FAO-2305 119(2 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. Union of India and another Bahadur Singh and another 2. Union of India and another Puran Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CM-15869 Puran Singh; respondent No.2 Swaran Singh; respondent No.4 Rani and respondent No.6 2305-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases 119(2 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** Date of Decision: FAO XOBJC Union of India and another Versus Bahadur Singh and another FAO XOBJC Union of India and another Versus Puran Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Ms. Gehna Vaishnavi, Advocate for the appellant-UOI. Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate and Mr. K.P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the respondents/ landowners. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 15869-CII-2025 IN FAO-2309-1998 Application for impleading the LRs of respondent No.1 Puran Singh; respondent No.2-Sampuran Singh, respondent No.3 Swaran Singh; respondent No.4-Prabh Devi, respondent No.5 Rani and respondent No.6-Mehar Singh, is 1998 (O&M) & other connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.02.2026 FAO-2305-1998 (O&M) and XOBJC-5-CII-1999 …..Appellants …..Respondents FAO-2309-1998 (O&M) with XOBJC-6-CII-1999 …..Appellants Puran Singh (since deceased) through LRs ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Ms. Gehna Vaishnavi, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate and Mr. K.P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the respondents/ landowners. 1998 for impleading the LRs of respondent No.1 Sampuran Singh, respondent No.3 Prabh Devi, respondent No.5-Pritma Mehar Singh, is allowed, as prayed for, for impleading the LRs of respondent No.1- Sampuran Singh, respondent No.3- Pritma allowed, as prayed for, SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2305 subject to all just ex 7 of the application are representative Sampuran Singh, respondent No.3 Prabh Devi, re Mehar Singh, respectively, MAIN CASE as well as two XOBJ this judgment, are being decided as acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being t 2. laid to the decision dated Arbitrator 3. landowners, forming part of the revenue restate of Village the then Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur was requisitioned in the year 1948 in terms of the provisions of Acquisition of Immovable acquisition was initiated in the year 1964. Thereafter, the Government 2305-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases subject to all just exceptions. The applicant 7 of the application are ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of respondent No.1- Sampuran Singh, respondent No.3-Swaran Singh; respondent No.4 Prabh Devi, respondent No.5-Pritma Rani and respondent No.6 Mehar Singh, respectively, to pursue the present appeal. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. MAIN CASE: Vide this common order, two as well as two XOBJCs, details of which are given in the this judgment, are being decided as both acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 08.05.1998 Arbitrator-cum-District Judge, Gurdaspur Briefly stating, some land landowners, forming part of the revenue restate of Village the then Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur was requisitioned in the year 1948 in terms of the provisions of Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 acquisition was initiated in the year 1964. Thereafter, the Government 1998 (O&M) & other connected cases [2] ceptions. The applicants mentioned in paras 2 to ordered to be brought on record as legal Puran Singh; respondent No.2 Swaran Singh; respondent No.4 Pritma Rani and respondent No.6 to pursue the present appeal. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. two First Appeals against Order , details of which are given in the head note both have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For aken from FAO No.2305-1998. way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been 08.05.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur. land owned by the respondents/ landowners, forming part of the revenue restate of Village Chhotepur, the then Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur was requisitioned in the year 1948 in terms of the provisions of The Requisitioning and Property Act, 1952. Later, the process of acquisition was initiated in the year 1964. Thereafter, the Government paras 2 to ordered to be brought on record as legal Puran Singh; respondent No.2- Swaran Singh; respondent No.4- Pritma Rani and respondent No.6- against Order head note of have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For . way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been rned owned by the respondents/ pur, the then Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur was requisitioned in the The Requisitioning and . Later, the process of acquisition was initiated in the year 1964. Thereafter, the Government SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2305 of Punjab appointed the learned District Judge as Arbitrator so as to adjudicate upon the claim made by the respondents/ landowners towards mar award dated 08.05.1998 value in favour of the respondents/ landowners marla, besides awarding solatium @ 30% as well as other statutory interest and benefits payable under Section 28 read with Section 23 1(A) of the Act. 4. at the instance of appellants praying for setting aside of the award and the determination made in favour of respond 5. respondents/ landowners for seeking further enhancement of the market value. 6. through the paper 7. its decision and others Vs. UOI and ors went on to award market value the land similarly situated on the outskirts of Pathankot and acquired around 1964 to 1970 being relevant, are extracted hereunder: 2305-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases of Punjab appointed the learned District Judge as Arbitrator so as to adjudicate upon the claim made by the respondents/ landowners towards market value (including enhancement etc.) dated 08.05.1998, the learned Arbitrator assessed the market in favour of the respondents/ landowners marla, besides awarding solatium @ 30% as well as other statutory t and benefits payable under Section 28 read with Section 23 1(A) of the Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal(s) came to be filed at the instance of appellants praying for setting aside of the award and the determination made in favour of respond On the other hand, XOBJ respondents/ landowners for seeking further enhancement of the market value. