FAO-2305 v. Bahadur Singh & Anr.

Judgment

1. ***** Date of Decision: 18.02.2026 Date of Decision: FAO FAO-2305-1998 (O&M) and XOBJC-5-CII-1999 XOBJC Union of India and another Union of India and another …..Appellants Versus Bahadur Singh and another Bahadur Singh and another …..Respondents

2. FAO FAO-2309-1998 (O&M) with XOBJC-6-CII-1999 XOBJC Union of India and another Union of India and another …..Appellants Versus Puran Singh (since deceased) through LRs Puran Singh (since deceased) through LRs Puran Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others and others ..….Respondents

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: Ms. Gehna Vaishnavi, Advocate Present: Ms. Gehna Vaishnavi, Advocate Present: for the appellant-UOI. Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate and Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate and Mr. K.P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate Mr. K.P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the respondents/ landowners. for the respondents/ landowners. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CM-15869 1998 15869-CII-2025 IN FAO-2309-1998 for impleading the LRs of respondent No.1- for impleading the LRs of respondent No.1 Application for impleading the LRs of respondent No.1 Sampuran Singh, respondent No.3- Puran Singh; respondent No.2-Sampuran Singh, respondent No.3 Sampuran Singh, respondent No.3 Puran Singh; respondent No.2 Swaran Singh; respondent No.4-Prabh Devi, respondent No.5 Swaran Singh; respondent No.4 Pritma Prabh Devi, respondent No.5-Pritma Rani and respondent No.6-Mehar Singh, is Rani and respondent No.6 allowed, as prayed for, Mehar Singh, is allowed, as prayed for, SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2305 2305-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases 1998 (O&M) & other connected cases [2] subject to all just exceptions. The applicant subject to all just ex paras 2 to ceptions. The applicants mentioned in paras 2 to ordered to be brought on record as legal 7 of the application are ordered to be brought on record as legal ordered to be brought on record as legal 7 of the application are representatives of respondent No.1- representative Puran Singh; respondent No.2- Puran Singh; respondent No.2 Swaran Singh; respondent No.4- Sampuran Singh, respondent No.3-Swaran Singh; respondent No.4 Swaran Singh; respondent No.4 Sampuran Singh, respondent No.3 Pritma Rani and respondent No.6- Prabh Devi, respondent No.5-Pritma Rani and respondent No.6 Pritma Rani and respondent No.6 Prabh Devi, re to pursue the present appeal. Mehar Singh, respectively, to pursue the present appeal. Mehar Singh, respectively, Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. MAIN CASE: MAIN CASE Vide this common order, two against Order two First Appeals against Order as well as two XOBJCs, details of which are given in the as well as two XOBJ , details of which are given in the head note head note of this judgment, are being decided as both this judgment, are being decided as have arisen out of common both have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from the sake of brevity, facts are being t . aken from FAO No.2305-1998.

2. way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 08.05.1998 laid to the decision dated 08.05.1998 passed by the learned Arbitrator-cum-District Judge, Gurdaspur Arbitrator District Judge, Gurdaspur.

3. Briefly stating, some land owned by the respondents/ land owned by the respondents/ pur, landowners, forming part of the revenue restate of Village Chhotepur, landowners, forming part of the revenue restate of Village landowners, forming part of the revenue restate of Village the then Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur was requisitioned in the the then Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur was requisitioned in the the then Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur was requisitioned in the the then Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur was requisitioned in the The Requisitioning and year 1948 in terms of the provisions of The Requisitioning and year 1948 in terms of the provisions of year 1948 in terms of the provisions of Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 Acquisition of Immovable . Later, the process of Property Act, 1952. Later, the process of acquisition was initiated in the year 1964. Thereafter, the Government acquisition was initiated in the year 1964. Thereafter, the Government acquisition was initiated in the year 1964. Thereafter, the Government acquisition was initiated in the year 1964. Thereafter, the Government SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2305 2305-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases 1998 (O&M) & other connected cases [3] of Punjab appointed the learned District Judge as Arbitrator so as to of Punjab appointed the learned District Judge as Arbitrator so as to of Punjab appointed the learned District Judge as Arbitrator so as to of Punjab appointed the learned District Judge as Arbitrator so as to adjudicate upon the claim made by the respondents/ landowners adjudicate upon the claim made by the respondents/ landowners adjudicate upon the claim made by the respondents/ landowners adjudicate upon the claim made by the respondents/ landowners towards market value (including enhancement etc.) towards mar . Vide impugned ket value (including enhancement etc.). Vide impugned award dated 08.05.1998 , the learned Arbitrator assessed the market dated 08.05.1998, the learned Arbitrator assessed the market , the learned Arbitrator assessed the market in favour of the respondents/ landowners @ Rs.150/- per in favour of the respondents/ landowners value in favour of the respondents/ landowners marla, besides awarding solatium @ 30% as well as other statutory marla, besides awarding solatium @ 30% as well as other statutory marla, besides awarding solatium @ 30% as well as other statutory marla, besides awarding solatium @ 30% as well as other statutory t and benefits payable under Section 28 read with Section 23- interest and benefits payable under Section 28 read with Section 23 t and benefits payable under Section 28 read with Section 23 t and benefits payable under Section 28 read with Section 23 1(A) of the Act. 1(A) of the Act.

4. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal(s) came to be filed Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal(s) came to be filed Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal(s) came to be filed at the instance of appellants praying for setting aside of the award at the instance of appellants praying for setting aside of the award at the instance of appellants praying for setting aside of the award at the instance of appellants praying for setting aside of the award . and the determination made in favour of respondents/ landowners. and the determination made in favour of respond and the determination made in favour of respond

5. s were filed on behalf of the On the other hand, XOBJCs were filed on behalf of the On the other hand, XOBJ respondents/ landowners for seeking further enhancement of the respondents/ landowners for seeking further enhancement of the respondents/ landowners for seeking further enhancement of the respondents/ landowners for seeking further enhancement of the market value. market value.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. through the paper

7. Under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide Under similar circumstances, its decision decision dated 26.10.2010 rendered in the case of rendered in the case of Dilawar Singh Dilawar Singh and others Vs. UOI and ors., reported as and others Vs. UOI and ors 2012 (3) RCR (Civil) 16, reported as 2012 (3) RCR (Civil) 16 went on to award market value on to award market value @ Rs.350/ with respect to Rs.350/- per marla with respect to land similarly situated on the outskirts of Pathankot and acquired the land similarly situated on the outskirts of Pathankot and acquired land similarly situated on the outskirts of Pathankot and acquired land similarly situated on the outskirts of Pathankot and acquired around 1964 to 1970. Paragraphs 7 and 9 of around 1964 to 1970 . Paragraphs 7 and 9 of Dilawar Singh’s case being relevant, are extracted hereunder:- being relevant, are extracted hereunder: being relevant, are extracted hereunder: SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-23052305-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases 1998 (O&M) & other connected cases [4] “7. It is noteworthy that the High Court of Punjab It is noteworthy that the High Court of Punjab It is noteworthy that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has in has in Union of India v. Inder Union of India v. Inder in LPA No. 1918 of 1989 and Singh and Anr. in LPA No. 1918 of 1989 and Singh and Anr. connected matters upheld grant of solatium and connected matters upheld grant of solatium and connected matters upheld grant of solatium and interest in regard to a similar acquisition made in interest in regard to a similar acquisition made in interest in regard to a similar acquisition made in terms of a notification issued in January 1970. terms of a notification issued in January 1970. terms of a notification issued in January 1970. ed reliance While doing so the High Court placed reliance While doing so the High Court plac upon its decision in Shankar Singh and Others upon its decision in Shankar Singh and Others 1988 (1) PLR 163, Mr. v. Union of India 1988 (1) PLR 163, Mr. v. Union of India Subramanium, learned Solicitor General fairly Subramanium, learned Solicitor General fairly Subramanium, learned Solicitor General fairly conceded that no appeal has been preferred by conceded that no appeal has been preferred by conceded that no appeal has been preferred by the Union of India against the decision in the Union of India against the decision in the Union of India against the decision in upra) or that delivered Shankar Singh's case (supra) or that delivered Shankar Singh's case Union of India v. Inder Singh and Anr. in Union of India v. Inder Singh and Anr. Union of India v. Inder Singh and Anr. (supra). In that view of the matter therefore and (supra). In that view of the matter therefore and (supra). In that view of the matter therefore and having regard to the fact that there was an having regard to the fact that there was an having regard to the fact that there was an inordinate delay of 16 years in the appointment inordinate delay of 16 years in the appointment inordinate delay of 16 years in the appointment of an Arbitrator in the present cases, we have no of an Arbitrator in the present cases, we have n of an Arbitrator in the present cases, we have n hesitation in holding that the principle laid down hesitation in holding that the principle laid down hesitation in holding that the principle laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to above by this Court in the decisions referred to above by this Court in the decisions referred to above would entitle the land owners to the benefit of would entitle the land owners to the benefit of would entitle the land owners to the benefit of solatium and solatium and solatium and interest especially when interest especially when interest especially when owners who have owners who have owners who have in similar in similar in similar ame purpose have circumstances and for the same purpose have circumstances and for the s been given such a benefit. been given such a benefit.

