IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *****

RFA-2954-2013 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 03.02.2026 Hari Singh and ors. …….Appellants Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate -cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Kharar ..….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Sandeep Dhiman, Advocate for the appellants/landowners.

Mr.Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab.

-.-

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

Vide this common order, a bunch of 13 Regular First Appeals, 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.2954-2013.

2. By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the Award dated 05.01.2013, passed by the learned Reference Court-cum-Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as ‘Reference Court’).

3. Briefly stating, some land, situated within the revenue estate of Village Soonk, was acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notifications dated 08.10.2002 and 29.10.2002, 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 reservoir area of Jainty Dam in Village Soonk”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 15.07.2005 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.2,70,000/- per acre for Chahi, Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for Bagh Barani, Rs.50,000/- per acre for banjar Kadim-Banjar Jadid, Rs.1,50,000/- for Gair Mumkin Baras and Rs.1,50,000/- for Gair Mumkin Pahar, along with all other statutory benefits under the Act.

4. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ landowners filed reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 05.01.2013 thereby determining the market value of the acquired land at a uniform rate of Rs.5,74,642/- per acre besides all other statutory benefits under the Act.

5. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeal was preferred at the instance of appellants/

landowners as well as respondent State.

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

7. Before proceeding further, the following details are necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal(s) in hand:-

Details of previous acquisition of Details of later acquisition of Revenue Estate of Village Soonk Revenue Estate of Village Soonk (hereinafter referred to as ‘first (hereinafter referred as ‘second

8. The present appeal relates to determination of market value of land which was later notified and commenced vide notification dated 08.10.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by Award No.2 dated 15.07.2005 for the land situated in the same revenue restate of Village Soonk for public purpose, namely, for ‘construction of reservoir area of Jainty Dam in Village Soonk’. The learned Reference Court in the case in hand relied upon the Reference Court Award dated 29.08.2012 passed in Land Reference No. 166 dated 11.11.2009 pertaining to the previous acquisition and granted appreciation @ 4½% for the time gap between the two notifications i.e. 17.05.2002 to 08.10.2002. As a matter of fact, the determination with respect to the market value pertaining to the previous acquisition which commenced vide notification dated 17.05.2002, now stands re-assessed by this Court @ Rs.10,34,469/- per acre, vide order of even date passed in RFA-495-2013, titled as Dayal Singh and ors. Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate -cum-LAC, Kharar, and as such the market value in favour of the appellants/ landowners with respect to the present acquisition proceedings also needs to be re-assessed accordingly.

9. Though the learned Reference Court while awarding appreciation of 4½ months between the two notifications applied the principle of 12% annual appreciatio