Pathankot Improvement Trust vs Rakesh Sharma And Ors.

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court



248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-3129-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 04.11.2026

Pathankot Improvement Trust ...Petitioner(s)

Versus

Rakesh Sharma and others ...Respondent(s)
And

Sr.
No.
Case No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
2. CWP-6651-2023 (O&M) Sarbjit Kaur and others State of Punjab and Others
3. CWP-6662-2023 (O&M) Pardeep Singh and others State of Punjab and Others
4. CWP-6810-2023 (O&M) Pardeep Singh State of Punjab and Others
5. CWP-3143-2024 (O&M) Pathankot Improvement Pardeep Singh and others
Trust
6. CWP-3153-2024 (O&M) Pathankot Improvement Pritam Singh and others
Trust
7. CWP-3188-2024 (O&M) Pathankot Improvement Randhir Singh and others
Trust
8. CWP-6622-2023 (O&M) Pardeep Singh and Others State of Punjab and Others
9. CWP-6650-2023 (O&M) Pardeep Singh and others State of Punjab and Others
10. CWP-6866-2023 (O&M) Pardeep Singh and others State of Punjab and Others

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the petitioners in
CWP Nos.3129, 3153, 3143 and 3188 of 2024;
for the respondent-Trust in CWP Nos.6622, 6650, 6651,
6810, 6866 and 6662 of 2023.

Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate,
Mr. Amritpal Singh, Advocate,
Mr. Khusha Dutta, Advocate and
Mr. Jatin Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners in
CWP Nos.6622, 6650, 6651, 6662, 6810 and 6866 of 2023;
for the respondents in
CWP Nos.3143, 3153 and 3188 of 2024.

Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate and
Mr. Bhavesh Aggarwal, Advocate
for the respondents in CWP No.3129 of 2024.

Mr. Puru Jarewal, DAG, Punjab.
PRINCE CHAWLA
2026.11.05 12:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



-2-
CWP-3129-2024 (O&M) and other connected matters

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)


1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions,
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 CWP-3129-2024 .

2. The petitioner-Pathankot Improvement Trust (for short
‘Trust’) through instant petition is seeking modification of award dated
13.03.2023 whereby learned District Judge-cum-President, Improvement
Trust Tribunal, Pathankot (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) has
awarded enhanced amount of compensation.

3. Written statement on behalf of respondent No.2
in CWP No.6810 of 2023 has been filed in the Court today, which is
taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate
place on the case file.

4. The present matters relate to acquisition under Punjab Town
Improvement Act, 1922 (for short ‘1922 Act’). Section 36 of 1922 Act is
corresponding to Section 4 and Section 41 is corresponding to Section 6
of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’). The Local
Government issued notification on three occasions i.e. dated 30.07.2010,
06.08.2010 and 13.08.2010 respectively for the acquisition of 13.56 acres
land situated in Village Pathankot under development scheme. The said
notification was followed by notification dated 28.01.2011 issued under
Section 41(1) of the 1922 Act.

5. The Land Acquisition Collector, Improvement Trust-cum-
SDM, Pathankot (for short ‘Collector’) vide Award dated 26.07.2011, in
PRINCE CHAWLA
2026.11.05 12:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



-3-
CWP-3129-2024 (O&M) and other connected matters

terms of provisions of 1894 Act, determined compensation payable to the
landowners. Market value of the acquired land was
determined @ ₹ 45,00,000/- per acre. Landowners were held entitled to
solatium and other statutory benefits. Feeling dis-satisfied from the
aforesaid award, landowners preferred petitions before the Collector
which were referred to the Court under Section 18 of the 1894 Act.

6. The landowners as well as the Trust, in support of their
contentions, led their evidence. The Trust attempted to justify market
value determined by Collector, however, landowners vehemently pleaded
that value of their land has been assessed on the lower side.

7. The Tribunal while appreciating evidence led by both sides,
by impugned award adjudicated reference petitions. The Tribunal by
impugned award dated 13.03.2023 has enhanced the market value of
acquired land @ ₹1,16,200/- per marla.

