120 IN TH Gurdial Sing State of Pun CORAM: Present: HARKESH CM-15219 applicants appellant No objection ag subject to a are ordered appellant No IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RFA Date al Singh Versus of Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advoc for the appellants. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Additional A for respondent No. 1. Mr. Kawaljit Kaur Dhillon, Advo for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. **** KESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 5219-CI-2009 Prayer in the present applicati ants-appellants, is for impleading th lant No. 2-Bant Singh. Notice of the application was is Learned counsel(s) for the ion against the prayer made in the ap In view of the above, prese t to all just exceptions. The persons rdered to be brought on record a lant No. 2-Bant Singh to pursue the p UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH RFA No. 4138 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.01.2026 ...Appellant ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA dvocate ional Advocate General, Punjab , Advocate plication moved on behalf of the ing the legal representatives of was issued on 18.12.2009. r the respondent(s) raise no the application. present application is allowed rsons mentioned the application ord as legal representatives of the present appeal. DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.13 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -2- MAIN APPEAL The appellant, by instituting the present appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “1894 Act”), seeks setting aside of the award dated 26.05.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”). [2] The dispute raised by the appellants-landowners in the present case is merely related to apportionment of the damages awarded towards severance of land acquired vide notifications dated 09.03.1987 each issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) against acquisition of 3 kanal 8 marlas of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Gurditpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, which was jointly owned by three brothers, namely, Teja Singh, Bant Singh and Norang Singh sons of S. Sampuran Singh. [3] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. [4] Admittedly, out of total holdings measuring 18 kanals 2 marlas, 3 kanal 8 marlas of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Gurditpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, jointly owned by the three brothers, namely, Teja Singh, Bant Singh and Norang Singh sons of S. Sampuran Singh, was acquired by notification dated 09.03.1987 each issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act. As a result of acquisition, severance of their holdings took place and a parcel of 12 kanal 7 marlas was left beyond canal, whereas remaining 2 kanal 7 marlas was left towards the village side. After the aforesaid acquisition, a partition dated 01.01.1993 (proved on record as Exihibit DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.13 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -3- A-1) took place between the brothers, resulting into allotment of specific portions to them. Based on the aforesaid settlement, one of the brothers, namely, Teja Singh, who happened to be the father of appellant-Gurdial Singh claimed the entire enhanced damages towards severance. A perusal of the partition dated 01.01.1993 nowhere entitled Teja Singh for the entire enhanced amount of damages towards severance as the acquisition admittedly took place much prior to the date of acquisition and further, Teja Singh was even given more land as compared to his two brothers as an effect of partition dated 01.01.1993 (Ex. A-1). [5] In view of the above, finding no illegality or perversity in the well reasoned judgment dated 26.05.2009 passed by the learned Reference Court; the present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. [6] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off.
January 12, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE

    
    DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.13 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document