SURINDER AHUJA & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2026 INSC 1068 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3800-3803 OF 2026

SURINDER AHUJA & ANR. ...APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. …RESPONDENTS

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3804-3820 OF 2026 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3821-3827 OF 2026 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3828-3834 OF 2026 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3835-3840 OF 2026 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3841-3846 OF 2026

JUDGMENT

SHEEL NAGU, J.

1. These civil appeals filed under Article 136 of the

Constitution of India assail common order passed by

Single Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana

at Chandigarh, rendered on 29.03.2019, whereby the

High Court changed the quantum of compensation from

Signature Not Verified the award of Reference Court in the manner shown in Digitally signed by JATINDER KAUR Date: 2026.09.29

Table 1.3. (infra). 17:39:21 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 50

1.1 We have heard Sh. Ajay Tewari, Senior Advocate for the

appellants and Sh. Sanjay Hedge, Sr. Advocate on behalf

of respondents. Though 195 appeals and 5 cross-

objections were filed by landowners as well as State

before the High Court, but limited number of

landowners are before this Court in these 47 appeals.

The details of which are given below: -

CA No.3800-03/2026 RFA Nos. 3133, 3134 of 2008; RFA Nos.203, 204 of 2009 (qua village Karni Khera) (Distt – Fazilka – Punjab) CA No.3821-27/2026 RFA Nos.3821 to 3827 of 2008 (qua village Odian) (Distt – Fazilka – Punjab) CA No.3828-34/2026 RFA Nos.3256 to 3262 of 2008 (qua village Odian) (Distt – Fazilka – Punjab) CA No.3841-46/2026 RFA Nos.2691, 2695, 2696, 2698 to 2700 of 2007 (qua village Alamshah) (Distt – Fazilka – Punjab) CA No.3835-40/2026 RFA Nos.3660-62, 3664-66 of 2008 (qua village Alamshah) (Distt – Fazilka – Punjab) CA No.3804-20/2026 RFA Nos.224, 226, 230, 234, 235, 2742 of 2007 RFA Nos.610 to 618, 759, 3663 of 2008 (qua village Odian, Kotha, Awa, Salem Shah, Alamshah) (Distt – Fazilka – Punjab)

1.2 Further, these 47 civil appeals pertain to parcels of land

acquired in Village Karni Khera, Village Odian, Village

Awa, Village Kotha, Village Alamshah, and Village Salem

Shah, all in Distt–Fazilka (Punjab), for the public

Page 2 of 50

purpose of constructing Aspal Extension Drain (Ditch

Canal), comprising length of 18.42 Kms. and width

ranging from 264 to 340 feet.

1.3 The acquisition proceedings commenced with issuance

of notifications under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (herein after referred to as “the Act of 1894”), on

November 14, 2000, and November 24, 2000, followed

by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on

March 2, 2001. Subsequently, the Land Acquisition

Collector (SDM), Fazilka, announced the final award on

August 6, 2001, fixing uniform market rates across the

project area but awarding nil compensation for

severance charges. This inter alia became a point of

dispute as landowners contended that the drain

bifurcated their holdings into unusable fragments.

Different heads of compensation given to six villages as per

LAC, Reference Court and High Court are detailed in tabular

illustration as follows: -

[Table 1.3] S. Village Land LAC Award Reference High Court Award No. Name Acquired (06.08.2001) Court Award (29.03.2019) (In for Chahi (Enhancement respect to

Page 3 of 50

(in Nehri Land in respect to Irrigated Land Acres) (Irrigated Irrigated Land and Severance Land) & Severance Charges) (per acre) Charges) • No • Severance • Fixed Severance charges Severance Charges were charges @40% awarded at • Tubewell different Compensation rates as for shown displacement below @ Rs. • Solatium 50,000/- @30% (for • Solatium fruits, @30% on kothas and market value tubewells)

