RFA-2954 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Hari Singh and ors. Sub Divisional Magistrate Kharar 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 2954-2013 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: 03.02.2026 Singh and ors. Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate -cum-Land Acquisition Collector, 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 05.01.2013, 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 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-2954-2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.02.2026 …….Appellants Versus Land Acquisition Collector, ..….Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Sandeep Dhiman, Advocate /landowners. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. Vide this common order, a bunch of 13 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.2954-2013. 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 and 29.10.2002, issued under 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 , issued under SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2954 Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for of Jainty Dam in Village Soonk short ‘the LAC’) vide award in respect of the acquired land @ Rs. Rs.1,50,000/ banjar Kadim Rs.1,50,000/ benefits under the Act. 4. landowners filed which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated the acquired land all other statutory benefits under the Act. 5. Court, the present appeal landowners 6. through the paper 7. necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal(s) in hand: Details of Revenue Estate of Village Soonk (hereinafter referred to as 2954-2013 (O&M) [2] Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for of Jainty Dam in Village Soonk”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 15.07.2 in respect of the acquired land @ Rs. Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for Bagh Barani, banjar Kadim-Banjar Jadid, Rs.1,50,000/ Rs.1,50,000/- for Gair Mumkin Pahar, benefits under the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ landowners filed reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 05.01.2013 thereby determining the market value of the acquired land at a uniform rate of Rs.5, 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/ landowners as well as respondent State I have head learned counsel for the parti through the paper-book. Before proceeding further, the following details are necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal(s) in hand: Details of previous acquisition of Revenue Estate of Village Soonk (hereinafter referred to as ‘first Details of Revenue Estate of Village Soonk (hereinafter referred as ‘second ] Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for “construction of reservoir area The Land Acquisition Collector (for 15.07.2005 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.2,70,000/- per acre for Chahi, Barani, Rs.50,000/- per acre for , Rs.1,50,000/- for Gair Mumkin Baras and Pahar, along with all other statutory Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide determining the market value of at a uniform rate of Rs.5,74,642/- per acre besides other statutory benefits under the Act. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference preferred at the instance of appellants/ as well as respondent State. I have head learned counsel for the parties and gone Before proceeding further, the following details are necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal(s) in hand:- Details of later acquisition of Revenue Estate of Village Soonk (hereinafter referred as ‘second Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ reservoir area The Land Acquisition Collector (for assessed market value Chahi, per acre for for Gair Mumkin Baras and other statutory Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide determining the market value of per acre besides Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference preferred at the instance of appellants/ es and gone Before proceeding further, the following details are - acquisition of Revenue Estate of Village Soonk (hereinafter referred as ‘second SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2954 acquisition’) Purpose: ‘Construction of residential colony area of Jainty Dam in Village Soonk’. Section 4 Notification: Section 6 Notification: Reference Court Reference awarded market value @ Rs.5,49,897/ This Court 03.02.2026 passed in 2013, titled as ors. Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate -cum-LAC, Kharar market value to acre. 8. value of land which notification dated 08.10.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by Award No.2 dated 15.07.2005 for the land situated in the same revenue restate of Village Soonk for public purpose for ‘construction of reservoir area of Jainty Dam in Villa The learned Reference Court in the case in hand relied upon the Reference Court Award dated 29.08.2012 passed in Land Reference No. 166 dated 11.11.2009 pertaining to the granted appreciation 2954-2013 (O&M) [3] acquisition’) acquisition’) Under Section 18 of the Act : ‘Construction of residential colony area of Jainty Dam in Village Soonk’. Purpose area of Jainty Dam in Village Soonk’. Section 4 Notification: 17.05.2002 Section 6 Notification: 29.05.2002 Section 4 Notification: Section 6 Notification: Reference Court vide Land e No.166 of 11.11.2009, awarded market value @ Rs.5,49,897/- per acre. Reference Court Reference No. 164 of 11.11.2009, awarded market value @ Rs.5,74,642/ This Court vide order dated 03.02.2026 passed in RFA-495- , titled as Dayal Singh and ors. Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate LAC, Kharar, enhanced the market value to Rs.10,34,469/- per The present appeal relates to determination of market value of land which was later notified otification dated 08.10.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by Award No.2 dated 15.07.2005 for the land situated in the same revenue restate of Village Soonk for public purpose construction of reservoir area of Jainty Dam in Villa earned Reference Court in the case in hand relied upon the Reference Court Award dated 29.08.2012 passed in Land Reference No. 166 dated 11.11.2009 pertaining to the granted appreciation @ 4½% for the time gap between the two ] acquisition’) Under Section 18 of the Act Purpose: ‘Construction of reservoir area of Jainty Dam in Village Soonk’. Section 4 Notification: 08.10.2002 Section 6 Notification: 29.10.2002 Reference Court relying upon Land Reference No. 164 of 11.11.2009, awarded market value @ Rs.5,74,642/- per acre. The present appeal relates to determination of market notified and commenced vide otification dated 08.10.