1 110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. KHUSHAL SINGH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Sr. counsel, UOI for the appellants. Mr. R.S. Manhas, cross HARKESH MANUJA CM-11452-CII-2001 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 180 days in refiling the appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 180 days in refiling the appeal is hereby condoned. FAO-2037-2001 By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 01.06.2000 passed by the learned Arbitrator Judge, Gurdaspur. 2. Briefly stated, around 29 kanals 19 marlas of land owned by the respondents estate of village Bharoli Kalan, Tehsil Pathankot under Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Versus SINGH AND ORS. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Sr. counsel, UOI for the appellants. Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the cross-objectors/respondents/landowners. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 2001 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 180 days in refiling the appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone e contents of the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 180 days in refiling the appeal is hereby 2001 with XOBJC-130-2025 By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an 01.06.2000 passed by the learned Arbitrator Judge, Gurdaspur. Briefly stated, around 29 kanals 19 marlas of land owned by the respondents-cross objectors/landowners forming part of revenue estate of village Bharoli Kalan, Tehsil Pathankot under Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 FAO-2037-2001 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2037-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 04, 2026 ........Appellants ......Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Sr. counsel, UOI Advocate for the objectors/respondents/landowners. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 180 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone e contents of the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 180 days in refiling the appeal is hereby By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an 01.06.2000 passed by the learned Arbitrator-cum-District Briefly stated, around 29 kanals 19 marlas of land owned by cross objectors/landowners forming part of revenue estate of village Bharoli Kalan, Tehsil Pathankot was notified vide Form-J under Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (O&M) February 04, 2026 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 180 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone e contents of the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 180 days in refiling the appeal is hereby By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an District Briefly stated, around 29 kanals 19 marlas of land owned by cross objectors/landowners forming part of revenue J under Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.09 09:33 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 FAO-2037-2001 (O&M) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 17.03.1970. The market value against the aforesaid was assessed at Rs.150/- per marla. Aggrieved thereof, the landowners-respondents sought arbitration. On 09.02.2000, the State Government appointed an Arbitrator for the purpose of dealing with application preferred at the instance of respondents-landowners in terms of Section 8 of the Act. Learned Arbitrator vide its award dated 01.06.2000 re-assessed the market value @ Rs.220/- per marla and also granted the benefit of statutory solatium and interest in favour of respondents-landowners. The operative paragraph No.9 of the award dated 01.06.2000 is reproduced hereunder:- “9. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, I accept this application with costs and award compensation to the applicants of the acquired land at the rate of Rs 220/- per marla and the applicants are accordingly awarded compensation for the land acquired at this rate alongwith solatium at the ate of 30% on such market value and interest thereon for the first year, from the date when the possession of the land was taken at the rate of 9% and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment of the compensation awarded. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs 1000/-. Judgement be written on the stamp paper worth Rs 75/-. Memo of costs be prepared. File be completed and consigned to the record room.” 3. Aggrieved of the benefit of solatium granted in favour of respondents-landowners, the present appeal came to be preferred at the instance of appellants. In response, the landowners-respondents preferred cross-objections praying for further enhancement of compensation. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book as well as cross-objections. TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.09 09:33 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 FAO-2037-2001 (O&M) 5. A perusal of the record shows that the acquired land falls within the revenue estate of village Bharoli Kalan, Tehsil Pathankot and the acquisition commenced vide notification dated 17.03.1970 for defence purposes. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Dilawar Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others” reported as 2011(3) ICC, 803 pertaining to land parcel situated on the outskirt of Pathankot and acquired for the same purpose ordered for grant of uniform market value @ Rs.350/- per marla. The operative paragraph No.10 from the aforementioned judgment is extracted hereunder:- “10. 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 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 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.” TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.09 09:33 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 FAO-2037-2001 (O&M) 6. As regards the award of solatium, it has been held in case of Dilawar (supra), that in case of inordinate delay in appointment of Arbitrator, the landowners are held entitled for grant of benefit of solatium and interest. Relevant paragraph No.8 from the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “8. It is noteworthy that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 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 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 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 circumstances and for the same purpose have been given such a benefit.” 7. In the present facts and circumstances, there has been a delay of around 30 years for appointment of Arbitrator as the land owned by the respondents-cross-objectors was notified on 17.03.1970 whereas, the Arbitrator was appointed on 09.02.2000. Thus, the respondents/cross-objectors/landowners are entitled for award of statutory solatium and interest. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is dismissed and the cross-objection filed at the instance of respondents- cross-objectors/landowners are allowed. The respondents/cross- TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.09 09:33 I agree to specified portions of this document 5 FAO-2037-2001 (O&M) objectors/landowners are held entitled for market value of Rs.350/- per marla along with all other statutory benefits including solatium as well as interest thereupon. 9. Taking into account the fact that the acquisition in the present case commenced more than 55 years back, the appellants are directed to deposit the amount of compensation payable to respondents/cross- objectors/landowners within 3 months from today, or else, in addition to the statutory benefits and interest they shall be liable to pay cost of Rs.50,000/- per month to the respondents/cross-objectors/landowners which shall be borne by the Officer who would be responsible for the delay in disbursement of compensation. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 04.02.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.09 09:33 I agree to specified portions of this document