RFA-1207 117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Ghogro Devi Punjab State through Collector and ors. CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) award dated 16.12.1997 passed by Judge, Gurdapsur, cum 2. situated within the revenue estate of Village Chamrour Tikka Chamrour, Tehsil Pathankot, 24.10.1990. 3. Collector, for short ‘the LAC’, the appellant/ landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, 1207-1998 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: 1 Ghogro Devi Versus Punjab State through Collector and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 16.12.1997 passed by Gurdapsur, cum-Reference Court. In the present case, acquisition of land owned by appellant situated within the revenue estate of Village Chamrour Tikka Chamrour, Tehsil Pathankot, was carried out in terms of 24.10.1990. Aggrieved of the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, for short ‘the LAC’, the appellant/ landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-1207-1998 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.11.2025 …….Appellant Versus Punjab State through Collector and ors. .….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA , Advocate Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 16.12.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Reference Court. In the present case, acquisition of land owned by appellant situated within the revenue estate of Village Chamrour Tikka Chamrour, was carried out in terms of an award dated f the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, for short ‘the LAC’, the appellant/ landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an learned Additional District In the present case, acquisition of land owned by appellant situated within the revenue estate of Village Chamrour Tikka Chamrour, an award dated f the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, for short ‘the LAC’, the appellant/ landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.17 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1207 whereby all kinds of Barani Banjar Q besides award of all other statutory benefits. 4. was filed. 5. through the paper 6. pointed out from the side of appellant/ landowner to enable this Court to take a diff point of quantum of market value. Moreover, in relation to notification issued just 04 months prior to the present acquisition, this Court vide order dated 02.11.2018 passed in other connected matters), titled as Rani (II), upheld the similar assessment made by the Reference Court in relation to the adjoining revenue estates of Village Tikka Naloh, Tikka Salwal, Tikka Bango Khas. The previous acquisition carried out in terms of notification dated 29.06.1989 the similar such circumstances, no interference is called for with the determination made by the learned Reference Court vide impugned Award. in the award 1207-1998 (O&M) [2] whereby market value @ Rs.45000/- per acre in favour of appella all kinds of Barani land and Rs.20000/ Qadim land was awarded by the learned Reference Court besides award of all other statutory benefits. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid, the present appeal . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book as well as records of the case. No material evidence has been brought on record or pointed out from the side of appellant/ landowner to enable this Court to take a different view as recorded by the learned Reference Court on the point of quantum of market value. Moreover, in relation to notification issued just 04 months prior to the present acquisition, this vide order dated 02.11.2018 passed in other connected matters), titled as State of , upheld the similar assessment made by the Reference Court in relation to the adjoining revenue estates of Village Tikka Naloh, Tikka Salwal, Tikka Bango . The previous acquisition carried out in terms of notification dated 29.06.1989, relating to the aforementioned revenue estates was similar purpose i.e. for Reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam Project. In such circumstances, no interference is called for with the determination made by the learned Reference Court vide impugned Award. However, the following portion of the relief clause recorded the award by the learned Reference Court, per acre in favour of appellant for and Rs.20000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin and was awarded by the learned Reference Court besides award of all other statutory benefits. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid, the present appeal I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book as well as records of the case. No material evidence has been brought on record or pointed out from the side of appellant/ landowner to enable this Court to erent view as recorded by the learned Reference Court on the point of quantum of market value. Moreover, in relation to notification issued just 04 months prior to the present acquisition, this vide order dated 02.11.2018 passed in RFA No.1006/2010 (and State of Punjab and ors. Vs. Usha , upheld the similar assessment made by the Reference Court in relation to the adjoining revenue estates of Villages Thara Uparla, Tikka Naloh, Tikka Salwal, Tikka Bango, Tikka Ladhwal and Phangota . The previous acquisition carried out in terms of notification dated relating to the aforementioned revenue estates was also purpose i.e. for Reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam Project. In such circumstances, no interference is called for with the determination made by the learned Reference Court vide impugned Award. However, the following portion of the relief clause recorded by the learned Reference Court, needs to be modified for nt for per acre for Gair Mumkin and was awarded by the learned Reference Court, Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid, the present appeal I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone No material evidence has been brought on record or pointed out from the side of appellant/ landowner to enable this Court to erent view as recorded by the learned Reference Court on the point of quantum of market value. Moreover, in relation to the notification issued just 04 months prior to the present acquisition, this 10 (and Vs. Usha , upheld the similar assessment made by the Reference Court Uparla, , Tikka Ladhwal and Phangota . The previous acquisition carried out in terms of notification dated also for purpose i.e. for Reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam Project. In such circumstances, no interference is called for with the determination However, the following portion of the relief clause recorded needs to be modified for SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.17 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1207 the reasons to follow: REASONS 7. of appellant/ landowner got dismissed in default on 07.10.1992. From the records of the learned