Kartar Kaur Vs Punjab State

¶1

RFA-2760-2003 (O&M) & other connected cases [1]

¶2

**119 (6 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *******

¶3

RFA-2760-2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.01.2026 Kartar Kaur …….Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The Punjab State and another ..….Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶7

Present: Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advoc a te with Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Adv o cate for the appellants. Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Raman Sharma, Adv o cate for respondent No.2.

¶8

-.-

¶9

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

Vide this common orde r , a bunch of 6 Regular F irst Appeals, details of which are given i n the footnote of this judgm e nt, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of com m on acquisiti o n/Award involving common facts and question of law. F or the sake of brevity, facts are being ta k en from RFA No.2760 -2003 .

¶11

By way of filing the prese n t appeal(s) challenge has b e en laid to the decision dated 31.01. 2 003 passed by the lear n ed Addition a l District Judge, Bathinda- c um-Reference Court (for s h ort ‘the Ref e rence Court’).

¶12

Briefly stating, 183 kanals 5 marlas of land, situated wi t hin the rev e nue estate of Village Ph u s Mandi, Tehsil and Dis t rict Bathind a was acquired by the Government of Punjab v ide

¶13

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

RFA-2760-2003 (O&M) & other connected cases [2]

¶15

notificati o ns dated 31.12.1991 a n d 23.07.1992, issued un d er Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisi t ion Act, 1894, for short ‘the A ct’ respecti v ely, for public purpose i.e. “ f o r Bharat Petroleum Corpora t ion for its e x pansion for putting up pipe li n e for Kandla to Bathinda”. T he Land Acquisition Collector (for s hort ‘the LAC’) vide aw a rd 21.07.1 9 94 assessed market value i n respect of the acquired land @ Rs.2,00, 0 00/- per acre, besides all o t her statutory benefits under the Act.

¶16

Dissatisfied with the af o resaid award, the appella n ts/ landown e rs filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the A ct, which c a me to be dismissed by th e learned Reference Court v ide decision dated 31.01.2003.

¶17

Aggrieved of the Award p a ssed by the learned Refere n ce Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellan t (s)/ landowner(s). 6. I have heard learned co u nsel for the parties and g o ne through t he paper-book. 7. It has not been disputed t hat a large chunk of land in the same re v enue estate of Village Ph u s Mandi, District Bathinda w as acquired just 9 months prior to th e present acquisition for pu b lic purpose, namely, “ for extension of Oi l Depot of Indian Oil Corpora t ion Limited a t Village Phus Mandi”. Not i fication under Section 4 of the Act; wa s issued for the said acquisition on 18.03.1991 whereas the

¶18

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

RFA-2760-2003 (O&M) & other connected cases [3]

¶20

present acquisition commenced vid e notification dated 31.12.1991, issued u n der Section 4 of the Act.

¶21

As per the site plan Ex. R W1/A, it can be discerned that the land parcel forming part of th e previous acquisition and that forming part of the present one ar e located just opposite to e a ch other b e en divided by road leadi n g to Bathinda-Talwandi S a bo highway from Village Phus Mandi. In such circumstances, lear n ed Referen c e Court went wrong havi n g discarded the award dated 12.04.2 0 02 (Ex.XX) pertaining to the determination made in term s of previous acquisition which comm e nced vide notification dated 18.03.1 9 91 whereby the market value was assessed @ Rs.2.30 lakhs p e r acre which stands affirm e d by this Court vide deci s ion dated 1 6 .11.2015 passed in RFA No.2430-2002, tilted as Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Sukhdev Singh and another , especi a lly when g e ographically the two parcel s of land were located in cl o se proximit y and thus carried similar pot e ntial value. 9. Mere fact that the land parcel acquired vide present notificati o n abuts already existing Oil Depot, cannot be treated a s a disadva n tage attached to it. Further t h ere being a time gap of aro u nd 9 mont h s between the two noti f ications i.e. 18.03.1991 a nd 31.12.1 9 91, pertaining to the same revenue estate of Village P h us Mandi, a n appreciation @ 9% needs to be awarded in favour of t he appellan t (s)/ landowner(s) while taki n g into account the fact that the

¶22

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

RFA-2760-2003 (O&M) & other connected cases [4]

¶24

major p o rtion of the acquired land parcel is located on the main r o ad leading from Bathinda-Talwandi Sabo to Village Phus Mandi. 10. Accordingly, in the wake o f discussion made hereinab o ve, while placing reliance upon th e previous notification dated 18.03.1 9 91, whereby market value w a s granted @ Rs.2.30 lakhs per acre, th e market value with resp e ct to the land under present acquisiti o n as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the A ct comes t o Rs.2,30,000/- + 9% (appre c iation for the time gap of about 9 month s ) = Rs.2,50,700/- per acre along with all statutory ben e fits and interest as provided under the Act, especially the interest on solatium .

¶25

Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/h a ve unfortun a tely expired in the appeal( s )/ cross-objection(s) after filing thereof a nd the legal heirs have not b een impleaded, they shall b e at liberty t o seek execution of the present decision by mo v ing appropri a te application(s) before the l e arned Executing Court. 12. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the appellant ( s)/ landown e rs area allowed in the afore s aid terms. 13. Pending misc. applicati o n(s), if any, shall also st a nd dispose d of. 30.01.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sanjay JUDGE

¶26

Whether speaking/reason e d? Yes/No Whether Reportable? Yes/No

¶27

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

RFA-2760-2003 (O&M) & other connected cases [5]

¶29

S r. No.	Case No.
1 .	RFA-3162-2003 ( O&M)
2 .	RFA-3163-2003 ( O&M)
3 .	RFA-3164-2003 ( O&M)
4 .	RFA-3165-2003 ( O&M)
5 .	RFA-3446-2003 ( O&M)

¶30

30.01.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sanjay JUDGE

¶31

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.30 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kartar Kaur v. Punjab State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartar Kaur v. Punjab State

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

Nisha and Ors. Vs Nitin Bansal and Anr.

State of Punjab Vs Shamsher Singh and Others

State of Punjab Vs Tarlochan Singh & Ors.

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Haryana State Vs Mohar Singh

Haryana State Vs Siri Chand