1. Karni 50.21 Rs. 13.11.2007: Rs. 3,19,000/- Khera 2,25,000/- Enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- + Severance charges @ 50% Fruit Bearing Trees Damage Award: Receipt: Surinder Ahuja & Vikramaditya (C.A. 3800-3803 of 2026) – Land Acquisition Collector Award – Rs. 1,01,139.50/- to each; Reference Court Award – Rs. 9 lakh (946 trees) while High Court reduced it to Rs. 5,38,300/- (for 280 trees as pleaded before Reference Court)

2. Odian 51.01 Rs. 17.12.2007: Rs. 2,99,000/- 2,25,000/- Enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- + Severance charges @50%

3. Awa 33.14 Rs. 11.10.2007: Rs. 3,39,000/- 2,25,000/- Rs. 3.0 lac (Highway) / Rs. 2.56 lac (Interior). + Severance charges @10%

4. Kotha 15.76 Rs. 11.10.2007: Rs. 3,39,000/- (Katha) 2,25,000/- Enhanced to Rs. 2,56,000/- + Severance charges @10%

5. Alamshah 31.88 Rs. 10.01.2008: Rs. 3,19,000/- 2,25,000/- Enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/- + Severance charges @50%

Page 4 of 50

6. Salem 46.26 Rs. 18.07.2007: Rs. 2,99,000/- Shah 2,25,000/- Sustained LAC rate (No Enhancement) + Severance charges @10%

2. We have heard the learned counsel for rival parties at

length and have perused the records in detail.

3. We would first like to discuss the reasons assigned for

award of various components of compensation by Land

Acquisition Collector, the Reference Courts and

thereafter the High Court, as follows: -

3.1. Land Acquisition Collector award dated 06.08.2001

A. Market Value: The market value of irrigated land

acquired in respect of the six above-said villages was

assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector to be

Rs.2,25,000/- per acre based on recommendation of the

Committee constituted by Irrigation Department of

Punjab vide letter dated 17.07.2001. The LAC rejected

the landowners’ objection and demands for enhanced

compensation as they failed to produce any

documentary evidence to substantiate their claims.

Page 5 of 50

B. Compensation for fruit-bearing trees: Fruit-bearing

trees were standing only on acquired land at village

Karni Khera. The LAC adopted and relied entirely on the

assessment report submitted by the field staff of the

State Horticulture Department and awarded

Rs.1,01,139.50/- each to Sh. Surinder Kumar and Sh.

Vikram Aditya, without specifying the material for

arriving at the said figure.

C. Severance charges: The LAC did not award any

compensation for severance.

D. Solatium: Solatium was awarded @ 30% on market

value as per the statutory mandate under Section 23(2)

of the Act of 1894.

E. Tubewell compensation: The LAC awarded varied

sums for tubewells and hand pumps physically standing

within the acquired channel boundary. In Village Karni

Khera, Surinder Ahuja was awarded Rs. 5,643/- under

drip spray infrastructure. In Village Odian, landowners

received Rs. 4,559/- per tubewell. In Alam Shah, it

varied from 4848/- to 10567/- per tubewell. In Awa, it

Page 6 of 50

varied from 4559/- to 12320/- per tubewell. The LAC

relied on the field staff report in Form Nos. 1 and 2 while

granting tubewell compensation.

3.2 The award of the Reference Court dated 13.11.2007:-

A. Market Value: The market value of the above-

mentioned six villages as determined by the Reference

Court is as follows: -

a) Karni Khera: The market value was enhanced to

Rs.5,00,000/- per acre.

b) Odian: The market value was enhanced to

Rs.5,00,000/- per acre.

c) Awa: The market value was enhanced to

Rs.3,00,000/- per acre (for lands adjacent to the

highway) and Rs.2,56,000/- per acre (for lands

situated in the interior portion).

d) Kotha: The market value was enhanced to

Rs.2,56,000/- per acre.

e) Alamshah: The market value was enhanced to

Rs.5,00,000/- per acre.

