RFA-1267 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA State of Punjab Swarn Lata CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Award dated Bathinda 2. Section 4 of the was issued on 12.12.1974 followed by notification dated 02.01.1978 issued under Section 6 thereof; whereby 341.79 acres of land was acquired for public purpose, namely, “ Urban Estate, Bathinda”. Land Acquisition Collector, (for short “ statutory benefits under the 1894 Act, assessed the market value in the following manner: Sr. No. 1. 1267-2000 (O&M) and other connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: State of Punjab Versus Swarn Lata CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G., Punjab. None for the respondent/ landowner. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award dated 09.11.1999 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bathinda (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘ Briefly stating, in the present case, Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘ was issued on 12.12.1974 followed by notification dated 02.01.1978 issued under Section 6 thereof; whereby 341.79 acres of land was acquired for public purpose, namely, “ Urban Estate, Bathinda”. Vide award No. 379 dated 22 Land Acquisition Collector, (for short “ statutory benefits under the 1894 Act, assessed the market value in the following manner:- Sr. No. Type of Land Chahi/ Nehri 2000 (O&M) and other connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-1267-2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.04.2026 …….Appellant Versus ..….Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G., Punjab. None for the respondent/ landowner. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’). Briefly stating, in the present case, notification under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act was issued on 12.12.1974 followed by notification dated 02.01.1978 issued under Section 6 thereof; whereby 341.79 acres of land was acquired for public purpose, namely, “for establishment of 3rd Phase, Vide award No. 379 dated 22.03.1978, Land Acquisition Collector, (for short “the LAC”) besides granting the statutory benefits under the 1894 Act, assessed the market value in Value (Rs. per acre) Rs.12,250/- per acre By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, notification under 1894 Act’) was issued on 12.12.1974 followed by notification dated 02.01.1978 issued under Section 6 thereof; whereby 341.79 acres of land was Phase, .03.1978, ”) besides granting the statutory benefits under the 1894 Act, assessed the market value in SANJAY GUPTA 2026.04.21 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1267-2000 (O&M) and other connected cases [2] 2. Barani/ Banjar/ Gair Mumkin Rs.11,000/- per acre 3. Gair Mumkin rasta Rs.6,000/- per acre 4. Gair Mumkin Chhapar Rs.5,000/- per acre 3. Being dissatisfied, the respondent/ landowner preferred objection/petition under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, whereupon the learned Reference Court re-determined the market value of the land of the appellant measuring 500 sq. yards @ Rs. 20 per sq. yard along with all other statutory benefits as provided under the 1894 Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal was preferred at the instance of appellant-State. 4. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondent/ landowner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the paper-book. 6. From perusal of the record, it can be traced out that this Court vide its decision dated 22.07.1983 passed in LPA No. 698/1982, titled as “State of Punjab Vs. Madan Lal and others,” finally determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.17/- per sq. yard. In such circumstances, insofar as the market value is concerned, the present appeal is partly allowed and the market value of the acquired land is assessed in terms of the decision dated 22.07.1983 passed in Madan Lal’s case (supra) i.e. @ Rs.17/- per sq. yard along with all statutory benefits as provided under the 1894 SANJAY GUPTA 2026.04.21 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1267-2000 (O&M) and other connected cases [3] Act. 7. Although learned State counsel sought to contend that the reference petition filed at the instance of the respondent/landowner was barred by limitation, however, as rightly recorded by the learned Reference Court that except for a mere objection raised by the appellant-State in its written statement before the learned Reference Court, no material was produced on record to establish as to whether the respondent/ landowner or any of her representative was either present at the time of passing of the Award by the LAC or any notice of the Award along with a copy thereof was ever served upon her. In these circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Reference Court to the extent that the reference petition filed by the respondent/landowner was within limitation. 8. With the aforesaid modification of re-assessment of market value @ Rs.17/- per sq. yard along with all statutory benefits and interest as provided under the 1894 Act, the present appeal is disposed of. 9. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. 16.04.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sanjay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether Reportable? Yes/No SANJAY GUPTA 2026.04.21 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document