RFA-42-20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Gurpal Singh Sub Divisional Magistrate Kharar and another CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken 2. laid to the Court-cum referred to as ‘Reference Court’). 3. estate of Village vide notifications dated 08.11.2002) 2020 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA and other connected cases Date of Decision: 03.02.2026 Gurpal Singh and anr. Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate -cum-Land Acquisition Collector, and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Sandeep Dhiman, Advocate for the appellants/landowners Mr.Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Vide this common order, a bunch of Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken By way of filing the present appeal laid to the Award dated 01.08.2019, passed by the learned cum-Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as ‘Reference Court’). Briefly stating, some land, situated within the revenue estate of Village Soonk, was acquired by the Government of vide notifications dated 08.10.2002 and 29.10.2002 08.11.2002), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-42-2020 (O&M) and other connected cases Date of Decision: 03.02.2026 …….Appellants Versus Land Acquisition Collector, ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Sandeep Dhiman, Advocate /landowners. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. Vide this common order, a bunch of 27 Regular First Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.42-2020. way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been passed by the learned Reference SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter land, situated within the revenue , was acquired by the Government of Punjab 08.10.2002 and 29.10.2002 (published on , issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Regular First Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For challenge has been Reference SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter land, situated within the revenue Punjab (published on , issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.11 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-42-20 Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for “construction of Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 15.07.2005 assessed market value in respect of t Rs.2,70,000/ Barani, Rs.1,50,000/ Pahar, along with all other statutory benefi 4. landowners preferred application under Section 28 award dated 05.01.2013 passed by the learned Re favour of other identically placed landowners pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings. The LAC vide decision dated 22.05.2014 partly accepted the claim of the appellant and granted him the benefit of similar market value @ Rs.5,74,6 interest for the complete period. Still aggrieved, the appellant application disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 05.01.2013 while determining the market value of the acquired land at a uniform rate of Rs.5,74 benefits under the Act. 5. Court, the present appeal 2020 (O&M) [2] Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for construction of reservoir area of Jainty Dam in Village Soonk Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 15.07.2005 assessed market value in respect of t Rs.2,70,000/- per acre for Chahi, Rs.1,50,000/ Barani, Rs.50,000/- per acre for Rs.1,50,000/- for Gair Mumkin Bara and Rs.50,000/ Pahar, along with all other statutory benefi Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ landowners did not file objections under Section 18 of the Act but preferred application under Section 28 award dated 05.01.2013 passed by the learned Re favour of other identically placed landowners pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings. The LAC vide decision dated 22.05.2014 partly accepted the claim of the appellant and granted him the benefit of similar market value @ Rs.5,74,642/ interest for the complete period. Still aggrieved, the appellant application invoking Section 28-A(3) disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 05.01.2013 while determining the market value of the acquired land at a uniform rate of Rs.5,74,642/- per acre besides all other statutory benefits under the Act. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeal was preferred at the instance of appellants/ Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for reservoir area of Jainty Dam in Village Soonk”. The Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 15.07.2005 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ per acre for Chahi, Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for Bagh per acre for banjar Kadim and Banjar, for Gair Mumkin Bara and Rs.50,000/- for Gair Mumkin Pahar, along with all other statutory benefits under the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ did not file objections under Section 18 of the Act but preferred application under Section 28-A thereof on the basis of award dated 05.01.2013 passed by the learned Reference Court in favour of other identically placed landowners pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings. The LAC vide decision dated 22.05.2014 partly accepted the claim of the appellant and granted him the benefit 42/- per acre but without grant of interest for the complete period. Still aggrieved, the appellants filed of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 05.01.2013 while determining the market value of the acquired land per acre besides all other