JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J. 

CM-635-CI-2025 in XOBJR-93-CI-2005

Application for impleading the LRs of respondent-Jagjit Singh is allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. The applicants mentioned in para 3 of the application are ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of respondent-Dalip Kaur, to pursue the present appeal.

Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

Registry to tag the same at appropriate place.

CM-700-CI-2025 in RFA-1691-2005

Application for impleading the LRs of respondent-Dalip Kaur is allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. The applicants mentioned in para 4 of the application are ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of respondent-Dalip Kaur, to pursue the present appeal.

Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

Registry to tag the same at appropriate place.

MAIN APPEAL(S):

Vide this common order, a bunch of 13 Regular First Appeals as well as 08 XOBJRs, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.1674-2005.

2. By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 15.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot-cum-Reference Court, seeking further enhancement of the compensation.

3. Briefly stating, some land, situated within the revenue estate of Jaito District Faridkot, was sought to be acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notifications dated 16.09.1999 and 06.10.1999, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) respectively, for public purpose i.e. for construction of Chand Bhan Drain from R.D. 12050 to 12710 and 13660 to 15360 outfalling into Chand Bhan Diversion Drain in Teh. Jaitu. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 07.09.2001 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.2,50,000 /- per acre, and all other statutory benefits under the Act.

4. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ landowners filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 15.02.2005 which partly allowed the claim while upholding the market value of the acquired land determined by the LAC @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre, however, granting interest on compensation from the date of taking the possession till the date of payment and all other statutory benefits under the Act.

5. Aggrieved of the said decision of the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of State as well as appellants/ landowners/XOBJRs.

6. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having granted interest @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking over of possession of the land i.e. 07.07.1964 and @ 15% per annum for the subsequent years till the date of payment under the award. He points out that the interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and @ 15% for the subsequent years till the date of payment was made applicable only by virtue of amendment carried out in terms of Act No.68 of 1984; which was made effective from 24.09.1984; whereas prior thereto, on account of delay in disbursal of compensation, landowners were entitled for award of interest at the uniform rate of 6% per annum. He thus submits that the award passed by the learned Reference Court to the aforesaid extent was required to be modified.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landowners/ XOBJRs submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having discarded the sale deeds Ex. A-22 to A-25 produced by the landowners merely on the ground that those were not proved in accordance with law. He also points out that the learned Reference Court committed an illegality