109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Punjab State through Collector and Vs Jagtar Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. for the appellant Ms. Parul Saini, Advocate for Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) Vide this common order, a bunch of 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. By way of present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the Award dated 13.05.2005 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Rupnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘ filed under Section at the instance of landowner(s) were of the market value as IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. XOBJR-111 Date of Decision: Punjab State through Collector and anr. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the appellant-State. Ms. Parul Saini, Advocate for Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the X-Objectors/ respondents **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) Vide this common order, a bunch of 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 taken from RFA No.2704 of 2005. By way of present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the 13.05.2005 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Rupnagar hereinafter referred to as ‘Reference Court filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) at the instance of landowner(s) were partly of the market value as damages on account of severance allowance along IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.2704-2005 (O&M) with 111-CI-2007 Date of Decision: 02.09.2025 ......Appellants ....Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab, Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate Vide this common order, a bunch of 05 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 . By way of present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the 13.05.2005 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Rupnagar Reference Court’); whereby Reference petitions Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) partly accepted while awarding 50% on account of severance allowance along 1 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 By way of present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the 13.05.2005 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Rupnagar ’); whereby Reference petitions Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) accepted while awarding 50% on account of severance allowance along with all statutory benefits as provided under Section 28 of the Act. 3. Briefly stating the Revenue E Ropar, was sought to be the Act which was 04/13.03.1985 the construction of SYL Canal the Land Acquisition Collector (for short market value of the respective categories of acquired land Barani, Banjar Kadim and Gair Mumkin as under: i) Chahi ii) Barani iii) Banjar Kadim iv) Gair Mumkin Thereafter, vide a supplementary award dated 11.05.1987, the LAC further fixed the severance already awarded, as under: i) Chahi ii) Barani iii) Banjar Kadim iv) Gair Mumkin 4. The compensation amount was subsequently enhanced Rs.4,83,000/- per acre 5. In the present appeals, the issue only relates to the damages awarded towards severance of land. with all statutory benefits as provided under Section Briefly stating the land measuring 23.62 acres situated within Estate of Village Ropar, Hadbast No. 44 sought to be acquired by vide which was published on 22.02.1985, followed by 4/13.03.1985 issued under Section 6 of the Act the construction of SYL Canal. An award dated 03.07.1986 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) market value of the respective categories of acquired land Barani, Banjar Kadim and Gair Mumkin as under: i) Chahi @ Rs. 70,200/ ii) Barani @ Rs, 50,000/ iii) Banjar Kadim @ Rs. 45,000/ iv) Gair Mumkin @ Rs. 40,000/ Thereafter, vide a supplementary award dated 11.05.1987, the LAC further fixed the severance benefits @ already awarded, as under: i) Chahi 6K-13M ii) Barani 79K-8M iii) Banjar Kadim 23K-18M iv) Gair Mumkin 1K-17M The compensation amount was subsequently enhanced per acre along with grant of all statutory bene In the present appeals, the issue only relates to the damages awarded towards severance of land. with all statutory benefits as provided under Sections 23 (1-A), 23 (2) and the land measuring 23.62 acres situated within illage Ropar, Hadbast No. 44, Tehsil & District vide Notification under Section 4 of published on 22.02.1985, followed by notification dated under Section 6 of the Act for public purpose i.e. for . An award dated 03.07.1986 was passed by ‘the LAC’), thereby determining the market value of the respective categories of acquired land i.e. Chahi, Barani, Banjar Kadim and Gair Mumkin as under:- @ Rs. 70,200/- per acre @ Rs, 50,000/- per acre 5,000/- per acre @ Rs. 40,000/- per acre Thereafter, vide a supplementary award dated 11.05.1987, the benefits @ 1/4th of the compensation Rs. 14,588-43 Rs. 1,24,062-50 Rs. 33,609-37 Rs. 2,312-50 The compensation amount was subsequently enhanced to all statutory benefits. In the present appeals, the issue only relates to the damages 2 A), 23 (2) and the land measuring 23.62 acres situated within & District Notification under Section 4 of dated for public purpose i.e. for . An award dated 03.07.1986 was passed by , thereby determining the i.e. Chahi, Thereafter, vide a supplementary award dated 11.05.1987, the 1/4th of the compensation to @ In the present appeals, the issue only relates to the damages Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/ landowners invoked references under Section 18 of the Act charges which came to b whereby the applicant(s)/ landowner(s) were held entitled to 50% of the market value as all statutory benefits as provided under the Act. Dissatisfied with passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals have been preferred at the instance of State and the cross referred by the respondent(s)/ landowners. 6. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellant State submits that the reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of respondents/ landowners were barred by limitation. He points out that supplementary award No. 266 in the present case was passed on 11.05.1987 for the purpose of grant of d favour of the respondents/ landowners; whereas the reference petitions were preferred in June 2002 and limitation. Learned State counsel also submits that substantial evidence available on record, wrong while making enhancement from 25% to 50% on account of damages towards severance of land and thus the present appeals are required to be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned counse landowners submits that the Court may pass appropriate orders upon their cross-objections. No other argument has been addressed. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/ landowners invoked references under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the severance which came to be disposed of vide award dated 13.05.2005, whereby the applicant(s)/ landowner(s) were held entitled to 50% of the market value as damages on account of severance allowance along with all statutory benefits as provided under the Act. Dissatisfied with passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals have been preferred at the instance of State and the cross referred by the respondent(s)/ landowners. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellant State submits that the reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of respondents/ landowners were barred by limitation. He points out that supplementary award No. 266 in the present case was passed on 11.05.1987 for the purpose of grant of damages on account of severance in favour of the respondents/ landowners; whereas the reference petitions were preferred in June 2002 and the same were limitation. Learned State counsel also submits that ial evidence available on record, the learned Reference Court went wrong while making enhancement from 25% to 50% on account of damages towards severance of land and thus the present appeals are required to be allowed. On the other hand, learned counse landowners submits that the Court may pass appropriate orders upon their objections. No other argument has been addressed. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/ landowners invoked for enhancement of the severance e disposed of vide award dated 13.05.2005, whereby the applicant(s)/ landowner(s) were held entitled to 50% of the on account of severance allowance along with all statutory benefits as provided under the Act. Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals have been preferred at the instance of State and the cross-objections have been Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellant State submits that the reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of respondents/ landowners were barred by limitation. He points out that supplementary award No. 266 in the present case was passed on amages on account of severance in favour of the respondents/ landowners; whereas the reference petitions the same were thus clearly barred by limitation. Learned State counsel also submits that in the absence of any the learned Reference Court went wrong while making enhancement from 25% to 50% on account of damages towards severance of land and thus the present appeals are On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ landowners submits that the Court may pass appropriate orders upon their objections. No other argument has been addressed. 3 Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/ landowners invoked for enhancement of the severance e disposed of vide award dated 13.05.2005, whereby the applicant(s)/ landowner(s) were held entitled to 50% of the on account of severance allowance along with the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals have been objections have been Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellant State submits that the reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of respondents/ landowners were barred by limitation. He points out that supplementary award No. 266 in the present case was passed on amages on account of severance in favour of the respondents/ landowners; whereas the reference petitions thus clearly barred by in the absence of any the learned Reference Court went wrong while making enhancement from 25% to 50% on account of damages towards severance of land and thus the present appeals are l for the respondents/ landowners submits that the Court may pass appropriate orders upon their 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book as well as records of 9. A detailed discussion has been made by the learned Reference Court while recording that no notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was ever served upon the respondents/ landowners in relation to the supplementary award No.266 dated 11.05.1987 petitions preferred at the instance of respondents/landowners in the absence of they being award, are within limitation. 10. A perusal of the record shows that no evidence was ever le the appellant-State landowners with the contents of the Section 12 (2) of the Act. Even no evidence was led to reflect the date of compensation draw an inference against them award and thus no merit can be found in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant State that the reference petitions preferred at the i of respondents were barred by limitation. 