Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
112 IN TH
State of Pun
Baldev Kau
CORAM:
Present:
HARKESH
appeal pref (for short 18.03.1998 Rupnagar restoring th short “LAC [2]
landowner to be acqu Mohali. Vide value at the [2.1] reference u IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR
RFA
Date
Punjab
Versus
v Kaur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR
Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Additional
for the appellant. None for the respondent. ****
KESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
The appellant-State of Punjab l preferred under Section 54 of the L hort “1894 Act”), seeks setting a .1998 passed by the learned A (hereinafter to be referred as ring the award passed by the Land
“LAC’). Briefly stating, some land o wner situated within the revenue esta acquired for the establishment of li. Vide Award dated 10.06.1991, the at the rate of Rs.2,60,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved, some of the nce under Section 18 of the 1894
UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH RFA No. 3662 of 1998 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.01.2026
...Appellant
...Respondent HARKESH MANUJA ional Advocate General, Punjab
unjab, by instituting the present f the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 tting aside of the award dated ed Additional District Judge, d as “Reference Court”) while Land Acquisition Collector (for nd owned by the respondent- e estate of Village Kambali came nt of new vegetable market at , the LAC assessed the market acre. of the other landowners sought 1894 Act, which came to be
DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.15 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
accepted on 01.09.1993 by the then Reference Court, whereby the market value of the land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 5,96,000/- per acre. [2.2] Thereafter, based on the aforementioned Reference Court’s Award dated 01.09.1993, the respondent who did not chose to file reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, filed an application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act on 30.09.1993. The same was rejected by the LAC, however, aggrieved thereof, the respondent sought reference under Section 28-A (3) of the 1894 Act, which was accepted vide Award dated 18.03.1998 passed by the learned Reference Court and the respondent was held entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,96,000/- per acre alongwith other statutory benefits. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant-State of Punjab has filed the present appeal.
[3]
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the paper-book / records, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. [4]
A perusal of the record shows that the respondent- landowner, based on the then learned Reference Court’s Award dated 01.09.1993, moved an application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act on 30.09.1993, which apparently was within the prescribed period of three months and the respondent-landowner was rightly provided the benefit of earlier award dated 01.09.1993 rendered in a connected matter arising out of the same acquisition and pertaining to similarly situated landowner(s) of the same village. [5]
As regards the challenge to the rate of compensation, it is not in dispute that for the same acquisition and village, the market DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.15 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-3-
value had already been determined at the rate of Rs. 5,96,000/- per acre vide judgment dated 01.09.1993 by the then Reference Court. However, nothing has been brought on record to show any alteration therein by the Appellate Courts. Thus, the principle of parity mandates that similarly situated landowner, viz. respondent herein was also held entitled for the said enhanced compensation. Consequently, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. [6]
In view of the above, the present appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. [7]
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off. January 13, 2026
( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’
JUDGE
DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.15 19:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document