Fair compensation must be awarded to all landowners affected by the same acquisition, regardless of their initial claims, to ensure justice and avoid discrimination.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral)

CM-7085-CII-2023

This is an application for fixing of the actual date of hearing in the main case.

2. Notice of application.

3. Mr. Udit Garg, Advocate accepts notice of application.

4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the main case is taken up on board today itself.

Main Case

5. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 24.12.1994 passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur in exercise of power under Section 8(1)(e) of Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as 1952 Act').

6. Briefly stating, in the facts of the present case, land owned by the appellants, situated in village Bungal, District Gurdaspur formed part of notification dated 26.03.1970 issued under the provisions of 1952 Act. An Award under Section 7(i) of 1952 Act was passed by Land Acquisition Collector on 17.02.1993, whereby compensation @ Rs.210 per kanal was awarded.

7. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants sought arbitration invoking Section 8(1)(C) of the 1952 Act, wherein award was passed on 24.12.1994 and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.1,000/- per kanal. The aforesaid award came to be challenged by way of present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the amount of compensation already stands determined @RS.350/- per marla by the Apex Court, besides awarding of solatium and interest in favour of similarly situated landowners vide judgment dated 25.01.2011 passed in FAO-264-1987 titled as "Beli Ram (deceased) through LRs and Others v. Union of India and Ors.", which even pertained to the same village i.e. Bungal, Hadbast No.39, Tehsil, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, pertaining to the same notification dated 26.03.1970. The operative part from the judgment dated 25.01.2011 is reproduced hereunder:-

"Learned counsel for the Union of India fairly submitted that the issue regarding valuation of land and also grant of interest and solatium pertaining to the same acquisition has been gone into by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh and others v. Union of India and others JT 2010 (11) SC 556, wherein award of Rs. 350/- per marla as compensation for the acquired land and award of interest and solatium has been upheld.

As the land in question which is the subject matter in the aforesaid appeal also pertains to the same acquisition which was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh's case (supra), I do not find any reason to differ with what has been awarded to the other landowners by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case.

Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of in the same terms."

Learned counsel further points out that initially the present appeal was filed with deficient Court fee, however, during its pendency, the said deficiency has been made good.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Union of India vehemently opposes the prayer made in this appeal. Learned counsel for respondent submits that there has been an inordinate delay on the part of appellants-landowners in making good the deficiency of Court fee. He further submits that once the appellants-landowners themselves quantified their demand qua the value of compensation of their land, they were e-stopped from raising any enhancement in excess thereto, In support, he places reliance upon decision made by this Court in "Mohinder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh 2007 AIR(Punjab and Haryana) 149". Para 7 thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

"7. In the aforesaid case, the appellant has paid lesser Court fee and thereby restricted the value of the appeal. It must be taken that the appellant's claim was restricted to the amount the Court fee was paid. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda's case AIR 1991 SC 730 (supra) was considered and it was found that the aforesaid judgment was no