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. Under similar circumstances, decision dated 26.10.2010 rendered in the case of and others Vs. UOI and ors., reported as on to award market value @ Rs.350/ land similarly situated on the outskirts of Pathankot and acquired around 1964 to 1970. Paragraphs 7 and 9 of being relevant, are extracted hereunder: 1998 (O&M) & other connected cases [3] of Punjab appointed the learned District Judge as Arbitrator so as to adjudicate upon the claim made by the respondents/ landowners ket value (including enhancement etc.). Vide impugned , the learned Arbitrator assessed the market in favour of the respondents/ landowners @ Rs.150/- per marla, besides awarding solatium @ 30% as well as other statutory t and benefits payable under Section 28 read with Section 23 Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal(s) came to be filed at the instance of appellants praying for setting aside of the award and the determination made in favour of respondents/ landowners. On the other hand, XOBJCs were filed on behalf of the respondents/ landowners for seeking further enhancement of the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone Under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide rendered in the case of Dilawar Singh reported as 2012 (3) RCR (Civil) 16 Rs.350/- per marla with respect to land similarly situated on the outskirts of Pathankot and acquired . Paragraphs 7 and 9 of Dilawar Singh’s case being relevant, are extracted hereunder:- of Punjab appointed the learned District Judge as Arbitrator so as to adjudicate upon the claim made by the respondents/ landowners . Vide impugned , the learned Arbitrator assessed the market per marla, besides awarding solatium @ 30% as well as other statutory t and benefits payable under Section 28 read with Section 23- Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal(s) came to be filed at the instance of appellants praying for setting aside of the award . s were filed on behalf of the respondents/ landowners for seeking further enhancement of the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone vide Dilawar Singh 2012 (3) RCR (Civil) 16, with respect to land similarly situated on the outskirts of Pathankot and acquired case SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2305 2305-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases “7. It is noteworthy that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has in Singh and Anr. connected matters upheld grant of solatium and interest in regard to a similar acquisition made in terms of a notification issued in January 1970. While doing so the High Court plac upon its decision in v. Union of India Subramanium, learned Solicitor General fairly conceded that no appeal has been preferred by the Union of India against the decision in Shankar Singh's case in Union of India v. Inder Singh and Anr. (supra). In that view of the matter therefore and having regard to the fact that there was an inordinate delay of 16 years in the appointment of an Arbitrator in the present cases, we have n hesitation in holding that the principle laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to above would entitle the land owners to the benefit of solatium and interest especially when the owners who have lost land in similar circumstances and for the s been given such a benefit. 9. In the present batch of cases except the case the notification for acquisition was issued in February 1970 which is proximate in point of time to those issued in the Inder Singh's cases Union of India v. Mohinder Singh (Civil Appeal No. 9204/2010) 12.5.1964 and published on 12.6.1964. That 1998 (O&M) & other connected cases [4] It is noteworthy that the High Court of Punjab has in Union of India v. Inder Singh and Anr. in LPA No. 1918 of 1989 and connected matters upheld grant of solatium and interest in regard to a similar acquisition made in terms of a notification issued in January 1970. While doing so the High Court placed reliance upon its decision in Shankar Singh and Others v. Union of India 1988 (1) PLR 163, Mr. Subramanium, learned Solicitor General fairly conceded that no appeal has been preferred by the Union of India against the decision in Shankar Singh's case (supra) or that delivered Union of India v. Inder Singh and Anr. (supra). In that view of the matter therefore and having regard to the fact that there was an inordinate delay of 16 years in the appointment of an Arbitrator in the present cases, we have n hesitation in holding that the principle laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to above would entitle the land owners to the benefit of solatium and interest especially when the owners who have lost land in similar circumstances and for the same purpose have been given such a benefit. In the present batch of cases except the case the notification for acquisition was issued in February 1970 which is proximate in point of time to those issued in the Shanker Singh and Inder Singh's cases (supra). The notification in Union of India v. Mohinder Singh (Civil Appeal No. 9204/2010) was issued on 12.5.1964 and published on 12.6.1964. That It is noteworthy that the High Court of Punjab Union of India v. Inder in LPA No. 1918 of 1989 and connected matters upheld grant of solatium and interest in regard to a similar acquisition made in terms of a notification issued in January 1970. ed reliance Shankar Singh and Others 1988 (1) PLR 163, Mr. Subramanium, learned Solicitor General fairly conceded that no appeal has been preferred by the Union of India against the decision in upra) or that delivered Union of India v. Inder Singh and Anr. (supra). In that view of the matter therefore and having regard to the fact that there was an inordinate delay of 16 years in the appointment of an Arbitrator in the present cases, we have no hesitation in holding that the principle laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to above would entitle the land owners to the benefit of solatium and interest especially when the owners who have lost land in similar ame purpose have In the present batch of cases except the case the notification for acquisition was issued in February 1970 which is proximate in point of Shanker Singh and (supra). The notification in Union of India v. Mohinder Singh (Civil was issued on 12.5.1964 and published on 