Lt Gen Savneet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others

CWP-9770-2024 (O&M) -1-
247
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-9770-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 17.09.2026
LT. GEN. SAVNEET SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVINDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
Present:- Mr. Savneet Singh, petitioner in person.
Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Advocate General, Punjab with
Mr. Raghav Goel, AAG, Punjab.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.
1. The present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing respondent No.4 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, to
take action upon the letter dated 24.01.2024 issued by the Commissioner,
Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur,
was directed to investigate and inform the office as well as the petitioner about
the action taken, with a further prayer to direct the BDPO and PWD (B&R) to
not encroach upon the land of the petitioner without due notice and proper
procedures to either lay down water pipelines or for widening of the road and
also to direct respondents No.3 to 6 to compensate the petitioner either as per
the market rate of acquisition or to the tune of Rs.9 lakhs per marla and
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.23 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-9770-2024 (O&M) -2-
solatium with interest for the total encroachment and damage of the land to the
petitioner in accordance with the letter dated 22.07.2020 (Annexure P-4/T).
BACKGROUND OF THE PETITIONER
2. The petitioner, appearing in person, is a retired Lieutenant General
of the Indian Army and a distinguished soldier of the nation. He has been
awarded the PVSM, Yudh Seva Medal, Sena Medal and Vishisht Seva Medal.
During his distinguished service, the petitioner served as the Mountain Strike
Corps Commander (17 Corps) during Operation Snow Leopard. He
commanded 2 Infantry Division in Ladakh and had been the Director General
of Military Training for the Indian Army. He also served as Deputy Director
General, Military Operations Directorate, besides having held multiple flag
meetings with the Chinese on resolving issues along the Line of Actual Control.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition in person being aggrieved by
the action of the State Government pertaining to the encroachment of his
ancestral land by the State through the construction of a road in the year 1972
by the PWD Department.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The petitioner, while serving the nation as the Director General of
Military Training, wrote a letter of request to the Deputy Commissioner,
Hoshiarpur on 28.01.2020 vide Annexure P-2 bringing to the notice of the
Deputy Commissioner that he is owner of the land comprised in Khasra
No.6959/1690 and 8375/7005 4B 71 Village Khasra, Tehsil Tanda, District
Hoshiarpur (opposite Railway Station and abutting NH-44) and that in January,
2020 itself, the PWD Department had commenced road construction work and
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.23 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-9770-2024 (O&M) -3-
encroached upon his private land, damaged the trees and standing crops. The
petitioner sought early directions for restoration of his private property by
removing the encroachment and construction material and also clearly
demarcating the road boundary. A copy of the aforesaid letter dated 28.01.2020
(Annexure P-2) was sent to the Chief Secretary, Punjab; Commissioner,
Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and SDM Dasuya, Hoshiarpur. In response to the
aforesaid letter, the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar wrote to the
Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur on 28.02.2020 vide Annexure P-3 seeking
comments after conducting an inquiry into the matter.
4. Thereafter, demarcation was conducted by the Revenue Officers
and a letter dated 22.07.2020 (Annexure P-4) was written by the Naib Tehsildar,
Tanda to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dasuha stating that all the concerned
parties including the PWD Department were called and a demarcation was
conducted on the spot. After the demarcation, a spot inspection report was
prepared by the Halka Kanungo and a site plan regarding the encroachment was
also prepared, according to which the PWD had made illegal encroachment
over about 09 marlas and 6-1/2 Sarsai land i.e. 0 K-4 M-4-1/2 Sarsai from
Khasra No.8375/7005/2; 03 marlas-2 marlas from Khasra No.7015/1150/1 and
02 marlas from Khasra No.7015/1150/2. In this way, when demarcation was
conducted by the Revenue Officers in the year 2020, it was found that the
aforesaid land was illegally encroached upon by the PWD Department.
5. On 11.11.2020 vide Annexure P-5, the Chief Engineer (North),
Punjab Public Works Department wrote a letter to the petitioner stating that the
metal road which had been in existence for about 30-49 years and was 10 feet
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.23 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-9770-2024 (O&M) -4-
broad was required to be widened by putting earth and gravel on existing berm
of the road but because of reluctance on the part of the representative of the
land owner, the work of widening of the road on the place was stopped. It was
also stated that the petitioner had expressed his satisfaction with regard to the
10 feet road only. It was also stated in the aforesaid letter that the Vigilance
Engineer, Construction Circle, Hoshiarpur had also reported that because of
non-availability of space/land for widening of the road, no further work on the
road had been done and in future also, department will not make any
encroachment over any private property.