statutory Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference preferred at the instance of appellants/ Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for The Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated he acquired land @ Bagh Banjar, for Gair Mumkin Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ did not file objections under Section 18 of the Act but A thereof on the basis of ference Court in favour of other identically placed landowners pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings. The LAC vide decision dated 22.05.2014 partly accepted the claim of the appellant and granted him the benefit per acre but without grant of filed of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 05.01.2013 while determining the market value of the acquired land per acre besides all other statutory Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference preferred at the instance of appellants/ SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.11 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-42-20 landowners 6. through the paper 7. market value pertaining to the award Additional District Judge, to re-determine Court @ Rs.10,92,606/ RFA-2954 Magistrate favour of the appellants/ landowners with respect to the present acquisition also needs to be re 8. situated landowners, the appellants/ landowners in the present case are held entitled to market value to the tune of Rs.10,92,606/ acre, besi solatium, as provided under the Act. 9. unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been i liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. 10. 2020 (O&M) [3] landowners as well as respondent-State I have head learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. As a matter of fact, the determination with respect to the market value pertaining to the award Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, determine the market value, now stands re rt @ Rs.10,92,606/- per acre vide order of even date passed in 2954-2013, titled as Hari Singh and ors. Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-LAC, Kharar, and as such, the market value in favour of the appellants/ landowners with respect to the present uisition also needs to be re-evaluated again Accordingly, applying the principle of parity for similarly situated landowners, the appellants/ landowners in the present case are held entitled to market value to the tune of Rs.10,92,606/ acre, besides all other statutory benefits including interest on solatium, as provided under the Act. Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been i liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Consequently, the appeals State. I have head learned counsel for the parties and gone As a matter of fact, the determination with respect to the market value pertaining to the award dated 05.01.2013 by the SAS Nagar, Mohali, which was relied upon the market value, now stands re-assessed by this per acre vide order of even date passed in Hari Singh and ors. Vs. Sub Divisional , and as such, the market value in favour of the appellants/ landowners with respect to the present evaluated again. Accordingly, applying the principle of parity for similarly situated landowners, the appellants/ landowners in the present case are held entitled to market value to the tune of Rs.10,92,606/- per des all other statutory benefits including interest on 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. appeals preferred at the instance of I have head learned counsel for the parties and gone As a matter of fact, the determination with respect to the dated 05.01.2013 by the Mohali, which was relied upon y this per acre vide order of even date passed in Hari Singh and ors. Vs. Sub Divisional , and as such, the market value in favour of the appellants/ landowners with respect to the present Accordingly, applying the principle of parity for similarly situated landowners, the appellants/ landowners in the present case per des all other statutory benefits including interest on Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have objection(s) after filing mpleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving preferred at the instance of SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.11 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-42-20 appellants/landowners at the instance of 11. disposed of. 03.02.2026 sanjay Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 03.02.2026 sanjay 2020 (O&M) [4] appellants/landowners are allowed at the instance of respondent State is hereby Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 03.02.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Sr. No. Case No. 1. RFA-372-2020 (O&M) 2. RFA-95-2020 (O&M) 3. RFA-72-2020 (O&M) 4. RFA-73-2020 (O&M) 5. RFA-93-2020 (O&M) 6. RFA-68-2020 (O&M) 7. RFA-69-2020 (O&M) 8. RFA-70-2020 (O&M) 9. RFA-71-2020 (O&M) 10. RFA-146-2020 (O&M) 11. RFA-147-2020 (O&M) 12. RFA-91-2020 (O&M) 13. RFA-139-2020 (O&M) 14. RFA-141-2020 (O&M) 15. RFA-198-2020 (O&M) 16. RFA-191-2020 (O&M) 17. RFA-138-2020 (O&M) 18. RFA-612-2020 (O&M) 19. RFA-355-2020 (O&M) 20. RFA-199-2020 (O&M) 21. RFA-150-2020 (O&M) 22. RFA-142-2020 (O&M) 23. RFA-144-2020 (O&M) 24. RFA-145-2020 (O&M) 25. RFA-148-2020 (O&M) 26. RFA-154-2020 (O&M) 03.02.2026 allowed, whereas the appeal preferred is hereby dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) 2020 (O&M) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE preferred Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.11 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document