12.6.1964. That SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2305 Apex Court in the case of 2305-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases apart the lands in question were all acquired for the very same purpose and are situated on the outskirts of a growing town like Pathankot. The growing non-agriculture potential of such lands is also not in serious dispute. The High Court has failed to notice all these aspects apparently because the decisions in Shanker Singh's case and that delivered in Inder were handed down subsequent to the impugned order. Suffice it to say that on the material available before us we see no reason why the amount of compensation payable to the landowners appellants in these appeals should also not be enha proportionate benefits towards solatium and interest as awarded by the Arbitrator and upheld by the High Court in those cases and in similar other cases to which we have referred in the earlier part of this order. In so far Singh's case (supra) is concerned, the appeal has been filed by the Union of India against grant of solatium and interest. No appeal has been filed by the owners in that case for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Even otherwise in the evidence to justify any such enhancement, there is no room for directing payment of a large amount of compensation.” The aforesaid case has been followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and ors. Vs. Asket 1998 (O&M) & other connected cases [5] apart the lands in question were all acquired for the very same purpose and are situated on the f a growing town like Pathankot. The agriculture potential of such lands is also not in serious dispute. The High Court has failed to notice all these aspects apparently because the decisions in Shanker Singh's case and that delivered in Inder Singh's case (supra) were handed down subsequent to the impugned order. Suffice it to say that on the material available before us we see no reason why the amount of compensation payable to the landowners appellants in these appeals should also not be enhanced to Rs. 350/- per marla with proportionate benefits towards solatium and interest as awarded by the Arbitrator and upheld by the High Court in those cases and in similar other cases to which we have referred in the earlier part of this order. In so far as Mohinder Singh's case (supra) is concerned, the appeal has been filed by the Union of India against grant of solatium and interest. No appeal has been filed by the owners in that case for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Even otherwise in the absence of any cogent evidence to justify any such enhancement, there is no room for directing payment of a large amount of compensation.” case has been followed by the Hon’ble Union of India (UOI) and ors. Vs. Asket apart the lands in question were all acquired for the very same purpose and are situated on the f a growing town like Pathankot. The agriculture potential of such lands is also not in serious dispute. The High Court has failed to notice all these aspects apparently because the decisions in Shanker Singh's case Singh's case (supra) were handed down subsequent to the impugned order. Suffice it to say that on the material available before us we see no reason why the amount of compensation payable to the landowners appellants in these appeals should per marla with proportionate benefits towards solatium and interest as awarded by the Arbitrator and upheld by the High Court in those cases and in similar other cases to which we have referred in the as Mohinder Singh's case (supra) is concerned, the appeal has been filed by the Union of India against grant of solatium and interest. No appeal has been filed by the owners in that case for enhancement of the amount of compensation. absence of any cogent evidence to justify any such enhancement, there is no room for directing payment of a large case has been followed by the Hon’ble Union of India (UOI) and ors. Vs. Asket SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2305 Singh and ors. decided on 01.05.2024. 8. case being identically placed on the outskirts of Pathankot been notified in the year 1964; applying the principle of parity, appeals preferred at the instance of Union of India are hereby dismissed; whereas the XOBJ respondents/ landowners are accepted and the market value in their favour is assessed @ Rs.350/ statutory benefits and interest payable u solatium by relying upon the decision made in case of Singh’s 9. unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned 10. disposed of. 18.02.2026 sanjay 2305-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases Singh and ors., passed in Civil Appeal No. 1636 decided on 01.05.2024. In view of the aforesaid, the land acquired in the present case being identically placed on the outskirts of Pathankot been ified in the year 1964; applying the principle of parity, appeals preferred at the instance of Union of India are hereby dismissed; whereas the XOBJCs preferred at the instance of respondents/ landowners are accepted and the market value in their favour is assessed @ Rs.350/- per marl statutory benefits and interest payable u solatium by relying upon the decision made in case of case (supa). Further, wherever, the landowner(s) unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? 1998 (O&M) & other connected cases [6] passed in Civil Appeal No. 1636-1637 of 2016, the land acquired in the present case being identically placed on the outskirts of Pathankot been ified in the year 1964; applying the principle of parity, both the appeals preferred at the instance of Union of India are hereby s preferred at the instance of respondents/ landowners are accepted and the market value in their per marla besides grant of other statutory benefits and interest payable under the Act including solatium by relying upon the decision made in case of Dilawar Further, 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 application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No 1637 of 2016, the land acquired in the present case being identically placed on the outskirts of Pathankot been both the appeals preferred at the instance of Union of India are hereby s preferred at the instance of respondents/ landowners are accepted and the market value in their ides grant of other nder the Act including Dilawar has/have 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 Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document