6. In the year 2023, after his retirement, the petitioner again wrote a
letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur on 27.09.2023 vide Annexure
P-6 stating that a report has already been submitted by the Naib Tehsildar,
Tanda and it has come on the record that there is an illegal occupation and
encroachment upon his land but no further intimation has been received from
the office of the Deputy Commissioner. On the contrary, fresh construction and
water pipeline laying has commenced on 26.09.2023 on the private property
disregarding all legal provisions and photographs of the same were also
attached. The petitioner requested the Deputy Commissioner to stop the illegal
trespass forthwith and initiate actions for compensation and remedy in respect
of the damages caused.
7. The petitioner again on 05.01.2024 vide Annexure P-7, wrote a
letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur stating that no response has
been received by him. He also stated that vide letter dated 11.11.2020
(Annexure P-5), the Chief Engineer, PWD has accepted the encroachment upon
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.23 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-9770-2024 (O&M) -5-
his private land and also referred to the report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar,
Tanda, which has brought out that illegal occupation and encroachment exists.
The petitioner further stated in the aforesaid letter that his private land has been
occupied without following due process of law and without compensation and
suggested three options, which are as follows:-
Option 1:- The land is restored to him after removing the encroachments and
damages are paid for the period of usage.
Option 2:- Alternate equal value land is allotted to him in lieu of the
encroached land.
Option 3:- Encroached land to be acquired as per legal rules and
compensation on market rates and interest is awarded for the same as has been
done by NHAI/State for adjacent land acquisitions.
8. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, again
wrote a letter dated 24.01.2024 (Annexure P-8) to the Deputy Commissioner,
Hoshiarpur, for conveying the report regarding the action taken in the matter.
9. After the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner, this Court
by way of the order dated 25.02.2025 directed the jurisdictional Tehsildar to
ensure that under his supervision, a lawful fresh demarcation of the dispute
sites/lands be conducted. It was further directed that a demarcation report be
prepared pursuant to the demarcation of the disputed sites/lands and the said
report be placed on record on or before the subsequent date of hearing.
10. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, a fresh
demarcation was conducted by the Revenue Department and pursuant thereto,
the demarcation report by way of an affidavit dated 22.04.2025 of
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.23 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-9770-2024 (O&M) -6-
the Naib Tehsildar Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, was submitted by attaching the
demarcation report vide Annexure R-3/T with a conclusion that a total of 10.5
marlas of the land is in the illegal possession of the PWD Department and none
of the parties at the spot has raised any objection regarding the conduct of the
demarcation. The relevant portion of the aforesaid demarcation report of the
Halqa Kanungo, Khudda dated 19.03.2025, which has been attached along with
the aforesaid affidavit dated 22.04.2025, is reproduced as under:-
“And on the northern side of Khasra No.7015/1150/1
East 1 Karam, west 1 Karam, South 29 Karam, Pahar 29
Karam, measurement of the same is 0-3-2 which is given
green colour and on the same road and its Baram are
constructed by the PWD department and poles of Punjab
State Power corporation are also installed. The total land
measuring of these three khasranumber is 0-10-5 and PWD
department is in illegal possession of the same. No
disagreement was shown at the spot and nor any party
shown any stay order neither any party shown any objection
regarding conducting of present demarcation. Hence report
is presented for action.
SD/-
(Pavitar Singh)
Halqa Kanungo, Khudda
19.03.2025”
11. Thereafter, when the matter came up for hearing on 28.04.2026, it
was so directed that a specific affidavit be filed by the respondents stating
therein the timeline as to when the encroachment would be removed and by
what date vacant possession would be handed over to the petitioner. It was
further directed that the affidavit should also state as to how the respondents
would be compensating the petitioner for having illegally encroached upon his
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.23 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-9770-2024 (O&M) -7-
land and depriving him for using his land. In pursuance thereof, a short affidavit
dated 14.07.2026 was filed by the Chief Engineer (Central), PWD (B&R),
Patiala. In the said affidavit, the Chief Engineer stated that the road was
constructed by the Gram Panchayat in the year 1972 and was thereafter,
repaired during the years 1997, 2005 and 2012 but the predecessors of the
petitioner did not raise any objection at any stage. It was further stated that in
the year 2020, the road was upgraded by the PWD Department but it was for
the very first time that the petitioner raised an objection not to widen the road
and therefore, the same was not widened. It was also stated in the said affidavit
that the PWD (B&R) Department never acquired any land on this road but only
executed the construction of the road in the year 1972 on the land having a
width of 2 karam i.e. 9.5 feet provided by the Gram Panchayat, Khudda. The
Chief Engineer also stated in the said affidavit that in compliance of the order
passed by this Court, as per the fresh demarcation dated 19.03.2025, 10 marlas
5 sarsai land of the petitioner was found to be there on the edge of the
unwidened existing road and in continuation of the demarcation report, it was
clarified that 1.5 marlas land of the petitioner was found under the existing
metalled road.
