1 Ghogro Devi Ghogro Devi …… v. Versus Punjab State through Collector and ors. Punjab State through Collector and ors. Punjab
Case Details
RFA-1207 1207-1998 (O&M) [1] 117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA-1207-1998 (O&M) RFA Date of Decision: 13.11.2025 Date of Decision: 1 Ghogro Devi Ghogro Devi …….Appellant Versus Versus Punjab State through Collector and ors. Punjab State through Collector and ors. Punjab State through Collector and ors. .….Respondents
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: , Advocate Present: Mr.R.S. Manhas, Advocate Present: for the appellant. Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an learned Additional District award dated 16.12.1997 passed by the learned Additional District award dated 16.12.1997 passed by award dated 16.12.1997 passed by Judge, Gurdapsur, cum Reference Court. Gurdapsur, cum-Reference Court. 2. In the present case, acquisition of land owned by appellant In the present case, acquisition of land owned by appellant In the present case, acquisition of land owned by appellant situated within the revenue estate of Village Chamrour Tikka Chamrour, situated within the revenue estate of Village Chamrour Tikka Chamrour, situated within the revenue estate of Village Chamrour Tikka Chamrour, situated within the revenue estate of Village Chamrour Tikka Chamrour, Tehsil Pathankot, was carried out in terms of Tehsil Pathankot, an award dated was carried out in terms of an award dated 24.10.1990. 24.10.1990. 3. f the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Aggrieved of the assessment made by the Land Acquisition f the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, for short ‘the LAC’, the appellant/ landowner sought reference Collector, for short ‘the LAC’, the appellant/ landowner sought reference Collector, for short ‘the LAC’, the appellant/ landowner sought reference Collector, for short ‘the LAC’, the appellant/ landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.17 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1207 1207-1998 (O&M) [2] whereby market value @ Rs.45000/- per acre in favour of appella whereby nt for per acre in favour of appellant for all kinds of Barani land and Rs.20000/ all kinds of Barani per acre for Gair Mumkin and and Rs.20000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin and Banjar Q was awarded by the learned Reference Court, was awarded by the learned Reference Court Qadim land was awarded by the learned Reference Court besides award of all other statutory benefits. besides award of all other statutory benefits. besides award of all other statutory benefits. 4. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid, the present appeal Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid, the present appeal Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid, the present appeal . was filed. 5. 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 book as well as records of the case. through the paper-book as well as records of the case. through the paper 6. No material evidence has been brought on record or No material evidence has been brought on record or No material evidence has been brought on record or pointed out from the side of appellant/ landowner to enable this Court to pointed out from the side of appellant/ landowner to enable this Court to pointed out from the side of appellant/ landowner to enable this Court to pointed out from the side of appellant/ landowner to enable this Court to erent view as recorded by the learned Reference Court on the take a different view as recorded by the learned Reference Court on the erent view as recorded by the learned Reference Court on the take a diff point of quantum of market value. Moreover, in relation to the point of quantum of market value. Moreover, in relation to point of quantum of market value. Moreover, in relation to point of quantum of market value. Moreover, in relation to notification issued just 04 months prior to the present acquisition, this notification issued just 04 months prior to the present acquisition, this notification issued just 04 months prior to the present acquisition, this notification issued just 04 months prior to the present acquisition, this 10 (and vide order dated 02.11.2018 passed in RFA No.1006/2010 (and vide order dated 02.11.2018 passed in Court vide order dated 02.11.2018 passed in other connected matters), titled as State of other connected matters), titled as Vs. Usha State of Punjab and ors. Vs. Usha , upheld the similar assessment made by the Reference Court Rani (II), upheld the similar assessment made by the Reference Court , upheld the similar assessment made by the Reference Court , upheld the similar assessment made by the Reference Court Uparla, in relation to the adjoining revenue estates of Villages Thara Uparla, in relation to the adjoining revenue estates of Village in relation to the adjoining revenue estates of Village , Tikka Ladhwal and Phangota Tikka Naloh, Tikka Salwal, Tikka Bango, Tikka Ladhwal and Phangota Tikka Naloh, Tikka Salwal, Tikka Bango Tikka Naloh, Tikka Salwal, Tikka Bango . The previous acquisition carried out in terms of notification dated Khas. The previous acquisition carried out in terms of notification dated . The previous acquisition carried out in terms of notification dated . The previous acquisition carried out in terms of notification dated 29.06.1989, relating to the aforementioned revenue estates was 29.06.1989 relating to the aforementioned revenue estates was also also for the similar purpose i.e. for Reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam Project. In similar purpose i.e. for Reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam Project. In purpose i.e. for Reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam Project. In such circumstances, no interference is called for with the determination such circumstances, no interference is called for with the determination such circumstances, no interference is called for with the determination such circumstances, no interference is called for with the determination made by the learned Reference Court vide impugned Award. made by the learned Reference Court vide impugned Award. made by the learned Reference Court vide impugned Award. However, the following portion of the relief clause recorded However, the following portion of the relief clause recorded However, the following portion of the relief clause recorded in the award the award by the learned Reference Court, needs to be modified for by the learned Reference Court, needs to be modified for SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.17 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1207 1207-1998 (O&M) [3] the reasons to follow:- the reasons to follow: “However, “However, “However, the applicant the applicant the applicant is not entitled is not entitled is not entitled to to to interest on the