Page 7 of 50

f) Salem Shah: The market value was maintained at

Rs.2,25,000/- per acre.

Reason assigned by the Reference Court for awarding

the above compensation was based on the collective

suburban potential, strategic geographic location, and

demonstrable commercial value of the acquired lands.

To justify the enhancement of the market value, the

Reference Court vide different orders for different

villages, structured its reasoning under three primary

heads:

i. Expansion of Urban Limits and Strategic

Infrastructure Proximity

The Reference Court observed that the boundaries

of the acquired villages lay in immediate proximity to the

municipal limits of Fazilka (ranging between 2 to 2.5 km),

with key city hubs such as the main marketplace. The

urban expansion of Fazilka was spreading directly toward

these lands.

Additionally, the lands lie directly along or near present-

day National Highway 7 (Highway connecting Fazilka

Page 8 of 50

(Punjab) to Mana (Uttarakhand)), which was historically

designated as National Highway No.10 (the main Delhi-

to-Sulemanki Road), and key railway tracks, placing

them in the immediate vicinity of prominent regional

landmarks like BSF Headquarters and M.R. College. This

strategic geographical layout proved the lands possessed

clear, undeniable suburban potential.

ii. Official “Special Village” Classification and

Enhanced Registration Rates

The Court placed significant reliance on testimony

of Tehsil Registration Clerk (PW - 2) and official Collector

records that proved that these lands fell within a 5 km

radius of the municipal limits and were formally classified

under the District Collector’s list of "Special Villages".

Due to this prime classification, the State itself levied an

urban registration rate of 9% stamp duty on land

transactions in these villages, as opposed to the standard

rural rate of only 5% to 6% applied to distant agricultural

lands.

Page 9 of 50

iii. Evidentiary Parity and Temporal Appreciation

from Sultanpur Benchmark

Reference Court highlighted that for adjoining lands

in Village Sultanpur acquired in May 1996 for the

similar project i.e. Sludge Drain, the Deputy

Commissioner of Ferozepur had fixed a market value of

Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre via letter Ex. PW - 7/1. As these

neighboring lands sat on the same road, only 1 km

away, and shared identical agricultural potential, the

Reference Court ruled that landowners could not be

discriminated against by receiving a rate lower than Rs.

5,00,000/- per acre.

B. Compensation for fruit-bearing trees: Reference Court

awarded Rs. 9,00,000/- to co-owners Sh. Surinder

Kumar and Sh. Vikram Aditya, placing its reliance on

the expert scientific evaluation report (Ex. P-18) proved

by Horticulture Consultant Prem Nath Babbar (PW - 4),

determining the per tree rate at Rs. 1,922.50 for a

cumulative total of 946 fruit trees (comprising 464 Malta

orange trees physically uprooted during the initial

Page 10 of 50

construction of the drain in 2002, alongside 482 Malta

trees subsequently lost in 2005 due to the complete

disruption of the Israeli-pattern drip irrigation system

and subsequent soil alkalinity caused by forced reliance

on unsuitable tubewell water). However, for this purpose

a ceiling of Rs. 9,00,000/- as a lump-sum compensation

was quantified to avoid burdening the State exchequer.

The Reference Court reasoned that because the ordinary

land valuation had already been enhanced from the

Land Acquisition Collector's uniform rate of Rs.

2,25,000/- per acre to Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre, the

progressive growers of Village Karni Khera, whose high-

yielding orchard land possessed exceptional commercial

potential, were justly entitled for enhanced orchard

damages far exceeding the meager Rs. 1,01,139.50 each

initially awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector

based on report of field staff vide Form Nos. 1 and 2.

