Raina Singh Alias Raja Singh Thr Lr vs Union Of India And Ors.

-1-

RFA-754-2024 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
*
242+104+217+103+219+105+230+106+231+107+208+218+220+221

Date of Decision: 09.09.2026

1. RFA-754-2024 (O&M)
RAINA SINGH ALIAS RAJA SINGH (DECEASED)
THROUGH HIS LR
…Appellant
Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
…Respondents
And

Sr. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s)
No.
2. RFA-423-2024 (O&M) KULVIR SINGH UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
3. RFA-424-2024 (O&M) MALKIAT SINGH UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
(DECEASED) THROUGH LR
4. RFA-427-2024 (O&M) HARJINDER SINGH UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
5. RFA-428-2024 (O&M) SARABJIT SINGH UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
6. RFA-429-2024 (O&M) CHARAN SINGH
(DECEASED) THROUGH HIS
LRS
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
7. RFA-546-2024 (O&M) HARBHAJAN SINGH DEOL UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
8. RFA-547-2024 (O&M) PARAMJIT SINGH DEOL UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
9. RFA-786-2024 (O&M) JAGIR SINGH (DECEASED) UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
THROUGH LR
10. RFA-818-2024 (O&M) RATTAN SINGH UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
(DECEASED) THROUGH LR
11. RFA-820-2024 (O&M) MOHINDER SINGH UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
(DECEASED) THROUGH LR
12. RFA-973-2024 (O&M) JOGINDER SINGH & OTHERS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
13. RFA-983-2024 (O&M) PARGAT SINGH (DECEASED) UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
THROUGH HIS LR
14. RFA-789-2024 (O&M) MOHAN SINGH (DECEASED) UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
THROUGH LR
15. RFA-97-2025 (O&M) AMRIK SINGH (DECEASED) UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
THROUGH LR
16. RFA-579-2025 (O&M) SHIV SINGH (DECEASED) UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
THROUGH LRS
17. RFA-74-2020 (O&M) UDHAM SINGH (DECEASED) UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
THROUGH HIS LR
18. RFA-149-2020 (O&M) SURINDER SINGH @ UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
SALINDER SINGH
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.11 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-2-

RFA-754-2024 (O&M)
19. RFA-1173-2024 SADHU SINGH (DECEASED)
(O&M) THROUGH GURUDWARA
DASHMESH GANJ
PRAVANDHAK COMMITTEE
THROUGH IT’S A.R.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
20. RFA-690-2024 (O&M) NAGINDER SINGH UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
(DECEASED) THROUGH LR
21. RFA-1149-2024 MOTA SINGH & ANOTHER UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
(O&M)
22. RFA-1152-2024 PRITAM SINGH (DECEASED) UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
(O&M) THROUGH HIS LR
23. RFA-1174-2024 KARTAR SINGH
(O&M) (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS
LR
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Varun Parkash, Advocate for appellant(s)
(In RFA-429-2024, RFA-546-2024, RFA-424-2024,
RFA-428-2024, RFA-547-2024, RFA-427-2024,
RFA-423-2024, RFA-74-2020, RFA-149-2020,
RFA-1173-2024, RFA-1149-2024 & RFA-1152-2024 )
Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for appellant(s)
(In RFA-429-2024, RFA-546-2024, RFA-424-2024,
RFA-428-2024, RFA-547-2024, RFA-427-2024,
RFA-423-2024, RFA-754-2024, RFA-786-2024,
RFA-818-2024, RFA-820-2024, RFA-973-2024,
RFA-983-2024, RFA-789-2024, RFA-97-2025,
RFA-579-2025, RFA-690-2024, RFA-1149-2024,
RFA-1152-2024 & RFA-1174-2024)
Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel
For respondent-U.O.I. (In RFA Nos.1173, 546, 424, 428,
547, 427, 423, 786, 820, 973, 983, 818 & 789 of 2024
and RFA Nos.97 & 579 of 2025 )
Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate (Through V.C.)
For respondent-U.O.I. (In RFA-690-2024, RFA-754-2024,
RFA-786-2024, RFA-1152-2024 & RFA-1190-2024 )
Mr. Shivoy Dhir, Senior Panel Counsel
For respondent-U.O.I. (In RFA-74-2020, RFA-149-2022
& RFA-1174-2024)
Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar, Senior Panel Counsel
(Through V.C.) for respondent-U.O.I.
(In RFA-1149-2024 & RFA-1152-2024 )
Mr. Akhil Kamra, AAG, Punjab
*
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.11 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-3-

RFA-754-2024 (O&M)

