IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.4686 of 1987 Date of decision: 28.1.2009 State of Punjab. -----Petitioner Vs. The District Judge, Ropar and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for respondents. ----- ORDER: 1. This petition has been filed by the State of Punjab against order of the Reference Court rejecting the reference made at the instance of the State against compensation awarded by the Collector, as not maintainable. 2. Land of respondents No.3 to 97 was acquired by the State of Punjab for Satluj Yamuna Link Canal Project. The Collector vide award dated 22.3.1984 determined the compensation ranging from 30,000/- per acre to Rs.2,05,000/- per acre. The Executive Engineer filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) for reduction of compensation. The application was allowed and C.W.P. No.4686 of 1987 reference was made. However, the reference Court i.e. District Judge, Ropar declined the reference on the ground that the same was not maintainable in view of provisions of Section 25 of the Act. 3. In the writ petition, reference has been made to Section 18(2-A) of the Act, as amended by local amendment applicable to Punjab, providing for reference at the instance of the State, where the award is excessive. 4. The said provision does not appear to have been discussed in the impugned order. However, we find that in para 8 of the impugned order, learned District Judge held that the award had not been given without approval of the State. As per standing order in force, if no reply was received within one month, approval was deemed to be granted. In the present case, approval had been duly sought and was deemed to be granted. 5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the reference Court erred in declining the reference on the principle that the award was offer of the State, ignoring local amendment allowing challenge to the award by the State. We cannot accept this submission in view of finding of deemed approval. 6. The petition is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE January 28, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 2