12. The Chief Engineer further stated in the aforesaid affidavit in
paragraph No.7 that in spite of the fact that in the year 1972, the PWD
Department did not encroach upon the land of the petitioner but constructed the
road on the land provided by the Gram Panchayat, the PWD is ready to
facilitate the handing over of possession to the petitioner as and when suitable
to him.
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.23 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-9770-2024 (O&M) -8-
13. When the matter came up for further hearing before this Court on
14.09.2026, Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, learned Advocate General, Punjab also
caused appearance and sought a very short accommodation to discuss the matter
with the concerned officer, including the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, so
that the issue can be resolved at the Government level. The order dated
14.09.2026 is reproduced as under:-
“Mr. Raghav Goel, AAG, Punjab has handed over a
copy of the proceedings conducted before the Deputy
Commissioner, Hoshiarpur.
Mr. Maninderjeet Singh Bedi, learned Advocate
General, Punjab has also caused appearance and has
prayed for a very short accommodation to discuss with the
concerned Officer, including the Deputy Commissioner,
Hoshiarpur, so that the issue can be resolved at the
Government level.
Adjourned to 17.09.2026.
To be taken up at 10:00 A.M.
We make it clear that it is a case where the petitioner
is a retired Lieutenant General of the Indian Army and has
been appearing in person on every occasion.
It is further made clear that no further opportunity
shall be granted to the State of Punjab in case any
adjournment is sought on the next date of hearing.”
14. During the course of hearing on the aforesaid date i.e. 14.09.2026,
the learned Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by the learned Assistant
Advocate General, Punjab also supplied a copy of the report dated 09.09.2026
written by the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur to this Court, wherein all the
aforesaid three options have been discussed by the Deputy Commissioner,
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.23 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-9770-2024 (O&M) -9-
Hoshiarpur. The aforesaid report is hereby directed to be placed on record as
Mark-‘X’. A perusal of the aforesaid report would show that all the three
options, which were suggested by the petitioner, were discussed. With regard to
the first option i.e. restoration of possession, the Deputy Commissioner,
Hoshiarpur stated in the aforesaid report that as per the records/information
available with the PWD Department, the road in question was constructed in the
year 1972 and has remained under the control, maintenance and use of the
PWD Department since then. It was further reported that with regard to
payment of damages, if any, for the historical period of use of the land, the
Revenue Department does not have any prescribed methodology/mechanism for
examining and quantifying such damages and since the road has remained
under the control, maintenance and use of the PWD Department since 1972, the
issue of damages, if any, may appropriately be examined by the competent
authority of the PWD Department in accordance with the applicable rules/law
and the records available with the Department.
15. The Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur further reported that a
report was obtained from the BDPO, Tanda/Gram Panchayat, Khudda regarding
the issue of consent/permission for construction of the road and the Gram
Panchayat vide Resolution No.2 has stated that no record is available with it
showing that the petitioner or his predecessors had granted any permission to
the PWD Department for construction of the road.
16. With regard to the second option i.e. allotment of alternate land, the
Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur reported that the possibility of providing
alternate land to the petitioner in lieu of the affected 10.5 marlas was also
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.23 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-9770-2024 (O&M) -10-
explored and as per the report of the BDPO, Tanda, 10.5 marlas of Panchayat
land is available in Village Khudda situated in a low-lying/waterlogged area
adjoining the village pond. However, the Gram Panchayat, Khudda vide
Resolution No. 1 expressed its unwillingness to provide the said land to the
petitioner in lieu of the affected 10.5 marlas of land.
