Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India vs Dahlo & 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
Prayer made in the applications
application is for impleading the applicant(s) as
1 of 5
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
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
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
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