enhanced compensation from the date interest on the enhanced compensation from the date interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of dismissal of dismissal of dismissal in default of in default of in default of reference reference reference i.e. i.e. i.e. from from from 7 (the date of its restoration) 07.10.1992 to 01.02.1997 (the date of its restoration) 07.10.1992 to 01.02.199 during which period during which period during which period this this this reference reference reference remained remained remained dismissed in default. The amount of the award will be dismissed in default. The amount of the award will be dismissed in default. The amount of the award will be reduced to the extent the Collector has already reduced to the extent the Collector has already reduced to the extent the Collector has already awarded as compensation and received by the awarded as compensation and received by the awarded as compensation and received by the applicant.” REASONS: REASONS 7. dly, the reference petition preferred at the instance Admittedly, the reference petition preferred at the instance dly, the reference petition preferred at the instance of appellant/ landowner got dismissed in default on 07.10.1992. From of appellant/ landowner got dismissed in default on 07.10.1992. From of appellant/ landowner got dismissed in default on 07.10.1992. From of appellant/ landowner got dismissed in default on 07.10.1992. From the records of the learned Reference Court, it can be discerned that an the records of the learned Reference Court, it can be discerned that an the records of the learned Reference Court, it can be discerned that an the records of the learned Reference Court, it can be discerned that an preferred at application seeking restoration of the reference petition was preferred at application seeking restoration of the reference petition was application seeking restoration of the reference petition was the instance of appellant/landowner on 21.12.1992, whereupon notice the instance of appellant/landowner on 21.12.1992, whereupon notice the instance of appellant/landowner on 21.12.1992, whereupon notice the instance of appellant/landowner on 21.12.1992, whereupon notice remained was issued to the respondents, however, the said application remained was issued to the respondents, however, the said application was issued to the respondents, however, the said application was decided/ accepted by the learned Reference pending for long and was decided/ accepted by the learned Reference was decided/ accepted by the learned Reference pending for long and was the learned Reference Court, Court only on 01.02.1997. Since, it was the learned Reference Court, was the learned Reference Court, Court only on 01.02.1997. which took more than 04 years to adjudicate upon the restoration which took more than 04 years to adjudicate upon the restoration which took more than 04 years to adjudicate upon the restoration which took more than 04 years to adjudicate upon the restoration application filed on behalf of the appellant/ landowner on 21.12.1992, application filed on behalf of the appellant/ landowner on 21.12.1992, application filed on behalf of the appellant/ landowner on 21.12.1992, application filed on behalf of the appellant/ landowner on 21.12.1992, denial of interest for the said period cannot be the delay towards denial of interest for the said period cannot be denial of interest for the said period cannot be the delay attributed to the appellant/ landowner so as to non attributed to the a suit her for the ppellant/ landowner so as to non-suit her for the purpose of award of interest on the enhanced compensation for the said purpose of award of interest on the enhanced compensation for the said purpose of award of interest on the enhanced compensation for the said purpose of award of interest on the enhanced compensation for the said period. At best, the appellant/ landowner can be denied interest for the period. At best, the appellant/ landowner can be denied interest for the period. At best, the appellant/ landowner can be denied interest for the period. At best, the appellant/ landowner can be denied interest for the petition period between the date of order of dismissal of the reference petition period between the date of order of dismissal of the reference period between the date of order of dismissal of the reference SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.17 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1207 1207-1998 (O&M) [4] i.e. 07.10.1992 till date of filing of application for restoration i.e. i.e. 07.10.1992 till date of filing of application for restoration i.e. i.e. 07.10.1992 till date of filing of application for restoration i.e. i.e. 07.10.1992 till date of filing of application for restoration i.e. 21.12.1992. 21.12.1992. 8. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the award In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the award In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the award passed by the learned Reference Court is modified to the extent that the passed by the learned Reference Court is modified to the extent that the passed by the learned Reference Court is modified to the extent that the passed by the learned Reference Court is modified to the extent that the appellant shall not be entitled appellant shall not be entitled for for for interest on interest on interest on the enhanced the enhanced the enhanced for the period from the date of order of dismissal of the compensation for the period from the date of order of dismissal of the for the period from the date of order of dismissal of the compensation from reference petition till date of fling of application for restoration i.e. from reference petition till date of fling of application for restoration i.e. reference petition till date of fling of application for restoration i.e. 07.10.1992 till 21.12.1992 and besides it, the appellant shall be entitled 07.10.1992 till 21.12.1992 and besides it, the appellant shall be entitled 07.10.1992 till 21.12.1992 and besides it, the appellant shall be entitled 07.10.1992 till 21.12.1992 and besides it, the appellant shall be entitled or all statutory benefits/ interest provided under the Act, especially the for all statutory benefits/ interest provided under the Act, especially the or all statutory benefits/ interest provided under the Act, especially the or all statutory benefits/ interest provided under the Act, especially the interest on solatium as well. interest on solatium as well. 9. 10. Disposed of in the above terms. Disposed of in the above terms. 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
Decision
disposed of. disposed of. 2025 13.11.2025 sanjay (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Yes/No Yes/No SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.17 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document