17. With regard to the third option i.e. acquisition of the affected land,
the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur so reported that the option of acquisition
of the affected 10.5 marlas of private land may be considered in accordance
with the Punjab Government Policy dated 18.05.2016 and the applicable
provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
18. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, Mr. Maninderjit
Singh Bedi, learned Advocate General, Punjab specifically stated that the
Government will acquire the aforesaid 10.5 marlas of land within a time frame
work. He further submitted that with regard to the damages/compensation for
using the land from the year 1972, this Court may pass any order as it may
deem appropriate. He also supplied a photocopy of the letter dated 16.09.2026
written by the Special Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of
Public Works (B&R) to the Advocate General, State of Punjab, wherein the
PWD Department expressed its agreement to acquire the aforesaid 10.5 marlas
of land, provided the petitioner undertakes that he or any of his predecessors,
successors or anyone claiming on his behalf shall not claim any damages
towards usage of the aforesaid land till the date of acquisition. A photocopy of
the aforesaid letter dated 16.09.2026 submitted by the learned Advocate
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.23 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-9770-2024 (O&M) -11-
General, Punjab to this Court is hereby taken on record as Mark-‘Y’ and is
reproduced as under:-
“Government of Punjab
Public Works Department
(Building & Roads-3 Branch)
To,
The Advocate General, State of Punjab,
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh - 160001.
Memo No. (1160312)PWD/ 269/2026-4B&R3/280
Date. 16/09/2026
Subject: Regarding CWP No. 9770 of 2024 Lt. Gen.
Savneet Singh (Retd.) V/s State of Punjab & Ors.
*
Reference : Orders of Hon'ble High Court dated
14-09-2026
Pursuant to last hearing, Public Works Department
(B&R) expresses its agreement to acquire the land
measuring 10.5 marla comprising in Khasra No.
8375/7005/2, 7015/1150/2, 7015/1150/1, village Khudda
Tehsil Dasuya, district Hoshiarpur, either under The Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013 or
as per policy dated 18.05.2016 as issued by Department of
Revenue, Rehabilitation and Disaster Management,
Government of Punjab, depending upon willingness of the
petitioner. Provided, the petitioner undertakes that he or any
of his predecessors or successors or anyone claiming on his
behalf shall not claim any damages towards usage of the
aforesaid land, till the date of acquisition.
Sd/-
Special Secretary
Government of Punjab
Department of Public Works (B&R Br.)”
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.23 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-9770-2024 (O&M) -12-
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
19. The petitioner, who is appearing in person, submitted that it is now
undisputed that his 10.5 marlas of land has been under illegal encroachment of
the State from the year 1972 and therefore, he expressed his willingness that his
land may be acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, along with all the statutory benefits and in accordance
with law. He further submitted that he is also entitled to damages/interest from
the year 1972 from where admittedly, the State has been in illegal encroachment
of his private land.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE
20. During the course of arguments, the learned Advocate General,
Punjab also submitted that so far as the acquisition of the land of the petitioner
is concerned, the Government has already expressed its willingness to acquire
the same but with regard to the payment of damages for the use of the land from
the year 1972, Special Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of
Public Works (B&R) has so stated in the aforesaid letter dated 16.09.2026 that
the petitioner should not seek damages in respect thereof. The learned Advocate
General submitted that the grant or non-grant of damages/interest can be
considered by this Court in accordance with law.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
21. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidya Devi versus The State of
Himachal Pradesh and others, 2020 (2) SCC 569 , while dealing with a similar
kind of situation observed that the Right to Property ceased to be a
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.23 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-9770-2024 (O&M) -13-

Fundamental Right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978,
but it continued to be a human right in a welfare State and a Constitutional
right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and that the State cannot
dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure
established by law and that the obligation to pay compensation, though not
expressly included in Article 300A, can be inferred in that Article. To forcibly
dispossess a person of his private property without following due process of law
would be violative of his human rights as well as his Constitutional right under
Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It was further observed that the State,
being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession
which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort or even a crime, to gain
legal title over such property for over twelve years and therefore, the State
cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of
adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens. It was also observed
that in such type of cases, the cause of action is continuing in nature and the
State cannot claim the plea of delay and laches, although the same is a matter of
judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the
facts and circumstances of a case.
22. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the land
belonging to the petitioner was under the unauthorised occupation of the State
from the year 1972, when a road was constructed by the PWD Department.
Learned Advocate General, Punjab has already submitted that the land of the
petitioner measuring 10.5 marlas will be acquired by the State of Punjab.
