State of Punjab Vs Swarn Lata

¶1

RFA-1267-2000 (O&M) and other connected cases [1]

¶2

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

¶3

RFA-1267-2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.04.2026 State of Punjab …….Appellant Versus Swarn Lata ..….Respondent

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶5

Present: Mr.Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A .G., Punjab. None for the respondent/ landowner.

¶6

-.-

¶7

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶8

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award d a ted 09.11.1999 passed by t he learned Addl. District Judge, Bathind a (hereinafter to be referred a s the ‘ Reference Court’ ). 2. Briefly stating, in the p r esent case, notification un d er Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘ 1894 Act ’) was iss u ed on 12.12.1974 followed b y notification dated 02.01.1 9 78 issued under Section 6 thereof; wh e reby 341.79 acres of land w as acquired for public purpose, namely, “ for establishment of 3^rd Phase, Urban E state, Bathinda”. Vide aw a rd No. 379 dated 22.03.1978, Land Ac q uisition Collector, (for short “ the LAC ”) besides granting the statutor y benefits under the 1894 Ac t , assessed the market valu e in

¶9

the follo w ing manner:-

¶10

Sr. N o.	Type of Land	Value (Rs. per acre)
1.	Chahi/ Nehri	Rs.12,250/- per acre

¶11

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.04.21 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶12

RFA-1267-2000 (O&M) and other connected cases [2]

¶13

2.	Barani/ Banjar/ Gair Mumkin	Rs.11,000/- per acre
3.	Gair Mumkin rasta	Rs.6,000/- per acre
4.	Gair Mumkin Chhapar	Rs.5,000/- per acre

¶14

Being dissatisfied, the respondent/ landowner preferred objection/petition under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, whereupon the learned Reference Court re-determined the market value of the land of the appellant measuring 500 sq. yards @ Rs. 20 per sq. yard along with all other statutory benefits as provided under the 1894 Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal was preferred at the instance of appellant-State.

¶15

No one has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondent/ landowner.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the paper-book.

¶17

From perusal of the record, it can be traced out that this Court vide its decision dated 22.07.1983 passed in LPA No. 698/1982 , titled as “ State of Punjab Vs. Madan Lal and others ,” finally determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.17/per sq. yard. In such circumstances, insofar as the market value is concerned, the present appeal is partly allowed and the market value of the acquired land is assessed in terms of the decision dated 22.07.1983 passed in Madan Lal’s case (supra) i.e. @ Rs.17/- per sq. yard along with all statutory benefits as provided under the 1894

¶18

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.04.21 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

RFA-1267-2000 (O&M) and other connected cases [3]

¶20

Act.

¶21

Although learned State counsel sought to contend that the reference petition filed at the instance of the respondent/landowner was barred by limitation, however, as rightly recorded by the learned Reference Court that except for a mere objection raised by the appellant-State in its written statement before the learned Reference Court, no material was produced on record to establish as to whether the respondent/ landowner or any of her representative was either present at the time of passing of the Award by the LAC or any notice of the Award along with a copy thereof was ever served upon her. In these circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Reference Court to the extent that the reference petition filed by the respondent/landowner was within limitation.

¶22

With the aforesaid modification of re-assessment of market value @ Rs.17/- per sq. yard along with all statutory benefits and interest as provided under the 1894 Act, the present appeal is disposed of.

¶23

Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.

¶24

16.04.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sanjay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether Reportable? Yes/No

¶25

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.04.21 18:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

State of Punjab v. Swarn Lata

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Punjab v. Swarn Lata

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhushan Lal Vs State of Haryana

Union of India Vs Ram Chand & Ors.

Bhagwani (Since Deceased) through Her Lrs and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Mani Ram etc. Vs State of Haryana

Defence Estates Officer Vs Kainthu (Since Deceased) through Lrs and Ors.

Ram Diya and Another Vs State of Haryana through Collector Jind