11. As regards the cross towards severance are concerned, it may be pointed out here that the benefit has been enhanced from 25% of the market value to 50% which appears to be just and fair. Moreover, this Court vide its decision dated 01.10.2008 passed in RFA No.1340 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through book as well as records of the case. A detailed discussion has been made by the learned Reference Court while recording that no notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was ever served upon the respondents/ landowners in relation to the supplementary award No.266 dated 11.05.1987 petitions preferred at the instance of respondents/landowners in the absence of they being made aware of the contents of the are within limitation. A perusal of the record shows that no evidence was ever le State to establish the contrary of having served respondents/ landowners with the contents of the supplementary Section 12 (2) of the Act. Even no evidence was led to reflect the date of compensation been released in favour of respondents/ landowner so as to draw an inference against them of they being aware of the contents of the award and thus no merit can be found in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant State that the reference petitions preferred at the i of respondents were barred by limitation. As regards the cross-objections on the issue of damages towards severance are concerned, it may be pointed out here that the been enhanced from 25% of the market value to 50% which ears to be just and fair. Moreover, this Court vide its decision dated 01.10.2008 passed in RFA No.1340-1999 relating to the similar acquisition I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case. A detailed discussion has been made by the learned Reference Court while recording that no notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was ever served upon the respondents/ landowners in relation to the supplementary award No.266 dated 11.05.1987 and thus the reference petitions preferred at the instance of respondents/landowners in the aware of the contents of the supplementary A perusal of the record shows that no evidence was ever led by to establish the contrary of having served respondents/ supplementary Award in terms of Section 12 (2) of the Act. Even no evidence was led to reflect the date of avour of respondents/ landowner so as to hey being aware of the contents of the award and thus no merit can be found in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant State that the reference petitions preferred at the instance objections on the issue of damages towards severance are concerned, it may be pointed out here that the said been enhanced from 25% of the market value to 50% which ears to be just and fair. Moreover, this Court vide its decision dated 1999 relating to the similar acquisition 4 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through A detailed discussion has been made by the learned Reference Court while recording that no notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was ever served upon the respondents/ landowners in relation to the and thus the reference petitions preferred at the instance of respondents/landowners in the supplementary d by to establish the contrary of having served respondents/ Award in terms of Section 12 (2) of the Act. Even no evidence was led to reflect the date of avour of respondents/ landowner so as to hey being aware of the contents of the award and thus no merit can be found in the submissions made on behalf nstance objections on the issue of damages said been enhanced from 25% of the market value to 50% which ears to be just and fair. Moreover, this Court vide its decision dated 1999 relating to the similar acquisition for construction of SYL Canal, went on to uphold the of severance of land @ 50% and thus and accordingly, hereby dismissed 12. There being no substantive evidence on record from the side of respondents/ landowners even to make out a case for further enhancement, the cross merit, are also 13. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. September 02 sanjay Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Sr. No. Case No. 1 RFA-2705/2005 & XOBJR 2 RFA-2706/200 XOBJR 3 RFA-2707/200 XOBJR 4 RFA-2923 XOBJR September 02 sanjay for construction of SYL Canal, went on to uphold the of severance of land @ 50% and thus the same accordingly, the appeals filed at the instance of appellant State are dismissed. There being no substantive evidence on record from the side of respondents/ landowners even to make out a case for further enhancement, the cross-objections filed at their instance being devoid of dismissed. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) September 02, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Case No. Title 2705/2005 & XOBJR-107-CI-2007 Punjab State and anr. Vs. Lal Singh (deceased) 2706/2005 & XOBJR-7-CI-2008 Punjab State and anr. Vs. Bahadur Singh and ors. 2707/2005 & XOBJR-108-CI-2007 Punjab State and anr. Vs. Ranjit Kaur 2923-2005 & XOBJR-10-CI-2008 Punjab State and anr. Vs. Bhajan Kaur and ors. (HARKESH MANUJA) September 02, 2025 for construction of SYL Canal, went on to uphold the damages on account e same calls for no interference the appeals filed at the instance of appellant State are There being no substantive evidence on record from the side of respondents/ landowners even to make out a case for further objections filed at their instance being devoid of All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Punjab State and anr. Vs. Lal Singh Punjab State and anr. Vs. Bahadur Singh Punjab State and anr. Vs. Ranjit Kaur Punjab State and anr. Vs. Bhajan Kaur and (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE 5 on account calls for no interference the appeals filed at the instance of appellant State are There being no substantive evidence on record from the side of respondents/ landowners even to make out a case for further objections filed at their instance being devoid of All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Punjab State and anr. Vs. Lal Singh Punjab State and anr. Vs. Bahadur Singh Punjab State and anr. Vs. Bhajan Kaur and