118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Shri Rachhpal Singh (deceased) through LRs and others Punjab State and others CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA CM-2238-CI applicants-appellants, of 2024 from 12.11.2025 to an earlier date, wherein the prayer has been made for deciding the main cas RFA No. 5727 of behalf of contesting respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and raises no objection against the prayer made in the application. duly supported IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 2238 CM No. 2240 CM No. 2058 RFA No. Date of Shri Rachhpal Singh (deceased) through and others Versus Punjab State and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Ram Kumar Chauhan, Advocate Mr. Ankush Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants–landowners. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Additional for contesting respondent Nos. 1 to 3. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. CI-2025 Prayer in the present application appellants, is for preponing the date of hearing of CM No. 2058 from 12.11.2025 to an earlier date, wherein the prayer has been made for deciding the main case in terms of judgment dated 10.05.2016 passed in RFA No. 5727 of 2013 being covered matter. Notice of the application. On asking of the Court, learned State Counsel accepts notice on behalf of contesting respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and raises no objection against the prayer made in the application. In view of the above and contents of the application, which is duly supported by affidavit of one of the applicants IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 2238-CI of 2025; CM No. 2240-CI of 2025 in CM No. 2058-CI of 2024 in/and RFA No. 1879 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.08.2025 Shri Rachhpal Singh (deceased) through ...Appellants ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate with Mr. Ankush Chauhan, Advocate landowners. Gunjan Mehta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for contesting respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Prayer in the present application moved on behalf of the preponing the date of hearing of CM No. 2058-CI from 12.11.2025 to an earlier date, wherein the prayer has been made e in terms of judgment dated 10.05.2016 passed in On asking of the Court, learned State Counsel accepts notice on behalf of contesting respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and raises no objection against the In view of the above and contents of the application, which is by affidavit of one of the applicants-appellants, the same is DINESH KUMAR 2025.08.28 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- CM No. 2238-CI of 2025; CM No. 2240-CI of 2025 in CM No. 2058-CI of 2024 in/and RFA No. 1879 of 2018 (O&M) allowed and with the consent of learned counsel for parties, the aforesaid application as well as main case is preponed from 12.11.2025 and taken up today itself. CM-2058-CI-2024; CM-2240-CI-2025 in/and RFA No. 1879 of 2018 (O&M) Present appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), to modify the award dated 01.04.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”) seeking enhancement of compensation amount. [2] Briefly, the facts are that in pursuance of Punjab Govt. Notification dated 23/31.12.2004 issued under Section 4 of the Act, followed by Notification dated 04.05.2005 issued under Section 6 thereof, the land belonging to revenue estates of as many as eight villages, including Village Bassi Ballo, Tehsil & District Hoshiapur, at public expenses for public purpose, namely, for construction of Kandi Canal State-II, was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector, Hoshiapur (for short “LAC”) vide Award No. 22, dated 02.07.2007, assessed the market value of the acquired land as under:- Village Bassi Ballo Types of Land Rate per acre (````) Chahi 3,60,000/- Barani 2,15,000/- G.M. Choe 1,10,000/- G.M. Tattian 1,45,000/- G.M. Tube-well 15,000/- per marla Village Ajjowal Types of Land Rate per acre (````) Chahi 4,35,000/- Barani 2,90,000/- Banjar Qadim 1,50,000/- Kharkana 1,45,000/- G.M. Rasta 1,50,000/- G.M. Abadi 15,000/- per marla DINESH KUMAR 2025.08.28 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- CM No. 2238-CI of 2025; CM No. 2240-CI of 2025 in CM No. 2058-CI of 2024 in/and RFA No. 1879 of 2018 (O&M) [3] It may be mentioned here that there was some variance in the amount of compensation awarded by the LAC for different villages. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award, landowners / interested persons, including the appellants, filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, which were decided vide award dated 01.04.2013 by Reference Court, whereby the market value of the acquired land was enhanced at the uniform rate of `8000/- per marla. [4] Aggrieved thereof, a batch of appeals preferred by some other landowners, were disposed off by this Court on 10.05.2016, lead case of which was RFA No. 5727 of 2013, titled “Kewal Singh Versus Punjab State and others”, thereby enhancing compensation for the acquired land at the uniform rate of ` 18,040/- per marla, apart from other statutory benefits. [5] It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that present appeal is squarely covered with the judgment dated 10.05.2016 passed in case of Kewal Singh (supra), arising out of the same notification, vide which the land of appellants had been acquired. [6] Learned State Counsel is not in a position to controvert the above factual position; however, opposes the payment of interest for the period, the appellants failed to approach this Court after the decision of Reference Court. He also submits that even the SLP No(s). 29323 of 2016 arising out of order dated 10.05.2016 (supra), filed at the instance of some landowner(s), stood dismissed vide order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. [7] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. [8] From the records, it is apparent that the present appeal is squarely covered with the judgment dated 10.05.2016 passed in case of Kewal Singh (supra), which is arising out of the same acquisition / Notification dated 31.12.2004 covering the same revenue estate(s), whereby the landowners DINESH KUMAR 2025.08.28 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -4- CM No. 2238-CI of 2025; CM No. 2240-CI of 2025 in CM No. 2058-CI of 2024 in/and RFA No. 1879 of 2018 (O&M) have been held entitled for the modified / enhanced amount of compensation. For reference, relevant para of judgment dated 10.05.2016 passed in case of Kewal Singh (supra) reads as under:- “ The land owners are held entitled to receive the compensation for their acquired land at the uniform rate of Rs.18,040/- per marla, from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The land owners are further held entitled to receive 30% of the abovesaid market value, as compensation on account of severance charges. Besides this, the land owners shall also be entitled for all the statutory benefits available to them, under the relevant provisions of the Act. ” [9] Based upon the above, applying the principle of parity, besides award of just and fair compensation, the landowners / appellants being similarly situated are held entitled for grant of similar amount of compensation as has been awarded to other landowners vide judgment dated 10.05.2016 in case of Kewal Singh (supra), alongwith all other statutory benefits and interest thereupon as provided under the Act, except payment of interest for the period the appellants did not approach this Court after passing of Reference Court’s Award. [10] Disposed off in the above terms. [11] Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed off. August 26, 2025 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No DINESH KUMAR 2025.08.28 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document