[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hakam Singh And Ors vs Union Of India on 17 April, 2026
RFA-2132
2132-2002
2002 (O&M) and other connected cases [1]
117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
*****
RFA
RFA-2132-2002 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 17.04.2026
Hakam Singh and others .......Appellants
Versus
Union of India and anr.
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Ms.
s. Simran Atwal, Advocate for
Ms. Supriya Garg, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Arun Goasin, Sr. Panel counsel with
Mr. Ramandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
-.-
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
Vide this common order, a bunch of 10 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 identical facts and question of law. For
the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.2132-2002..
2. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to
the Award dated 12.11.2001 passed by the learned Addl. District
Judge, Bathinda (for short, "the Reference Court"
Court"),, whereby the
RFA-2132-2002 (O&M) and other connected cases [2]
benefit of interest on solatium component has been declined to the
appellants / landowners.
3. Briefly stating, some land forming part of the revenue
estate of Villages Bucho Khurd and Bucho Kalan was acquired for
public purpose, namely, "for establishment of the Bathinda
Cantonment", vide notifications dated 10.05.1979 and 04.10.1979
issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short the '1894 Act') respectively. Award under Section 11 of the
1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the
LAC') on 30.03.1981, thereby, besides granting all other statutory
benefits under the 1894 Act, it assessed the market value in the
following manner:-
Village Bhucho Khurd
Sr.No. Type of Land Value assessed Rs. per acre
i. Nehri, Chahi and Nehri/Chahi Rs. 22,000/- per acre
ii. Barani Rs. 10,000/- per acre
iii. Banjar Kadim & Gair Mumkin Rs. 5,000/- per acre
Village Bhucho Kalan
Sr.No. Type of Land Value assessed Rs. per acre
iv. Nehri and Chahi Rs. 20,000/- per acre
v. Barani Rs. 12,770/- per acre
vi. Banjar Kadim & Gair Mumkin Rs. 6,400/- per acre
4. Being aggrieved, some of the other landowners filed
objections under Section 18 of the 1894 Act which was disposed of
by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 06.11.1985 and
the market value was re-assessed to the following effect:-
"........learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide award
RFA-2132-2002 (O&M) and other connected cases [3]
dated 06-11-1985 fixed the market value of the land of Village Bhucho
Khurd as under:-
i) Land abutting in the main
road Bathinda-Barnala
National highway on both
sides upto the depth of
250 meters throughout
the length of the village; Rs.32,770/- per acre
ii) Nehri, Chahi and
Nehri/Chahi Rs.27,305/- per acre
iii) Barani Rs.12,500/- per acre
iv) Banjar Kadim & Gair
Mumkiun Rs.6,250/- per acre
Vide the abovesaid award dated 06.11.1985, the learned
Additional District Judge, Bhathinda fixed the market value of the
acquired land of village Bhucho Kalan as under:-
i) Land abutting in the main road
Bathinda-Barnala upto
the depth of 500 meters. Rs.31,000/- per acre
ii) Nehri, Chahi and
Nehri/Chahi Rs.30,000/- per acre
iii) Barani Rs.14,000/- per acre
iv) Banjar Kadim & Gair
Mumkiun Rs.8,000/- per acre"
5. Still aggrieved, the said landowners approached this
Court having preferred RFAs which were disposed of vide decision
dated 21.05.1987 with lead case RFA No. 440 of 1986, titled "Zora
Singh vs. Union of India and anr." The relevant portion therefrom is
extracted hereunder:-
"To sum up the above discussion, I determine the market
value of the land acquired in the revenue estates of the three
villages of Mehna, Bhucho Khurd and Bhucho Kalan as under:-
RFA-2132-2002 (O&M) and other connected cases [4]
i) Abadis of village Mehna-Basti Sman Rs.70,000/- per acre
Knera, Kharaj Chak, and abadi of village
Bhucho Kalan
ii) Land abutting Bathinda-Barnala Rs.70,000/- per acre
National highway upto a depth of 500
meters on its either side.
iii) Chahi, Nehri and Chahi/ Nehri land Rs.37,000/- per acre
iv) Barani land Rs.27,000/- per acre
v) Banjar, Banjar Kadim and Gair Mumkin Rs.15,000/- per acre
It is further made clear that the land owners shall be entitled
to solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value of the acquired
land, an additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum under
section 23(1-A) of the Act, and interest at the rate of 9% for a
period of one year from the date of their dispossession and at the
rate of 15% per acre for the period subsequent thereto till the
payment of the total amount of compensation to them.
It has been brought to my notice that most of the land
owners have claimed in those appeals much higher compensation
than what has been awarded by me through this judgment but there
are a few cases where-in the claims have been made at a less
value. In such cases, I follow the ratio of Bhag Singh's case (supra)
and direct the concerned appellants to make up the deficiency in
the court-fee within two months from today before they are entitled
to recover compensation on the basis of this judgment. On their
failure to do so, the amount payable to them shall stand limited to
what has been claimed by them in their appeals."
As a consequence, the regular first appeals and the Cross-
Objections filed by the land-owner's are allowed with proportionate
costs and the regular first appeals filed by the Union of India are
dismissed without any orders as to costs."
6. The abovementioned decision dated 21.05.1987 was
assailed before this Court in intra-Court appeal vide LPA No. 1251 of
RFA-2132-2002 (O&M) and other connected cases [5]
1987 titled as "Zora Singh vs. Union of India and anr.", which was
decided on 30.01.1989 to the following effect:-
"In view of this, we do not find any substance in the
submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel. The
claimants are entitled to the benefit of sub-Section (1-A) of
Section 23 as introduced by the Central Act No. 68 of 1984.
