1 106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT TARSEM LAL & LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, PWD ( ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Amandeep Saini, Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate for Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. HARKESH MANUJA A batch of 4 connected Regular First Appeals (details whereof are given on the foot of the judgment) shall stand disposed of by this common order, as they involve common question of law and facts. For convenience, the facts are being taken from RFA By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 13.02.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the reference petition 1894 (hereinafter refe enhancement of compensation was allowed. 2. Briefly stating, land measuring 5.68 acres of land, situated within the revenue estate of Village public purpose for construction 19.10.1989 and 05.04.1991 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed 18.05.1992 assessing the market value at the rate of Rs.312.50/- per marla along with other statutory benefits. RFA-297-1997 and other connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-297-1997 (O&M) Date of Decision: TARSEM LAL & ANR. Versus AND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, PWD ( HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Amandeep Saini, Advocate for Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate for the Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) A batch of 4 connected Regular First Appeals (details whereof are given on the foot of the judgment) shall stand disposed of by this common order, as they involve common question of law and facts. For convenience, the facts are being taken from RFA By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 13.02.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the appellants enhancement of compensation was allowed. Briefly stating, land measuring 5.68 acres of land, situated within the revenue estate of Village Laroya, District Jalandhar was acquired for the public purpose for construction of Bhogpur-Bholath road vide notifications dated 19.10.1989 and 05.04.1991 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed assessing the market value at the rate of per marla along with other statutory benefits. and other connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH and other connected cases Date of Decision: November 11, 2025 ........Appellants AND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, PWD (B&R) JALANDHAR AND ........Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. A batch of 4 connected Regular First Appeals (details whereof are given on the foot of the judgment) shall stand disposed of by this common order, as they involve common question of law and facts. For convenience, the facts are being taken from RFA-297-1997. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 13.02.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, rred to as ‘the Act’) by the appellants-landowners, seeking Briefly stating, land measuring 5.68 acres of land, situated within , District Jalandhar was acquired for the Bholath road vide notifications dated 19.10.1989 and 05.04.1991 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award dated assessing the market value at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre i.e. per marla along with other statutory benefits. and other connected cases November 11, 2025 A batch of 4 connected Regular First Appeals (details whereof are given on the foot of the judgment) shall stand disposed of by this By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 13.02.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, landowners, seeking Briefly stating, land measuring 5.68 acres of land, situated within , District Jalandhar was acquired for the Bholath road vide notifications dated 19.10.1989 and 05.04.1991 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Award dated per acre i.e. TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.11.18 00:54 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 RFA-297-1997 and other connected cases 3. The appellant-landowner, feeling dissatisfied with the award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act pleading that the LAC had not taken into consideration all the relevant facts as the acquired land was adjoining village abadi and could be used both for residential as well as commercial purposes. Moreover, the acquired land adjoins the G.T. Road and certain shops already existed in its vicinity. 4. Upon notice, respondents filed written statement stating that LAC rightly awarded the compensation as the acquired land was agricultural in nature and in consonance with the prevailing rates in the locality at that time. In turn, appellants-petitioners filed replication controverting the allegations made by the respondents and reiterating their earlier stand. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Reference Court:- “1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate as alleged in the objection petition? OPP 2. To what amount of enhance compensation, the petitioner is entitled to? OPP 3. Relief.” 6. In order to prove their case, both the parties led their respective evidences. The appellants examined Ram Saroop as PW-1, Tarsem Lal as PW2, Charanjit Singh as PW-3, Sohan Singh as PW-4 and Harminder Singh as PW5 besides tendering certain documents in evidence. 7. After considering the evidence, the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide award dated 13.02.1995 allowed the petition filed at the instance of appellants and enhanced the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.750/- per marla. 8. Aggrieved of the aforesaid award dated 13.02.1995, the respondent-State approached this Court by way of RFA-1438-1988 which came to be dismissed. TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.11.18 00:54 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 RFA-297-1997 and other connected cases 9. The appellants-landowners being aggrieved of the award dated 13.02.1995 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar filed the present appeal. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record it is apparent that prior to the acquisition in hand, vide notification dated 07.09.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Act, 5.68 acres of land situated within the same revenue estate of village Laroya, District Jalandhar was acquired for the same public purpose i.e. for construction of Bhogpur- Bholath road. Subsequently, the learned Reference Court vide its decision dated 05.01.1988 passed in reference petitions preferred at the instance of appellants-landowners assessed the market value @ Rs.750/- per marla. The said award dated 05.01.1988 forms part of the record as Ex.P-1 and has been relied upon by the learned Reference Court for the purpose of determination of market value in favour of the appellants-landowners. As a matter of fact, the award dated 05.01.1988 (Ex.P-1) stands upheld by this Court vide its decision dated 22.08.2008 passed in RFA-1438-1988. 11. Admittedly, vide previous notification dated 07.09.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the same land situated within the same revenue estate of Village Laroya District Jalandhar was acquired for the same public purpose i.e. for construction of Bhogpur-Bholath road and thus, in such circumstances, the appellants-landowners need to be granted the benefit of appreciation @ 8% per annum for the time gap of 6 years between the date of issuance of two notifications as in case of previous acquisition notification under Section 4 was issued on 07.09.1983 whereas, present acquisition relates to notification dated 19.10.1989 and thus, the market value as on the said date comes to Rs.1,77,600/- per acre i.e. Rs.1110/marla. 12. Besides it, the landowner-appellant shall also be entitled for all the statutory benefits and interest on solatium, provided under the provisions of the Act. TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.11.18 00:54 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 RFA-297-1997 and other connected cases 13. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present appeal is disposed of with aforesaid modification. 14. 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 applications before the learned Executing Court. 15. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 11.11.2025 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Other Connected cases RFA-298-1997 RFA-299-1997 RFA-300-1997 TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.11.18 00:54 I agree to specified portions of this document