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. These appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) are directed against award passed by the
Reference Court. The landowners are claiming that assessed market value
needs to be enhanced. Tabulated details of the assessment made till date read
as: -
Date of notification under Section 4 19.03.1990
Date of notification under Section 6 07.09.1990
For defence purposes
Purpose of acquisition
Location Villages - Haripur
Tehsil & District - Jalandhar
Area 4044 Kanal 18 Marla
Date of order of Collector (LAC) 18.02.1993
Market value as per LAC (per acre) ₹70,000/-
Date of Reference Court (RC) order 03.12.2001
Market value as per RC (per acre) ₹85,000/-

2. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, with
the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common
order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from
RFA-754-2024 .
3. The appellant through instant appeal is seeking modification of
award dated 03.12.2001 whereby learned Additional District Judge,
Jalandhar (hereinafter called as ‘Reference Court’) has not awarded claimed
amount of compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that impugned award
is based upon previous award wherein market value was determined @
₹ 85,000/- per acre. The previous award was outcome of the notification
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.11 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-4-

RFA-754-2024 (O&M)
dated 14.03.1989 issued under Section 4 of 1894 Act. In the present case,
notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act was issued on 19.03.1990, thus,
there was gap of one year between the present acquisition and previous
acquisition. As per recent judgments, escalation @ 12% per annum is
permissible. The appellants deserve escalation @ 12%. The Reference Court
has further ignored exemplar sale deeds i.e. Exhibits P-1 dated 05.07.1990,
PW-5/1 dated 02.09.1992 & PW-5/2 dated 07.09.1992. The aforesaid sale
deeds are disclosing value more than ₹ 1,00,000/- per acre. The delay had
occurred on account of death of Mr. H.S. Kamboj, Advocate who was
engaged by appellants to file appeals within time.
Per contra
5. , learned counsel for respondents submit that
impugned award was passed on 03.12.2001 and appellants remained silent
for 16 years despite filing of appeals by the Union of India against the
impugned awards. This shows that appellants were fully satisfied with the
impugned award. They led evidence in the form of 3 sale deeds which were
post notification under Section 4 and as per Sections 23 & 24 could not be
relied upon. The Reference Court relied upon previous award and assessed
market value @ ₹ 85,000/- per acre. This Court vide order dated 05.12.2016
has dismissed appeals filed by Union of India. The Court has upheld assessed
market value. As per principle of merger, the market value of the acquired
land @ ₹ 85,000/- per acre stands finalised.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
7. Present appeals deserve to be dismissed on account of more
than one reasons. Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again has condoned
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.11 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-5-

RFA-754-2024 (O&M)
delay even of more than 20 years where similarly situated landowners were
granted higher amount of compensation by Appellate Court or Reference
Court. In the present case, the Appellate Court has approved market value as
assessed by the Reference Court, thus, there is no question of violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India which is foundation of condonation of
long delay in almost all the cases.
8. The Courts while condoning delay have held that appellants
would not be entitled to interest for the delayed period. In ‘ New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority Vs. Rameshwar @ Ramesh Chandra
Sharma (Dead) Through Legal Heir & Anr. ’, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1599 ,
the Supreme Court has even held that appellants would not be entitled to
interest for the delayed period and statutory benefits. In the present case,
there is a delay of 20 years and if date of filing of application in the already
dismissed appeals filed by Union of India is considered as date of appeal still
there would be delay of more than 15 years. In such circumstances, the
appellants would not be entitled to interest for the delayed period and
statutory benefits.
9. The appellants cannot rely upon exemplar sale deeds because
all the relied upon sale deeds were executed post notification under Section
4 of 1894 Act. The appellants are primarily relying upon award which was
passed with respect to notification dated 14.03.1989. The notification under
Section 4 of 1894 Act in the present case was issued on 19.03.1990. As per
different judgments including judgment of Supreme Court in ‘Ram Kishan
(Since Deceased) Vs. State of Haryana’, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 715 ,
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.11 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-6-

RFA-754-2024 (O&M)
escalation @ 12% per annum is warranted. The ground reality of the present
case cannot be ignored and escalation @ 12% per annum cannot be
mechanically applied. The State of Punjab was facing militancy during 1989-
90. There was no escalation in the value of agricultural land during the said
period. No buyer during the said period was available which was reason of
failure on the part of the appellants to furnish exemplar sale deeds. In the
obtained circumstances, escalation @ 12% per annum was not warranted.
10. For the reasons assigned above, this Court is of the considered
opinion that present appeals deserve to be dismissed on the ground of delay
as well as on merits. Accordingly, all the appeals are hereby dismissed .
11. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
09.09.2026
SDK
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.11 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document