The appeals filed by the claimants are allowed and
they are allowed compensation for the land acquired as
under:-
i) For the land within the abadi @ Rs.90,000/- per acre
and abutting the National
Highway on either side upto
the depth of 500 meters.
ii) For Chahi/ Nehri or Chahi, @ Rs.5,000/- per acre
Nehri land
iii) For Barani Land @ Rs.38,000/- per acre
iv) For Banjar Kadim or Gair @ Rs.30,000/- per acre
Mumkin land.
They will be entitled to the benefit of the Central Amending
Act (Act No. 68 of 1984) in case the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court upholds the view expressed in Bhag Singh and
others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1985 Supreme
Court 1576, and overrules the view expressed in Kamalajam-
Manniavaru vs. The Special land Acquisition Officer and vide versa,
AIR 1985 Supreme Court 576. This is subject to Court fee paid in
the appeal memo. The claimant/ appellants will also be entitled to
proportionate costs. The appeals filed by the Union of India are
dismissed."
7. In the meanwhile, based on the learned Reference Court
award dated 06.11.1985, the appellants herein preferred application
under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act within the statutory time period of
RFA-2132-2002 (O&M) and other connected cases [6]
90 days. The LAC vide its order dated 20.11.1998 decided the said
application preferred under Section 28A of the Act to the following
effect:-
"Village Bhucho Khurd
i) Land abutting on the main
on both sides upto the depth
of 250 mts. throughout the Rs.32,770/- per acre
length of the village.
ii) Nehri, chahi and Nehri/chahi Rs.27,305/- per acre
iii) Barani Rs.12,500/- per acre
iv) Banjar kadim Rs.6,250/- per acre
v) Gair Mumkin Rs.6,250/- per acre
Village Bhucho Kalan
"i) Land abutting the main
Bathinda-Barnala upto the Rs.31,000/- per acre
depth of 500 meters.
ii) Nehri chahi and Nehri/chahi Rs.30,000/- per acre
iii) Barani Rs.14,000/- per acre
iv) Banjar kadim and Gair Rs.8,000/- per acre"
Mumkin
8. Still aggrieved, the appellants invoked Section 28-A (3) of
the 1894 Act and the same came to be disposed of by the learned
Reference Court vide decision dated 12.11.2001 with the following
determination:-
"17. In view of my findings on issue No.1, the claimants/
petitioners are held entitled to receive and recover
compensation for their acquired land at the following rate:-
i) For the land within the abadi Rs.90,000/- per acre
and abutting National
Highway on either sides
RFA-2132-2002 (O&M) and other connected cases [7]
upto a depth of 500 meters
ii) For Chahi/ Nehri or Chahi Rs.50,000/- per acre
Nehri land
iii) For Barani land Rs.38,000/- per acre
iv) For Banjar Kadim and Gair Rs.30,000/- per acre
Mumkin
They will also be held entitled other statutory benefits
i.e. additional benefits at the rate of 12% per annum from the
date of notification till the award or the taking of possession
whichever is earlier, under Section 23 (1-A) and solatium at
the rate of 30% P.A. under Section 23 (2) of the Act, along
with interest at the rate of 9% P.A. for the first year and at
the rate of 15% for the subsequent period till actual
realization, but on the enhanced amount of compensation
with effect from the date of possession or the Award
whichever is earlier. The interest shall also be paid only on
the enhanced amount of compensation and not on the
solatium or the amount of compensation already paid to
them."
9. The short grouse raised in the present appeal(s) at the
instance of learned counsel for the appellants/ landowners is that
though the appellants/ landowners were already awarded similar
benefit of enhanced market value as assessed by this Court vide its
decision dated 30.01.1989 passed in LPA No. 1251 of 1987 in Zora
Singh's case (supra), however, the learned Reference Court without
giving any justified reasons denied the benefit of interest on solatium
and thus the award passed by the learned Reference Court to the
said extent was liable to be modified.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits
that the award passed by the learned Reference Court was based on
RFA-2132-2002 (O&M) and other connected cases [8]
proper appreciation of material available on record and therefore, the
same calls for no interference.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the paper-book as well as records of the case. I find
substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the
appellants.
12. A perusal of the decision dated 21.05.1987 passed by this
Court in RFA No. 440 of 1986 in Zora Singh's case (supra) clearly
records that the landowners were held entitled for interest over the
total amount of compensation which apparently and evidently
included the component of solatium. In this view of the matter, the
learned Reference Court erred having denied the benefit of interest
on solatium component to the appellants/ landowners while passing
the award dated 12.11.2001.
13. Further, a perusal of the impugned order also shows that
no reasons were recorded by the learned Reference Court having
specifically declined the benefit of interest on solatium to the
appellants/ landowners. In such circumstances, the impugned award
dated 12.11.2001 passed by the learned Reference Court being
legally unsustainable, is set aside to the extent whereby the
appellants/ landowners were denied the benefit of interest on the
solatium component.
14. Accordingly, the present appeals are allowed and the
appellants/ landowners, in addition to the benefit of enhanced market
RFA-2132-2002 (O&M) and other connected cases [9]
value assessed by the learned Reference Court in terms of decision
dated 30.01.1989 passed in LPA No. 1251 of 1987 in Zora Singh's
case (supra), shall also be entitled for other statutory benefits and
interest especially interest on solatium.
15. Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have
unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross-objection(s) after filing
thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at
liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving
appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court.
16. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
17.04.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sanjay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether Reportable? Yes/No
Sr.No. Case No.
1. RFA 2133-2002
2. RFA 2134-2002
3. RFA 2135-2002
4. RFA 2136-2002
5. RFA 2137-2002
6. RFA 2138-2002
7. RFA 2139-2002
8. RFA 2493-2002
9. RFA 4476-2003
17.04.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sanjay JUDGE
