Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Dahlo And Ors on 7 November, 2025
1
RFA No.3826
3826 of 1999 (O&M) with other connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
120
1. RFA No.3826 of 1999 (O&M) with
XOBJR No.28 of 20 202
24 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 07.
07.11.202
11.2025
.2025
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ......Appellant
......Appellant(
Appellant(s)
Vs
DAHLO (DECEASED) TH. LRS. AND OTHERS ...Respondent
...Respondent(
.Respondent(s)
2. RFA No.3815 of 1999 (O&M) with
XOBJR No.
No.29
29 of 202
2024 (O&M)
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ......Appellant(s)
......Appellant(s)
Vs
DAHLO (DECEASED) TH. LRS. AND OTHERS ...Respondent
...Respondent(
.Respondent(s)
3. RFA No.3816
No.3816 of 1999 (O&M) with
XOBJR No.
No.26
26 of 2024 (O&M)
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ......Appellant(s)
......Appellant(s)
Vs
KARAM SINGH (DECEASED) TH. LRS. & ANR. ...Respondent
...Respondent(
.Respondent(s)
4. RFA No.381
No.38177 of 1999 (O&M) with
XOBJR No.
No.27
27 of 2024 (O&M)
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ......Appellant(s)
......Appellant(s)
Vs
VAKIL SINGH (DECEASED) TH. LRS. & ORS. . ...Respondent
...Respondent(
.Respondent(s)
Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Sr. Panel Counsel, UOI
for the appellant(s).
appellant
Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate
for the cross-objectors/landowners.
cross
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)
CM-
CM-1334- 1334-CI & 1335- 1335-CI of 2024 in XOBJR-
XOBJR-28- 28-2024 in RFA-
RFA-3826- 3826-1999 1999 Prayer made in the applications application is for impleading the applicant(s) as 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 12-11-2025 05:59:16 ::: 2 RFA No.3826 3826 of 1999 (O&M) with other connected cases legal representative(s) representative of respondent No.1-Dahlo Dahlo and respondent No.2(4) Sudesh Kumari, who have died during pendency of the instant appeals.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same are allowed, subject to all just exceptions and the applicant(s) as mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the applications application are impleaded as legal representative representative(s) of respondent dent No.1- No.1 Dahlo and respondent No.2(4) Sudesh Kumari (deceased) respectively in order to pursue the present case(s).
case Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Main Appeals [1]. Vide this common order, the aforementioned appeals along with cross-objections objections, are being decided as the same have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving identical facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.3826 No.3826 of 1999.
[2]. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the Award dated 27.07.1998 1998 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge Judge, Gurdaspur (hereinafter after to be referred as the 'Reference Court'), whereby Reference Petition(s) Petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for shor short 'the 1894 Act') at the instance of landowners was partly allowed in their favour thereby granting Rs.1400/- per marla qua the acquired them the benefit of enhanced market value @ Rs. land besides awarding statutory benefits/interest benefits/interest as provided under the 1894 Act.
Act [3]. Briefly stating, in the present case(s), certain land owned by the respondents/landowners situated within the revenue estate of village Kiari,, Tehsil Pathankot came to be acquired vide Notification Notifications issued under Sections 4 as well as 6 of the 1894 Act dated 22.02.1991 published on 06.03.1991 invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 of the 1894 Act. The Award was passed by the 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 12-11-2025 05:59:16 ::: 3 RFA No.3826 3826 of 1999 (O&M) with other connected cases Special Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the SLAC') thereby determining the market value of the acquired land as under:-
"Chahi Land Rs.40,000/
Rs.40,000/- per acre
Barani
Barani-I Rs.35,000/
Rs.35,000/- per acre
Barani
Barani-II Rs.30,000/
Rs.30,000/- per acre
Banjar Kadim Rs.12,000/
Rs.12,000/- per acre
Banjar Jadid Rs.15,000/
Rs.15,000/- per acre
Gair Mumkin Rs.5,000/-- per acre
Gair Mumkin Abadi Rs.40,000/
Rs.40,000/- per acre"
[4]. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant(s)
appellant(s)-landowners invoked Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to be partly accepted in favour of the landowners by the learned Reference Court vide its award dated 27.07.1998 1998, granting them enhanced compensation @ Rs.1400 Rs.1400/- per marla for all kinds of land besides awarding all other statutory benefits/interest benefits/interest.
Dis satisfied with the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, Dis-satisfied the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellants/Union of India and cross-objections objections have been filed by the respondents/ respondents/landowners.
[5]. Impugning the aforesaid Award, learned counsel representing the appellants/Union of India submits that no reason at all was given by the learned Reference Court while granting enhancement @ Rs.1400/- per marla for all kinds of land in favour of the landowners. He, contends that in the absence off any reason or justification for grant of enhancement and further in the absence of any reliable evidence on record to support the enhancement, enhancement, the appeals filed at the instance of Union of India were to be allowed.
[6]. Per contra, contra, learned counsel for the respondents/landowners submits that under similar circumstances and pertaining to the land forming part of the same acquisition within the revenue estate, the market value stands increased to 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 12-11-2025 05:59:16 ::: 4 RFA No.3826 3826 of 1999 (O&M) with other connected cases Rs.2300/- per marla by this Court vide judgment dated 17.02.2016 rendered in RFA No.2902 of 1999 titled 'Union of India and another vs. Major Pritam Singh and another' and thus, the appellants/landowner appellant /landowners are entitled titled for the similar benefits. He thus prays for dismissal of the appeal(s) filed at the instance of the Union of India and for allowing the cross-objections cross objections filed by the landowners.
[7]. As against this, this, learned counsel representing the appellants/Union of India though vehemently opposed the prayer prayer made by respondents/landowners, however has not been able to controvert the factual aspect with respect to the final determination of compensation about the acquisition similar to the case in hand at Rs.2300/- per marla been granted by this Court vide the aforementioned decision. [8]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the respondents/landowners.
/landowners.
[9]. Accordingly, with with respect to the determination of market value, the stand taken by the counsel representing the respondents respondents-landowners that the matter is covered with the judgment dated 17.02.2016 rendered in RFA No.2902 of 1999 Major titled 'Union of India and another vs. Major Pritam Singh and another'' and the same been not factually controverted by learned counsel for the appellants, the market value in the present case as well is thus assessed @ Rs.
Rs.2300/- per marla in favour of the appellants/landowners.
appellant . In addition, the landowners shall also be entitled for award of all statutory benefits and interest as provided under the provisions of the 1894 Act (amended upto to date). The landowner landowners shall also be entitled for solatium @ 30% besides award of interest thereupon as wel well.
[10]. Consequently, in view of the discussion made herein above, the cross-
Consequently, cross objections preferred at the instance of respondents respondents-landowners are hereby partly 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 12-11-2025 05:59:16 ::: 5 RFA No.3826 3826 of 1999 (O&M) with other connected cases allowed in the aforesaid terms and the appeals filed by the Union of India are, thus dismissed.
[11]. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
November 07,
07, 2025 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 12-11-2025 05:59:16 :::