IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 16, 2026 WARYAM SINGH AND ORS. ......Appellants Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate and Ms. Kulwinder Kaur, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 24.12.1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala (for short ’Reference Court’) whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the appellants-landowners, seeking enhancement of compensation was partly allowed.

2. Briefly stating, certain land, situated within the revenue estate of Village Naraingarh, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala was acquired for the public purpose, namely, for construction of Bassi Distributory vide notifications dated 30.03.1988 and 02.05.1988 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award No.338/P_SYL dated 13.01.1989 assessing the market value at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs.50,080/- per acre (Barani) for Rousli land and Rs.35,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land along with other statutory benefits.

3. The appellants-landowners, feeling dissatisfied with the award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act pleading that the price of acquired land was not less than Rs.2,00,000/- per acre as the same being situated near the road of village Naraingarh, had significant potential value. Moreover, it was pleaded that as a result of acquisition, the land belonging to the appellants-landowners was bifurcated, causing great loss to them, thus they were entitled to damages against severance as well.

4. Upon notice, the same was contested by the respondents- State wherein it was pleaded that the value of the acquired land was not more than Rs.60,000/- per acre and thus, the compensation awarded by the LAC to the appellants-landowners was adequate.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Reference Court:-

“1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPA

2. To what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled? OPA

3. To what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled on account of severance of land? OPA

4. Relief.”

6. After considering the evidence, the learned Reference Court, vide award dated 24.12.1994 enhanced the market value to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs.80,000/- per acre for Rousli land and Rs.55,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land.

7. Aggrieved of the aforesaid award dated 24.12.1994 passed by the learned Reference Court, the appellants-landowners filed the present appeal.

8. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellants-landowners submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having discarded the previous award dated 15.02.1994 (Ex.A-3) relating to the same revenue estate of village Naraingarh, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala merely for the reason that the purpose of acquisition therein was different than the present one. Learned counsel submits that the market value was required to be re-assessed while placing reliance upon the award dated 15.02.1994 (Ex.A-3) in the present case.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-Sate submits that the award passed by the learned Reference Court was based on proper appreciation of material available on record and thus, the same calls for no interference. Learned State counsel also places reliance upon decision dated 26.08.2010 passed by this Court in RFA-2627-1993 titled as “Dyal Singh and Ors. VS. State of Punjab and Anr.” to submit that the previous award dated 04.08.1992 passed by the learned Reference Court on the basis of wh