C. Severance charges: Severance charges qua village

Karni Khera, Alamshah and Odian were awarded @ 50%

of market value, while for villages Awa, Kotha and Salem

Page 11 of 50

Shah @ 10% of market value. Reason assigned by the

Reference Court for award of severance charges was

based on the Deposition of Sub Divisional Officers of the

Drainage and Irrigation Departments which revealed

that the drain in question is at least 100 feet wide with

depth of 10 to 15 feet (extending up to 20 feet in certain

reaches) and the side banks being 10-12 feet high

(approx.) with no accessibility to cross the drain except

by 7 to 8 feet wide bridges situate 2 kms. apart which

could not bear the weight of combine harvesters or

loaded agricultural trolleys.

The Reference Court observed that this massive man-

made (Ditch Canal) barrier cut the landowners'

contiguous holdings into small, fragmented, and

isolated parcels, leaving large portions of their

unacquired land on the opposite bank of the canal

completely inaccessible for cultivation. Applying

established High Court precedents such as State of

Punjab v. Mohan Lal1 and Smt. Bindu Garg v. State

Page 12 of 50

of Haryana,2 which mandate compensation when

acquisition renders remaining land unviable for

cultivation, the Reference Court held that the

landowners were entitled to substantial damages on

account of severance, awarding 50% of the market value

of the unacquired land in villages like Karni Khera,

Odian, and Alam Shah, and 10% to 20% in other village

batches to mitigate this permanent agricultural

hardship.

D. Solatium: Reference Court awarded statutory solatium

@ 30% on the enhanced market value of the land as well

as on auxiliary assets such as tubewells, kothas, and

standing trees considering the reason that trees and

structures are legally attached to the earth and thus fall

within the statutory definition of 'land' under Section

3(a) of the Act of 1894, making them eligible for statutory

benefits.

E. Tube well Compensation: The Reference Court Award

dated 13.11.2007 (Karni Khera), 17.12.2007 (Odian),

2 1999 (2) PLR 794

Page 13 of 50

and 10.01.2008 (Alam Shah), enhanced tubewell

compensation to a uniform sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per

tubewell. Reference Court relied upon official demand

letter Ex. P-33 (SDO, PSEB requiring Om Parkash to

deposit Rs. 18,689/- as electrical line-shifting fees) and

electricity passbooks (Ex. P 8–P 10).

And in the Reference Court Award dated 22.09.2006

(Odian), 20.02.2007 (Alam Shah), and 11.10.2007 (Awa

& Kotha), the Court rejected private valuer reports (Ex.

– P 37–P 39 estimating tubewells at Rs. 70,000/- to Rs.

75,000/-) as biased. Reference Court held that electric

motors and diesel engines are reusable assets that can

be uninstalled and shifted to other plots. It enhanced

compensation to a modest Rs. 10,000/- per tubewell

and for some landowners, upheld the LAC field valuation

forms.

3.3. The impugned order of the High Court dated

29.03.2019 was as follows: -

A. Market Value: The market value of the irrigated land

acquired in respect of the six above-said villages was

Page 14 of 50

modified by the High Court in a standardized but graded

manner as follows: -

a. Karni Khera: The market value was reduced from

Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 3,19,000/- per acre.

b. Odian: The market value was reduced from Rs.

5,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 2,99,000/- per acre.

c. Awa: The market value was enhanced from Rs.

3,00,000/- (for highway-facing) and Rs. 2,56,000/-

(for interior portion) to a standardized rate of Rs.

3,39,000/- per acre.

d. Kotha: The market value was enhanced from Rs.

2,56,000/- per acre to Rs. 3,39,000/- per acre.

e. Alamshah: The market value was reduced from Rs.

5,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 3,19,000/- per acre.

f. Salem Shah: The market value was enhanced from

Rs. 2,25,000/- per acre (maintaining the LAC rate)

to Rs. 2,99,000/- per acre.