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by Award No.2 dated 15.07.2005 for the land situated in the same revenue restate of Village Soonk for public purpose, namely, construction of reservoir area of Jainty Dam in Village Soonk earned Reference Court in the case in hand relied upon the Reference Court Award dated 29.08.2012 passed in Land Reference No. 166 dated 11.11.2009 pertaining to the previous acquisition and 4½% for the time gap between the two ‘Construction of reservoir area of Jainty Dam in Village 2002 29.10.2002 Land Reference No. 164 of 11.11.2009, awarded market value @ The present appeal relates to determination of market commenced vide otification dated 08.10.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by Award No.2 dated 15.07.2005 for the land situated in the , namely, ge Soonk’. earned Reference Court in the case in hand relied upon the Reference Court Award dated 29.08.2012 passed in Land Reference and 4½% for the time gap between the two SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2954 notifications i.e. 17.05.2002 to 08.10.2002. As a matter of fact, the determination with respect to the market value pertaining to the previous 17.05.2002, now stand per acre, vide order of even date passed in Dayal Singh and ors. Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate Kharar, landowners with needs to be re 9. appreciation of 4½ months between the two notifications applied the principle of this Court, while taking into account the fact that the revenue estate of Village Soonk abuts the boundary of UT Chandigarh and while passing the judgment dated 03.02.2026, an appreciation of 15% has been granted in favour of landowners as such in the present case as well, the appellants are held entitled for the same benefit. 10. two notifications, the appellants/ landowners appreciation over and above the determination made by this Court in Dayal Singh’s The market value in favour of the appellants/ landowners with respect to the acquisition in hand is re (Rs.10,34,469/ 2954-2013 (O&M) [4] notifications i.e. 17.05.2002 to 08.10.2002. As a matter of fact, the determination with respect to the market value pertaining to the previous acquisition which commenced vide notification dated 17.05.2002, now stands re-assessed by this Court , vide order of even date passed in Dayal Singh and ors. Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate , and as such the market value in favour of the appellants/ landowners with respect to the present acquisition needs to be re-assessed accordingly. Though the learned Reference Court while awarding appreciation of 4½ months between the two notifications applied the of 12% annual appreciation, however, in the humble opinion of this Court, while taking into account the fact that the revenue estate of Village Soonk abuts the boundary of UT Chandigarh and while passing the judgment dated 03.02.2026, an appreciation of 5% has been granted in favour of landowners as such in the present case as well, the appellants are held entitled for the same benefit. Accordingly, for the time gap of 4½ months between the two notifications, the appellants/ landowners appreciation over and above the determination made by this Court in Dayal Singh’s case (supra), with respect to the The market value in favour of the appellants/ landowners with respect to the acquisition in hand is re-determined Rs.10, Rs.10,34,469/- per acre+5.62% appreciation), along with all other ] notifications i.e. 17.05.2002 to 08.10.2002. As a matter of fact, the determination with respect to the market value pertaining to the acquisition which commenced vide notification dated assessed by this Court @ Rs.10,34,469/ , vide order of even date passed in RFA-495-2013, titled as Dayal Singh and ors. Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate -cum-LAC, and as such the market value in favour of the appellants/ respect to the present acquisition proceedings also Though the learned Reference Court while awarding appreciation of 4½ months between the two notifications applied the of 12% annual appreciation, however, in the humble opinion of this Court, while taking into account the fact that the revenue estate of Village Soonk abuts the boundary of UT Chandigarh and while passing the judgment dated 03.02.2026, an appreciation of 5% has been granted in favour of landowners as such in the present case as well, the appellants are held entitled for the same benefit. Accordingly, for the time gap of 4½ months between the two notifications, the appellants/ landowners are granted 5.62% appreciation over and above the determination made by this Court in , with respect to the previous acquisition. The market value in favour of the appellants/ landowners with respect etermined Rs.10,92,606/- per acre +5.62% appreciation), along with all other notifications i.e. 17.05.2002 to 08.10.2002. As a matter of fact, the determination with respect to the market value pertaining to the acquisition which commenced vide notification dated Rs.10,34,469/- titled as LAC, and as such the market value in favour of the appellants/ proceedings also Though the learned Reference Court while awarding appreciation of 4½ months between the two notifications applied the of 12% annual appreciation, however, in the humble opinion of this Court, while taking into account the fact that the revenue estate of Village Soonk abuts the boundary of UT Chandigarh and while passing the judgment dated 03.02.2026, an appreciation of 5% has been granted in favour of landowners as such in the present case as well, the appellants are held entitled for the same benefit. Accordingly, for the time gap of 4½ months between the granted 5.62% appreciation over and above the determination made by this Court in acquisition. The market value in favour of the appellants/ landowners with respect per acre +5.62% appreciation), along with all other SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2954 statutory benefits as provided under the Act. 11. 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 Executing Court. 12. appellants/landowners at the instance of 13. disposed of. 03.02.2026 sanjay Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 03.02.2026 sanjay 2954-2013 (O&M) [5] statutory benefits 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 impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Consequently, the appeals 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-4475-2013 (O&M) 2. RFA-3854-2013 (O&M) 3. RFA-3855-2013 (O&M) 4. RFA-4645-2013 (O&M) 5. RFA-2955-2013 (O&M) 6. RFA-2956-2013 (O&M) 7. RFA-2957-2013 (O&M) 8. RFA-2958-2013 (O&M) 9. RFA-2959-2013 (O&M) 10. RFA-2960-2013 (O&M) 11. RFA-2961-2013 (O&M) 12. RFA- 889-2017(O&M) 03.02.2026 ] statutory benefits as provided under the Act. 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 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 2013 (O&M) 2013 (O&M) 2013 (O&M) 2013 (O&M) 2013 (O&M) (O&M) 2013 (O&M) 2013 (O&M) 2013 (O&M) 2013 (O&M) 2013 (O&M) 2017(O&M) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have 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 stance of preferred Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document