##PAGE1##

1 FAO-2037-2001 (O&M)

110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-2037-2001 (O&M)

Date of Decision: February 04, 2026

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ........Appellants

Versus

KHUSHAL SINGH AND ORS. ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Sr. counsel, UOI

for the appellants.

Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the

cross-objectors/respondents/landowners.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

CM-11452-CII-2001

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 180

days in refiling the appeal.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the contents of the application which is supported by an affidavit,

the same is allowed and delay of 180 days in refiling the appeal is hereby

condoned.

FAO-2037-2001 with XOBJC-130-2025

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an

award dated 01.06.2000 passed by the learned Arbitrator-cum-District

Judge, Gurdaspur.

2. Briefly stated, around 29 kanals 19 marlas of land owned by

the respondents-cross objectors/landowners forming part of revenue

estate of village Bharoli Kalan, Tehsil Pathankot was notified vide Form-J

under Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952

TEJWINDER SINGH

2026.02.09 09:33

I agree to specified portions

of this document

2 FAO-2037-2001 (O&M)

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 17.03.1970. The market value

against the aforesaid was assessed at Rs.150/- per marla. Aggrieved

thereof, the landowners-respondents sought arbitration. On 09.02.2000,

the State Government appointed an Arbitrator for the purpose of dealing

with application preferred at the instance of respondents-landowners in

terms of Section 8 of the Act. Learned Arbitrator vide its award dated

01.06.2000 re-assessed the market value @ Rs.220/- per marla and

also granted the benefit of statutory solatium and interest in favour of

respondents-landowners. The operative paragraph No.9 of the award

dated 01.06.2000 is reproduced hereunder:-

“9. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, I accept this

application with costs and award compensation to the applicants of the

acquired land at the rate of Rs 220/- per marla and the applicants are

accordingly awarded compensation for the land acquired at this rate

alongwith solatium at the ate of 30% on such market value and interest

thereon for the first year, from the date when the possession of the land

was taken at the rate of 9% and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum

till the date of payment of the compensation awarded. Counsel fee is

assessed at Rs 1000/-. Judgement be written on the stamp paper worth

Rs 75/-. Memo of costs be prepared. File be completed and consigned

to the record room.”

3. Aggrieved of the benefit of solatium granted in favour of

respondents-landowners, the present appeal came to be preferred at the

instance of appellants. In response, the landowners-respondents

preferred cross-objections praying for further enhancement of

compensation.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the paper-book as well as cross-objections.

TEJWINDER SINGH

2026.02.09 09:33

I agree to specified portions

of this document

3 FAO-2037-2001 (O&M)

5. A perusal of the record shows that the acquired land falls

within the revenue estate of village Bharoli Kalan, Tehsil Pathankot and

the acquisition commenced vide notification dated 17.03.1970 for

defence purposes. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Dilawar

Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others” reported as 2011(3)

ICC, 803 pertaining to land parcel situated on the outskirt of Pathankot

and acquired for the same purpose ordered for grant of uniform market

value @ Rs.350/- per marla. The operative paragraph No.10 from the

aforementioned judgment is extracted hereunder:-

“10. In the present batch of cases except the case the

notification for acquisition was issued in February 1970 which is

proximate in point of time to those issued in the Shanker Singh and

Inder Singh's cases (supra). The notification in Union of India v.

Mohinder Sing