unequivocally establishes actual as well as construc,ve knowledge of the award. Once such knowledge is established, the limita,on prescribed under Sec,on 18(2) of the Act begins to run.

¶33

Sec,on 18(2) prescribes a strict and mandatory period of limita,on—either six weeks from the receipt of no,ce under Sec,on 12(2) or six months from the date of the Collector’s award (interpreted as the date of knowledge), whichever expires earlier. The said statutory period is not extendable by resort to Sec,on 5 of the Limita,on Act, 1963.

¶34

In the present case, the appellant sought reference on 14.03.2016, nearly six years aAer receiving compensa,on on 31.03.2010. The delay is gross, unexplained, and clearly beyond the statutory period. The learned Reference Court, therefore, rightly declined to condone the delay and dismissed the reference as barred by limita,on.

¶35

No illegality, perversity, or jurisdic,onal error is shown in the impugned award warran,ng interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applica,on(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶36

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE

¶37

January 29, 2026 Nee,ka Tuteja

¶38

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶39

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.30 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Krishan Kumar v. the State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Kumar v. the State of Haryana and Others

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

Savitri Devi Vs Daulat Ram and Others

Dev Raj Vs Pala Ram and Others

Gurdeep Singh Vs Nachhattar Singh

(O&M) Sarwan Singh Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others

Rajinder Singh Vs Iqbal Singh

Piara Singh (Gram Sewak) Now Deceased through Lr Vs Local Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee and Others