106+314 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH UNION OF INDIA AND RIPUDAMAN KAUR AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Advocate for respondent No.7. Mr. Nilesh Kant Goyal, Advocate and Ms. Tavleen Kaur, Advocate for HARKESH MANUJA By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated Judge, Gurdaspur petition filed under Section of Immovable Property Act, 1952 the appellants-landowners [2]. Learned counsel for the parties are ad with respect to the d upon by the this Court vide its decision 2307-1998 titled as while relying upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Dilwar Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others” 2012(3) RCR (Civil) 16, compensation @ Rs.350/ E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2306-1998 Date of Decision: UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Versus RIPUDAMAN KAUR AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Lalit K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Advocate for respondent No.7. Mr. Nilesh Kant Goyal, Advocate and Ms. Tavleen Kaur, Advocate for LRs of **** KESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 08.05.1998 passed by the learned Gurdaspur (for short ’Reference Court’) petition filed under Section 8(1) (D) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as landowners, was partly allowed. Learned counsel for the parties are ad with respect to the determination of market value stands adjudicated this Court vide its decision dated 29.04.2015 titled as “Union of India vs. Dr. Asket Singh and Others.” while relying upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dilwar Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others” RCR (Civil) 16, whereby the landowners were held entitled for compensation @ Rs.350/- per marla along with the solatium and interest. E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1998 with XOBJR-46-CII-1999 Date of Decision: April 06, 2026 .....Appellants ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Lalit K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Advocate for respondent No.7. Mr. Nilesh Kant Goyal, Advocate and LRs of respondent No.8. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the passed by the learned Arbitrator-cum-District (for short ’Reference Court’) whereby the claims Requisitioning and Acquisition (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by partly allowed. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the matter etermination of market value stands adjudicated dated 29.04.2015 passed in FAO- “Union of India vs. Dr. Asket Singh and Others.” while relying upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dilwar Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others” reported as the landowners were held entitled for per marla along with the solatium and interest. 1999 April 06, 2026 s By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the District claims Requisitioning and Acquisition ‘the Act’) by that the matter etermination of market value stands adjudicated - “Union of India vs. Dr. Asket Singh and Others.” while relying upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in reported as the landowners were held entitled for per marla along with the solatium and interest. TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.04.10 18:53 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-2306-1998 with XOBJR-46-CII-1999 -2- [3]. In view of the above as well as on account of agreed stand taken by both the sides on facts and applying the principle of parity, besides grant of just and fair compensation, the present appeal is partly allowed in terms of the aforementioned decision i.e. Dr. Asket Singh’s case (Supra) and the landowners are held entitled for similar amount of compensation of Rs.350/- per marla as has been awarded to other similarly situated landowners, along with all statutory benefits and interest available under the amended provisions of the Act as applicable to the present acquisition. [4]. Accordingly, the present appeal filed at instance of State is dismissed and cross-objection filed at the instance of landowner is disposed of in terms of . Dr. Asket Singh’s case (Supra). [5]. Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications before the learned Executing Court. [6]. Registry is requested to intimate the respondents about disposal of the present appeal and cross-objections. [7]. Pending application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of. 06.04.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.04.10 18:53 I agree to specified portions of this document