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

Date of Decision: 07.04.2026

1. RFA-3952-2017 (O&M)

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar …….Appellant Versus Pritpal Singh and others ..….Respondents

2. RFA-3798-2017 (O&M)

Pritpal Singh and anr.

…….Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others ..….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aadit Garg, Advocate for the appellant MC, Jalandhar.

Mr. Kulbir Singh Minhas, Advocate and Mr. Hargun S. Sethi, Advocate for the respondents/ landowners.

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

-.-

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

Vide this common order, the abovementioned two Regular First Appeals, are being decided as both the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving identical facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA-3952-2017.

2. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to an award dated 02.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’) whereby the reference petition preferred at the instance of respondents/ landowners in terms of Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (for short ‘the 2013 Act’) read with Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’), was partly accepted.

3. Briefly stating, the respondents owned 32 kanals 7 marlas of land situated in the revenue estate of village Dhilwan, forming part of Municipal Limits, Jalandhar. The aforesaid land was acquired in terms of notification dated 09.11.1992 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the 1894 Act followed by notification under Section 6 thereof; issued on 28.12.1992 for the public purpose, namely, “for providing disposal work of the sullage water at Jalandhar City”. The respondents/landowners being aggrieved of the commencement of acquisition proceedings approached this Court having preferred CWP No.1840/1993, titled as Talwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and ors., wherein this Court vide order dated 11.02.1993 granted stay of dispossession in their favour. Later, an application was filed on behalf of the appellant seeking modification of the interim order dated 11.02.1993, on the ground that possession of the subject land had already been taken over on 05.02.1993 which was supported by virtue of a rapat entry dated 05.02.1993 made by the revenue officials. Thereupon, the Writ Court vide order dated 18.02.1993 modified the interim order dated 11.02.1993 and directed that status quo with regard to possession of the land in question be maintained by the parties. The aforesaid Writ Petition was later disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2015. The said order being relevant to the controversy in hand is extracted hereunder:-

“The challenge in the present two writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.1840 and 4024 of 1993 is to the acquisition of land measuring 32 kanals 7 marlas for a public purpose of providing disposal work of sullage water at Jalandhar City.

The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 04.11.1992 and notification under Sections 6 of the Act was issued 28.12.1992. The writ petition against the said notifications came up for hearing before this Court which was admitted for final hearing wherein there was an order of stay of dispossession.

In the meantime, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ’2013 Act’) came into force on 01.01.2014. As per Section 24(1) of 2013 Act, where the award has not been announced prior to commencement of 2013 Act, the compensation has to be awarded under the 2013 Act. Admittedly, the award has not been announced in pursuance of the notifications so published under Section 4 and 6 of the Act. Consequently, in terms of Section 24(1) of 2013 Act, the pe