CM-2365 v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Harsh Manocha, Advocate for the Mr. Harsh Manocha, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) HARKESH MANUJA **** Vide Vide Vide this common order, aforementioned this common order, aforementioned this common order, aforementioned review review shall stand disposed of as they involve common question of applications shall stand disposed of as they involve common question of shall stand disposed of as they involve common question of shall stand disposed of as they involve common question of - fact and law. For convenience, the facts are culled out from RA-RF-194- fact and law. For convenience, the facts are culled out from fact and law. For convenience, the facts are culled out from 2023 in RFA-1416 1416-2009. CM-2365-CI-2023 2366-CI-2023 IN 2023 IN RA-RF-194-2023 IN - 2023 IN RFA-1416-2009 and CM- IN RA-RF-195-2023 IN RFA-2226 2226-2008

1. By way of present applications, prayer has been made for By way of present applications, prayer has been made for By way of present applications, prayer has been made for By way of present applications, prayer has been made for condoning the delay of 1925 days in filing the review applications. condoning the delay of 1925 days in filing the review applications. condoning the delay of 1925 days in filing the review applications.

2. State has Learned counsel representing the respondent-State has Learned counsel representing the respondent Learned counsel representing the respondent sufficient failed to file reply to the applications despite been afforded sufficient failed to file reply to the applications despite been afforded failed to file reply to the applications despite been afforded opportunity.

3. Concededly, Concededly, Concededly, Concededly, the other similarly situated the other similarly situated the other similarly situated the other similarly situated landowners landowners landowners landowners pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings have already been held pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings have already been held pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings have already been held pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings have already been held TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.04.10 18:54 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CM-2365-CI-2023 in/and RA-RF-194-2023 IN RFA-1416-2009 CM-2366-CI-2023 in/and RA-RF-195-2023 IN RFA-2226-2008 entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation pertaining to the land situated in revenue estate of Village Marauli Kalan/Marauli Khurd, Tehsil Kharar, District Roopnagar (now SAS Nagar), tune of Rs.10,46,742/- per acre vide judgment dated 07.12.2019 passed in RFA- 2208-2008 titled as “Bhag Singh Vs. State of Punjab”.

4. Based thereupon and applying the principle of parity, beside grant of just and fair compensation, the landowner/applicants being similarly situated is entitled for grant of similar amount of compensation, however, without any payment of interest for the period they failed to approach this Court for review of its previous decision. In this regard reliance can be placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (Dead) through LRs Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another”, 2020 (19) SCC 599”.

5. In view of the discussion made hereinabove as well as on the basis of contents of the applications, the prayer made herein is allowed. Accordingly, delay of 1925 days in filing the review applications is hereby condoned. REVIEW APPLICATIONS

1. Prayer in the present applications is for review of the order dated 18.01.2016 passed by this Court in RFA-1416-2009 and RFA- 2226-2008, which were decided along with connected appeal bearing RFA-2207-2008, being partially allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.6 lakhs to Rs.8 lakhs per acre.

2. Although, the applicants did not challenge the decision dated

18.01.2016, passed by this Court, however, aggrieved thereof, some of the other similarly placed landowners filed Special Leave Petition (for TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.04.10 18:54 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 CM-2365-CI-2023 in/and RA-RF-194-2023 IN RFA-1416-2009 CM-2366-CI-2023 in/and RA-RF-195-2023 IN RFA-2226-2008 short “SLP”) before the Hon’ble Apex Court for enhancement of compensation on the ground that this Court in RFA-3161-2009, titled as “Jasmer Singh vs. State of Punjab” awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.62,16,415/- per acre for the land of the same villages, whereas the difference between the date of two notifications was only three months. In the said SLP, the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted the landowners to approach this Court again by filing review applications. Thereafter, some of the landowners preferred review applications before this Court, which came to be allowed. Later on, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated

06.12.2017, set aside the judgment passed by this Court in Jasmer Singh’s case (supra) and remanded the case back to this Court for fresh hearing. Thereafter, all the cases were reheard and finally decided vide judgment dated 07.12.2019 in RFA-2208-2008 titled as “Bhag Singh Vs. State of Punjab”.

3. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the matter pertaining to the same acquisition/notification covering the same revenue estate i.e. Village Marauli Kalan/Marauli Khurd, Tehsil Kharar, District Roopnagar (now SAS Nagar) filed at the instance of few other land- owners came up before this Court, which was finally disposed of vide Bhag Singh’s case (Supra). Para 22 thereof being relevant is reproduced hereunder:- “22. Resultantly, keeping in view the above, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate if Rs.10,46,742/- per acre is awarded as the market value for the land of two villages i.e. Marauli Kalan (Mandouli Kalan) and Marauli Khurd (Mandouli Khurd) along with all statutory benefits.” TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.04.10 18:54 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 CM-2365-CI-2023 in/and RA-RF-194-2023 IN RFA-1416-2009 CM-2366-CI-2023 in/and RA-RF-195-2023 IN RFA-2226-2008

4. In view of the above as well as on the basis of agreed stand taken by both the sides on the factual aspects, the review application is disposed of in terms of decision dated 07.12.2019 passed in the case of Bhag Singh (supra) and the applicants are held entitled for similar market value @ Rs.10,46,742/- per acre along with all statutory benefits and interest available under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act,

1984. However, the applicants shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay in filing the present review applications.

5. In view of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “HSIIDC v. Pran Sukh”, (2010) 11 SCC 175, respondent No.1 is also directed to release the enhanced amount of compensation along with all statutory benefits within 03 months from today.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.

06.04.2026 Tejwinder (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.04.10 18:54 I agree to specified portions of this document