9. In the present batch of cases except the case In the present batch of cases except the case In the present batch of cases except the case the notification for acquisition was issued in the notification for acquisition was issued in the notification for acquisition was issued in February 1970 which is proximate in point of February 1970 which is proximate in point of February 1970 which is proximate in point of time to those issued in the Shanker Singh and time to those issued in the Shanker Singh and (supra). The notification in Inder Singh's cases (supra). The notification in Inder Singh's cases Union of India v. Mohinder Singh (Civil Union of India v. Mohinder Singh (Civil Union of India v. Mohinder Singh (Civil Appeal No. 9204/2010) was Appeal No. 9204/2010) issued on issued on

12.5.1964 and published on 12.6.1964. That 12.5.1964 and published on 12.6.1964. That 12.5.1964 and published on 12.6.1964. That SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2305 2305-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases 1998 (O&M) & other connected cases [5] apart the lands in question were all acquired for apart the lands in question were all acquired for apart the lands in question were all acquired for the very same purpose and are situated on the the very same purpose and are situated on the the very same purpose and are situated on the f a growing town like Pathankot. The outskirts of a growing town like Pathankot. The f a growing town like Pathankot. The agriculture potential of such lands growing non-agriculture potential of such lands agriculture potential of such lands is also not in serious dispute. The High Court is also not in serious dispute. The High Court is also not in serious dispute. The High Court has failed to notice all these aspects apparently has failed to notice all these aspects apparently has failed to notice all these aspects apparently because the decisions in Shanker Singh's case because the decisions in Shanker Singh's case because the decisions in Shanker Singh's case Singh's case (supra) and that delivered in Inder Singh's case (supra) and that delivered in Inder were handed down subsequent to the impugned were handed down subsequent to the impugned were handed down subsequent to the impugned order. Suffice it to say that on the material order. Suffice it to say that on the material order. Suffice it to say that on the material available before us we see no reason why the available before us we see no reason why the available before us we see no reason why the amount of compensation payable amount of compensation payable amount of compensation payable landowners appellants in these appeals should landowners appellants in these appeals should landowners appellants in these appeals should per marla with also not be enhanced to Rs. 350/- per marla with also not be enha proportionate benefits proportionate benefits proportionate benefits towards solatium and towards solatium and towards solatium and interest as awarded by the Arbitrator and upheld interest as awarded by the Arbitrator and upheld interest as awarded by the Arbitrator and upheld by the High Court in those cases and in similar by the High Court in those cases and in similar by the High Court in those cases and in similar other cases to which we have referred in the other cases to which we have referred in the other cases to which we have referred in the as Mohinder earlier part of this order. In so far as Mohinder earlier part of this order. In so far Singh's case (supra) is concerned, the appeal Singh's case (supra) is concerned, the appeal Singh's case (supra) is concerned, the appeal has been filed by the Union of India against has been filed by the Union of India against has been filed by the Union of India against grant of solatium and interest. No appeal has grant of solatium and interest. No appeal has grant of solatium and interest. No appeal has been filed by the owners in that case for been filed by the owners in that case for been filed by the owners in that case for enhancement of the amount of compensation. enhancement of the amount of compensation. enhancement of the amount of compensation. absence of any cogent Even otherwise in the absence of any cogent Even otherwise in the evidence to justify any such enhancement, there evidence to justify any such enhancement, there evidence to justify any such enhancement, there is no room for directing payment of a large is no room for directing payment of a large is no room for directing payment of a large amount of compensation.” amount of compensation.” case has been followed by the Hon’ble The aforesaid case has been followed by the Hon’ble case has been followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and ors. Vs. Asket Apex Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and ors. Vs. Asket Union of India (UOI) and ors. Vs. Asket SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2305 2305-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases 1998 (O&M) & other connected cases [6] Singh and ors., passed in Civil Appeal No. 1636 Singh and ors. 1637 of 2016, passed in Civil Appeal No. 1636-1637 of 2016, decided on 01.05.2024. decided on 01.05.2024.

8. the land acquired in the present In view of the aforesaid, the land acquired in the present the land acquired in the present case being identically placed on the outskirts of Pathankot been case being identically placed on the outskirts of Pathankot been case being identically placed on the outskirts of Pathankot been case being identically placed on the outskirts of Pathankot been both the ified in the year 1964; applying the principle of parity, both the ified in the year 1964; applying the principle of parity, notified in the year 1964; applying the principle of parity, appeals preferred at the instance of Union of India are hereby appeals preferred at the instance of Union of India are hereby appeals preferred at the instance of Union of India are hereby appeals preferred at the instance of Union of India are hereby s preferred at the instance of dismissed; whereas the XOBJCs preferred at the instance of s preferred at the instance of dismissed; whereas the XOBJ respondents/ landowners are accepted and the market value in their respondents/ landowners are accepted and the market value in their respondents/ landowners are accepted and the market value in their respondents/ landowners are accepted and the market value in their favour is assessed @ Rs.350/- per marl favour is assessed @ Rs.350/ ides grant of other per marla besides grant of other nder the Act including statutory benefits and interest payable under the Act including statutory benefits and interest payable u statutory benefits and interest payable u solatium by relying upon the decision made in case of Dilawar solatium by relying upon the decision made in case of solatium by relying upon the decision made in case of Dilawar Singh’s case (supa).

9. Further, wherever, Further, wherever, landowner(s) landowner(s) has/have has/have objection(s) after filing unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross-objection(s) after filing unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. appropriate application(s) before the learned appropriate application(s) before the learned

10. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. disposed of.

18.02.2026 2026 sanjay (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Yes/No Yes/No SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document