8. Learned counsel for the landowners submit that the Tribunal
has imposed highest possible cut i.e. 83%. Cut has been imposed firstly
on account of construction and secondly on account of development. The
Trust did not submit any contrary evidence and evidence led at this stage
cannot be considered. In any case, sale deed placed on record by them is
disclosing market value @ ₹ 50,000/- per marla. The relied upon sale deed
was executed on 07.03.2008 i.e. more than two years prior to the
Section 36 notification.

9. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent-Trust submits
that land in question has been wrongly assessed on the basis of sale deeds
of shops which are situated in the main market. Land in question is
PRINCE CHAWLA
2026.11.05 12:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



-4-
CWP-3129-2024 (O&M) and other connected matters

located at the back of Civil Hospital and distance between Civil Hospital
and the acquired land by road is more than 3 Kms. The Trust could not
bring on record sale deed before the Tribunal and this Court may consider
because it is a case of public money. Sale deed produced by the Trust
comprises land very close to the acquired land. Area comprised in the sale
deed dated 07.03.2008 is 1 Kanal. There is no reason to disbelieve
aforesaid sale deed and rely upon sale deeds of the shops.

10. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

11. Concededly, the Trust did not take pain to bring on record
sale deed before Tribunal as are enclosed with written statement. The
Trust is relying upon two sale deeds dated 07.03.2008 and 19.06.2008. As
per sale deed dated 07.03.2008, Collector rate was ₹ 50,000/- per marla.

12. The Tribunal has considered sale deeds which related to
shops situated in the market. The Tribunal was bound to consider sale
deeds of the shops because Trust did not lead any evidence. The Tribunal
has imposed 50% cut towards cost of construction. The aforesaid cut was
maximum possible cut because it is a case of construction of shops and
not of a luxurious house. The Tribunal has further imposed cut of 65%
towards development. The Supreme Court has approved 20 to 70% cut
towards development. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly imposed cut of 65%.
In the backdrop, the Tribunal has rightly assessed market price.

13. Now the question arises with respect to sale deed produced
by the Trust. The Trust has not adduced any plausible reason for not
furnishing aforesaid sale deeds before the Tribunal. Nonetheless, the sale
deeds are not vindicating stand of the Trust. Sale deed dated 07.03.2008 is
PRINCE CHAWLA
2026.11.05 12:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



-5-
CWP-3129-2024 (O&M) and other connected matters

disclosing market price @ ₹ 50,000/- per marla. This deed was executed
two years four months prior to Section 4 notification. It is a case of urban
land. As per Hon’ble Supreme Court, escalation @ 15 % per annum, in
case of urban land, is an approved norm. There is no hard and fast as well
as algebraic formula to determine market price. It is all based upon guess
work. If sale deed dated 07.03.2008 produced by Trust, for the sake of
adjudication is considered, market price @ ₹ 1,16,200/- per marla would
not be unjustified.

14. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly assessed market value
of the acquired land. There seems no reason to interfere with the
impugned award.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent-Trust, at this stage, has
pointed out that despite making payment of ₹ 12 crore, the Trust is unable
to take possession of the land because landowners have filed civil suit
disputing location of the land. Notification under Section 4 was issued
with respect to Khasra No.222. The Trust has right to take possession of
Khasra No.222. The Civil Court is seized of the dispute with respect to
location of Khasra No.222 vis-à-vis 136. As Trust has already paid a
substantial amount, it has right to take possession of the land. The
landowners are pleading that their evidence are already closed, thus, it is
Trust which has to lead its evidence and address the arguments. In these
circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to request to Civil Court at
Pathankot to adjudicate dispute of location of the acquired land within
three months from today. No adjournment be granted to the parties.
PRINCE CHAWLA
2026.11.05 12:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document



-6-
CWP-3129-2024 (O&M) and other connected matters


16. Disposed of in above terms.

17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
CWP-6622-2023 (O&M),
CWP-6650-2023 (O&M) and
CWP-6866-2023 (O&M)


18. This Court does not find any substance in the claim of
petitioners with respect to value of trees, structures. The Collector as well
as Tribunal has rightly assessed and granted compensation qua trees and
structure.

19. Dismissed .

20. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.


(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
04.11.2026
Prince Chawla

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No

PRINCE CHAWLA
2026.11.05 12:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document