Reference Court, it can be discerned that an application seeking restoration of the reference petition was the instance of appellant/landowner on 21.12.1992, whereupon notice was issued to the respondents, however, the said application pending for long and Court only on 01.02.1997. which took more than 04 years to adjudicate upon the restoration application filed on behalf of the appellant/ landowner on 21.12.1992, the delay attributed to the a purpose of award of interest on the enhanced compensation for the said period. At best, the appellant/ landowner can be denied interest for the period between the date of order of dismissal of the reference 1207-1998 (O&M) [3] the reasons to follow:- “However, the applicant is not entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of dismissal in default of reference i.e. from 07.10.1992 to 01.02.199 during which period this reference remained dismissed in default. The amount of the award will be reduced to the extent the Collector has already awarded as compensation and received by the applicant.” REASONS: Admittedly, the reference petition preferred at the instance of appellant/ landowner got dismissed in default on 07.10.1992. From the records of the learned Reference Court, it can be discerned that an application seeking restoration of the reference petition was the instance of appellant/landowner on 21.12.1992, whereupon notice was issued to the respondents, however, the said application pending for long and was decided/ accepted by the learned Reference Court only on 01.02.1997. Since, it was the learned Reference Court, which took more than 04 years to adjudicate upon the restoration application filed on behalf of the appellant/ landowner on 21.12.1992, the delay towards denial of interest for the said period cannot be attributed to the appellant/ landowner so as to non purpose of award of interest on the enhanced compensation for the said period. At best, the appellant/ landowner can be denied interest for the period between the date of order of dismissal of the reference “However, the applicant is not entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of dismissal in default of reference i.e. from 07.10.1992 to 01.02.1997 (the date of its restoration) during which period this reference remained dismissed in default. The amount of the award will be reduced to the extent the Collector has already awarded as compensation and received by the dly, the reference petition preferred at the instance of appellant/ landowner got dismissed in default on 07.10.1992. From the records of the learned Reference Court, it can be discerned that an application seeking restoration of the reference petition was preferred at the instance of appellant/landowner on 21.12.1992, whereupon notice was issued to the respondents, however, the said application remained was decided/ accepted by the learned Reference was the learned Reference Court, which took more than 04 years to adjudicate upon the restoration application filed on behalf of the appellant/ landowner on 21.12.1992, denial of interest for the said period cannot be ppellant/ landowner so as to non-suit her for the purpose of award of interest on the enhanced compensation for the said period. At best, the appellant/ landowner can be denied interest for the period between the date of order of dismissal of the reference petition “However, the applicant is not entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of dismissal in default of reference i.e. from 7 (the date of its restoration) during which period this reference remained dismissed in default. The amount of the award will be reduced to the extent the Collector has already awarded as compensation and received by the dly, the reference petition preferred at the instance of appellant/ landowner got dismissed in default on 07.10.1992. From the records of the learned Reference Court, it can be discerned that an preferred at the instance of appellant/landowner on 21.12.1992, whereupon notice remained was decided/ accepted by the learned Reference was the learned Reference Court, which took more than 04 years to adjudicate upon the restoration application filed on behalf of the appellant/ landowner on 21.12.1992, denial of interest for the said period cannot be suit her for the purpose of award of interest on the enhanced compensation for the said period. At best, the appellant/ landowner can be denied interest for the petition SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.17 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1207 i.e. 07.10.1992 till date of filing of application for restoration i.e. 21.12.1992. 8. passed by the learned Reference Court is modified to the extent that the appellant shall not be entitled compensation reference petition till date of fling of application for restoration i.e. 07.10.1992 till 21.12.1992 and besides it, the appellant shall be entitled for all statutory benefits/ interest provided under the Act, especially the interest on solatium as well. 9. 10. disposed of. 13.11.2025 sanjay 1207-1998 (O&M) [4] i.e. 07.10.1992 till date of filing of application for restoration i.e. 21.12.1992. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the award passed by the learned Reference Court is modified to the extent that the appellant shall not be entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation for the period from the date of order of dismissal of the reference petition till date of fling of application for restoration i.e. 07.10.1992 till 21.12.1992 and besides it, the appellant shall be entitled or all statutory benefits/ interest provided under the Act, especially the interest on solatium as well. Disposed of in the above terms. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? i.e. 07.10.1992 till date of filing of application for restoration i.e. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the award passed by the learned Reference Court is modified to the extent that the for interest on the enhanced for the period from the date of order of dismissal of the reference petition till date of fling of application for restoration i.e. from 07.10.1992 till 21.12.1992 and besides it, the appellant shall be entitled or all statutory benefits/ interest provided under the Act, especially the Disposed of in the above terms. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No i.e. 07.10.1992 till date of filing of application for restoration i.e. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the award passed by the learned Reference Court is modified to the extent that the for interest on the enhanced for the period from the date of order of dismissal of the from 07.10.1992 till 21.12.1992 and besides it, the appellant shall be entitled or all statutory benefits/ interest provided under the Act, especially the Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.17 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document