RFA-2760 119 (6 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Kartar Kaur The Punjab State 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 decision dated Additional District Judge, ‘the Reference Court’) 3. the revenue estate of Bathinda 2760-2003 (O&M) & other connected cases cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: 30.01.2026 Kartar Kaur Versus The Punjab State and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH Present: Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. -.- 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(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 31.01.2003 Additional District Judge, Bathinda-cum ‘the Reference Court’). Briefly stating, 183 kanals 5 marlas of the revenue estate of Village Phus Mandi, Tehsil and District Bathinda was acquired by the Government of 2003 (O&M) & other connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-2760-2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.01.2026 …….Appellant Versus ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Ritesh Aggarwal, Advocate Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate Vide this common order, a bunch of 6 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.2760 -2003 way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been 31.01.2003 passed by the learned cum-Reference Court (for short 183 kanals 5 marlas of land, situated within Village Phus Mandi, Tehsil and District was acquired by the Government of Punjab vide 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 3. way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been passed by the learned Reference Court (for short land, situated within Village Phus Mandi, Tehsil and District vide SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2760 notifications dated Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for its expansion for putting up pipe line for Kandla to Bathinda” Land Acquisition Collect 21.07.1994 Rs.2,00,000 Act. 4. 4. landowners filed which came to be decision dated 5. Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instanc appellant 6. through the paper 7. same revenue estate of Village Phus Mandi, District Bathinda was acquired just purpose, namely, “ Limited at Village Phus Mandi Act; was issued for the said acquisition on 18.03.1991 2760-2003 (O&M) & other connected cases notifications dated 31.12.1991 and 23.07.1992 Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. “for for its expansion for putting up pipe line for Kandla to Bathinda” Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award 21.07.1994 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ 2,00,000/- per acre, besides all other statutory benefits under the Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ landowners filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be dismissed by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 31.01.2003. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instanc appellant(s)/ landowner(s). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. It has not been disputed that a large chunk of land in the same revenue estate of Village Phus Mandi, District Bathinda was acquired just 9 months prior to the purpose, namely, “for extension of Oil Depot of Indian Oil Corporation Limited at Village Phus Mandi”. Notification under Section 4 of the was issued for the said acquisition on 18.03.1991 2003 (O&M) & other connected cases [2] 31.12.1991 and 23.07.1992, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ for Bharat Petroleum Corporation for its expansion for putting up pipe line for Kandla to Bathinda”. The or (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ other statutory benefits under the Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ eference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, by the learned Reference Court vide Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone It has not been disputed that a large chunk of land in the same revenue estate of Village Phus Mandi, District Bathinda was the present acquisition for public for extension of Oil Depot of Indian Oil Corporation otification under Section 4 of the was issued for the said acquisition on 18.03.1991 whereas the , issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ Bharat Petroleum Corporation The or (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ other statutory benefits under the Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ eference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, by the learned Reference Court vide Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference e of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone It has not been disputed that a large chunk of land in the same revenue estate of Village Phus Mandi, District Bathinda was present acquisition for public for extension of Oil Depot of Indian Oil Corporation otification under Section 4 of the whereas the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2760 present acquisition commenced vide notification issued under Section 4 8. the land parcel forming part of the previous acquisition and forming part of t other been divided by road leading highway from Reference Court went wrong having discarded the award dated 12.04.2002 (Ex.XX) pe previous acquisition which commenced vide notification dated 18.03.1991 lakhs per dated 16.11.2015 passed Corporation Limited Vs. Sukhdev Singh and another when geographically the proximity and thus 9. notification abuts already existing Oil Depot, cannot be treated as a disadvantage attached to it. Further there being a time gap of around 9 months between the two notifications i.e. 18.03.1991 and 31.12.1991, pertaining to the s Mandi, an appreciation @ 9% needs to be awarded in favour of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) while taking into account the fact that the 2760-2003 (O&M) & other connected cases present acquisition commenced vide notification under Section 4 of the Act. As per the site plan Ex.RW1/A, it can be discerned that the land parcel forming part of the previous acquisition and forming part of the present one are located just opposite been divided by road leading highway from Village Phus Mandi. In such circumstances, learned