JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J. 

CM-15869-CII-2025 IN FAO-2309-1998

Application for impleading the LRs of respondent No.1-Puran Singh; respondent No.2-Sampuran Singh, respondent No.3- Swaran Singh; respondent No.4-Prabh Devi, respondent No.5-Pritma Rani and respondent No.6-Mehar Singh, is allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. The applicants mentioned in paras 2 to 7 of the application are ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of respondent No.1- Puran Singh; respondent No.2- Sampuran Singh, respondent No.3-Swaran Singh; respondent No.4- Prabh Devi, respondent No.5-Pritma Rani and respondent No.6-Mehar Singh, respectively, to pursue the present appeal.

Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

Registry to tag the same at appropriate place.

MAIN CASE:

Vide this common order, two First Appeals against Order as well as two XOBJCs, details of which are given in the head note of this judgment, are being decided as both have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from FAO No.2305-1998.

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

3. Briefly stating, some land owned by the respondents/ landowners, forming part of the revenue restate of Village Chhotepur, the then Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur was requisitioned in the year 1948 in terms of the provisions of The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Later, the process of acquisition was initiated in the year 1964. Thereafter, the Government of Punjab appointed the learned District Judge as Arbitrator so as to adjudicate upon the claim made by the respondents/ landowners towards market value (including enhancement etc.). Vide impugned award dated 08.05.1998, the learned Arbitrator assessed the market value in favour of the respondents/ landowners @ Rs.150/- per marla, besides awarding solatium @ 30% as well as other statutory interest and benefits payable under Section 28 read with Section 23-1(A) of the Act.

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

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

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

7. Under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its decision dated 26.10.2010 rendered in the case of Dilawar Singh and others Vs. UOI and ors., reported as 2012 (3) RCR (Civil) 16, went on to award market value @ Rs.350/- per marla with respect to the land similarly situated on the outskirts of Pathankot and acquired around 1964 to 1970. Paragraphs 7 and 9 of Dilawar Singh’s case being relevant, are extracted hereunder:-

“7. It is noteworthy that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has in Union of India v. Inder Singh and Anr. in LPA No. 1918 of 1989 and connected matters upheld grant of solatium and interest in regard to a similar acquisition made in terms of a notification issued in January 1970. While doing so the High Court placed reliance upon its decision in Shankar Singh and Others v. Union of India 1988 (1) PLR 163, Mr. Subramanium, learned Solicitor General fairly conceded that no appeal has been preferred by the Union of India against the decision in Shankar Singh's case (supra) or that delivered in Union of India v. Inder Singh and Anr. (supra). In that view of the matter therefore and having regard to the fact that there was an inordinate delay of 16 years in the appointment of an Arbitrator in the present cases, we have no hesitation in holding that the principle laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to above would entitle the land owners to the benefit of solatium and interest espe