However, at the same time, this Court would also consider as to whether the
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.23 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-9770-2024 (O&M) -14-
petitioner would be entitled for any damages/compensation for the use and
occupation of his land from the year 1972 till the issuance of the Notification
under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which is required to be
issued by the State of Punjab. The aforesaid issue as to whether a person is
entitled for grant of any such compensation for the use of the land by the State
prior to the Notification under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 or under Section 4 of the old Acquisition Act, 1894, has been dealt with in
detail by Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. L. Jain (D) by Lrs. Versus DDA and
others, 2004 (4) SCC 79 . It was so observed that when a landowner is
dispossessed prior to issuance of preliminary Notification under Section 4 of the
Act, then the Government merely takes possession of the land but the title
thereof continues to vest with the land owner and it is fully open for the land
owner to recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal
proceedings. He is therefore only entitled to get rent or damages for use and
occupation for the period the government retains possession of the property. It
was further held that where possession is taken prior to the issuance of the
preliminary notification, it will be just and equitable for the Collector to also
determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the land owner is
entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the land owner
for the acquisition of the property.
23. In this way, the landowner whose land remains in the occupation
of the State without any acquisition is also entitled for rent or damages for the
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.23 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-9770-2024 (O&M) -15-
use and occupation of the land for the period the Government retains possession
of the property. The benefits of acquisition either under the old Acquisition Act,
1894 or under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, are always available to
the landowner in accordance with the statutory provisions of the respective Act
but so far as the prior possession of the property by the Government is
concerned, the landowner is always entitled for compensation/damages in this
regard. The aforesaid judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. L. Jain
(D) by Lrs. ’s case (Supra) was thereafter also referred to in various subsequent
judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, especially in Balwan Singh and others
versus Land Acquisition Collector and another, 2016 (13) SCC 412;
Madishetti Bala Ramul (D) by LRs versus The Land Acquisition Officer, 2007
(9) SCC 650 and Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil etc. versus State of
Maharashtra, Civil Appeal Nos.5712-5713 of 2021 , decided on 20.09.2021 ,
wherein interest at different rates, depending upon the facts and circumstances
of each case was granted from the date of possession of the land till the issuance
of the preliminary Notification.
24. In the present case as well, the petitioner would be entitled for
interest on the awarded amount from the date of possession of the land in the
year 1972 till the issuance of the Notification under Section 11 the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, especially in view of the fact that the possession of the
land by construction of the road in the year 1972 is not in dispute and has rather
been admitted by the State and because of this reason, the State has expressed
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.23 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-9770-2024 (O&M) -16-
its willingness to acquire the land. Therefore, the condition which was imposed
by the State in the aforesaid letter dated 16.09.2026, as reproduced above,
stipulating that the petitioner will not claim any damages towards the use of the
land is not sustainable and accordingly, it is held that no such condition can be
imposed by the State in this regard.
CONCLUSION
25. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present
case, the present Civil Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions:-
(i) Considering the aforesaid statement made by the learned Advocate
General, Punjab that the State has expressed its willingness to acquire the
land of the petitioner comprising 10.5 marlas, we direct that the same
shall be acquired under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013. A Notification under Section 11 of the aforesaid Act shall be
issued forthwith and the entire process of acquisition shall be completed

within an outer limit of three months from today and all the statutory
benefits arising out of the aforesaid Act shall be paid to the petitioner
within the aforesaid period. Since it is a case which will be in the nature
of a deemed acquisition and the petitioner has stated that he will have no
objection to the acquisition, there will therefore be no need to obtain the
consent of the petitioner considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances.
(ii) With regard to the grant of damages/compensation for the period
during which the State Government had retained the possession and used
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.23 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-9770-2024 (O&M) -17-
the land, we deem it fit and proper to grant interest @ 6% per annum
(simple) on the Award amount to the petitioner from the year 1972 till the
issuance of the Notification under Section 11 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. The aforesaid interest shall also be paid within a
period of three months from today to the petitioner.
(iii) Considering the peculiar circumstances of the present case and the
fact that the petitioner, who is a retired Lieutenant General of the Indian
Army and has served the country as a distinguished soldier, appeared in
person before this Court on a number of occasions and was compelled to
file the present petition, we deem it fit and proper to impose costs of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) upon the respondent-State of
Punjab. The aforesaid costs shall also be paid by the respondent-State of
Punjab to the petitioner within the aforesaid period of three months.
26. We also appreciate the efforts made by Mr. Maninderjit Singh
Bedi, learned Advocate General, State of Punjab, in resolving the issue.
27. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of
since the main case has been decided.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
JUDGE
(PRAVINDRA SINGH CHAUHAN)
17.09.2026 JUDGE
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.09.23 16:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.