Reference Court went wrong having discarded the award dated 12.04.2002 (Ex.XX) pertaining to the determination made in terms of previous acquisition which commenced vide notification dated 18.03.1991 whereby the market value was assessed lakhs per acre which stands affirmed by this Court vide decision dated 16.11.2015 passed in RFA No.2430 Corporation Limited Vs. Sukhdev Singh and another geographically the two parcels of land proximity and thus carried similar potential value. Mere fact that the land par notification abuts already existing Oil Depot, cannot be treated as a disadvantage attached to it. Further there being a time gap of around 9 months between the two notifications i.e. 18.03.1991 and 31.12.1991, pertaining to the same revenue estate of Village Phus Mandi, an appreciation @ 9% needs to be awarded in favour of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) while taking into account the fact that the 2003 (O&M) & other connected cases [3] present acquisition commenced vide notification dated 31.12.1991, As per the site plan Ex.RW1/A, it can be discerned that the land parcel forming part of the previous acquisition and that he present one are located just opposite to each been divided by road leading to Bathinda-Talwandi Sabo Village Phus Mandi. In such circumstances, learned Reference Court went wrong having discarded the award dated rtaining to the determination made in terms of previous acquisition which commenced vide notification dated the market value was assessed @ Rs.2.30 which stands affirmed by this Court vide decision RFA No.2430-2002, tilted as Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Sukhdev Singh and another, especially two parcels of land were located in close similar potential value. Mere fact that the land parcel acquired vide present notification abuts already existing Oil Depot, cannot be treated as a disadvantage attached to it. Further there being a time gap of around 9 months between the two notifications i.e. 18.03.1991 and ame revenue estate of Village Phus Mandi, an appreciation @ 9% needs to be awarded in favour of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) while taking into account the fact that the dated 31.12.1991, As per the site plan Ex.RW1/A, it can be discerned that that to each Talwandi Sabo Village Phus Mandi. In such circumstances, learned Reference Court went wrong having discarded the award dated rtaining to the determination made in terms of previous acquisition which commenced vide notification dated @ Rs.2.30 which stands affirmed by this Court vide decision 2002, tilted as Indian Oil especially located in close cel acquired vide present notification abuts already existing Oil Depot, cannot be treated as a disadvantage attached to it. Further there being a time gap of around 9 months between the two notifications i.e. 18.03.1991 and ame revenue estate of Village Phus Mandi, an appreciation @ 9% needs to be awarded in favour of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) while taking into account the fact that the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2760 major portion of the acquired land parcel is located on the main road leading from Ba 10. while placing reliance upon the 18.03.1991, whereby market value was granted @ Rs.2.30 lakhs per acre, the market value acquisition as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act comes to Rs.2,30,000/ 9 months) = Rs.2,50,700/ and intere solatium. 11. unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. 12. landowners area allowed in the aforesaid terms 13. disposed of. 30.01.2026 sanjay 2760-2003 (O&M) & other connected cases major portion of the acquired land parcel is located on the main road leading from Bathinda-Talwandi Sabo to Village Phus Mandi. Accordingly, in the wake of discussion made hereinabove, while placing reliance upon the 18.03.1991, whereby market value was granted @ Rs.2.30 lakhs per acre, the market value with respect to the land under present acquisition as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act comes to Rs.2,30,000/- + 9% (appreciation for the time gap of about 9 months) = Rs.2,50,700/- per acre along with all statutory benefits and interest as provided under the Act solatium. Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the appellant landowners area allowed in the aforesaid terms Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 30.01.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? 2003 (O&M) & other connected cases [4] major portion of the acquired land parcel is located on the main road Talwandi Sabo to Village Phus Mandi. Accordingly, in the wake of discussion made hereinabove, while placing reliance upon the previous notification dated 18.03.1991, whereby market value was granted @ Rs.2.30 lakhs per with respect to the land under present acquisition as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act + 9% (appreciation for the time gap of about along with all statutory benefits as provided under the Act, especially the 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 liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the appellant(s)/ landowners area allowed in the aforesaid terms. ation(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No major portion of the acquired land parcel is located on the main road Accordingly, in the wake of discussion made hereinabove, previous notification dated 18.03.1991, whereby market value was granted @ Rs.2.30 lakhs per with respect to the land under present acquisition as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act + 9% (appreciation for the time gap of about along with all statutory benefits , especially the interest on Further, wherever, the landowner(s) 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 (s)/ ation(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2760 Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 30.01.2026 sanjay 2760-2003 (O&M) & other connected cases Sr. No. Case No. 1. RFA-3162-2003 (O&M) 2. RFA-3163-2003 (O&M) 3. RFA-3164-2003 (O&M) 4. RFA-3165-2003 (O&M) 5. RFA-3446-2003 (O&M) 30.01.2026 2003 (O&M) & other connected cases [5] (O&M) 2003 (O&M) 2003 (O&M) 2003 (O&M) 2003 (O&M) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document