Reason assigned by the High Court for modifying the

market value was founded upon a radial spatial pricing

model, which rejected the flat-rate enhancements made

Page 15 of 50

by the Reference Court and recognized that agricultural

land potentiality decreases proportionally with distance

from urban growth hubs and proximity to the

international border. The High Court structured its

reasoning under these primary heads:

i. Adoption of the Radial "Hub-and-Spoke" Spatial

Model and Median Formula

The High Court designated Village Awa and Village

Kotha as the central hub of the acquisition project

because of their proximity to the municipal limits of

Fazilka town. To determine the base market rate at this

central hub, the Court adopted a balanced median

formula:

• First Component (Ex. P1): It took Karni Khera sale

deed Ex. P1 (9 marlas sold for Rs. 20,000/- in July 1998,

working out to Rs. 3,55,520/- per acre). It applied a 5%

cumulative annual increase for the two-year lag to the

November 2000 Section 4 notification under the Act of

1894 (yielding Rs. 3,91,960/- per acre) and applied a

Page 16 of 50

20% cut for smallness, resulting in Rs. 3,13,568/- per

acre.

• Second Component (Awa Collector Rate): It took the

1996 Collector rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre fixed for

Village Awa's sludge carrier project. Applying a 5%

cumulative annual increase over the four-year lag, the

value worked out to Rs. 3,64,651/- per acre.

• The Median Base: The High Court took the average

median of these two components (Rs. 3,13,568/- + Rs.

3,64,651/- divided by 2), which yielded Rs. 3,39,109/-,

rounded off to Rs. 3,39,000/- per acre as the peak rate

for Awa and Kotha.

• The Radial Step-Down: Moving away from the Awa-

Kotha central hub, the Court applied a flat Rs. 20,000/-

per acre reduction per village tier to reflect the

diminishing commercial and urban potential of the

interior lands.

Page 17 of 50

ii. Rejection of the Sultanpur Municipal Landmark

and Indo-Pak Border Security Discount

The High Court rejected the Reference Court’s

reliance on the 1996 Sultanpur benchmark (Rs.

5,00,000/- per acre under Ex. PW - 7/1). It held that

Sultanpur sat entirely within the municipal limits of

Fazilka and was highly urbanized, whereas the acquired

lands were strictly rural agricultural holdings.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that villages like

Salem Shah, Mauzam, and Alamshah lay in close

proximity to the Indo-Pak international border, which

historically suffered from the installation of military

landmines, wartime shelling, and Pakistani blockages of

watercourses, thereby justifying a lower baseline market

value due to security-depressed agricultural pricing.

B. Compensation on fruit- bearing trees: The High Court

reduced the compensation for fruit-bearing trees from

the Reference Court's Rs. 9,00,000/- lump sum to Rs.

5,38,300/- strictly limited to the orchard in Village Karni

Khera.

Page 18 of 50

The reasoning assigned by the High Court was that the

Reference Court committed a grave legal error by

expanding the compensation scope to 946 trees. The

High Court held that in their original reference petition

under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, the landowners had

explicitly claimed damage for only 280 trees (246 Malta

orange plants and 34 Guava plants) standing on the

acquired strip. No amendment to the claim petition was

ever sought. It is settled in law that evidence cannot be

led beyond pleadings and therefore, making oral claims

as regards 482 trees lost on unacquired land in 2005

due to drip-irrigation damage, was held to be legally

inadmissible.

Applying the rate of Rs. 1,922.50 per tree strictly to the

pleaded 280 trees, High Court reduced the quantum of

compensation from Rs. 9,00,000/- to Rs. 5,38,300/-

under this head.

C. Severance Charges: The High Court modified the

severance charges, awarding a uniform rate of 40% of

the market value of the acquired land across all villages.

Page 19 of 50

The reasoning assigned by the High Court was that

while the Aspal Extension Drain (measuring 130 to 150

feet in width with banks rising up to 12 feet) physically

split and bifurcated the agricultural holdings, the site

plans proved that the drain alignment ran at a

"considerable distance" from the village settlements

(abadis).

The Court rejected the erratic and inconsistent

severance rates awarded by the Reference Courts

(ranging from 10% to 50%) and corrected a major legal

error: severance charges must be calculated as a

percentage of the acquired land’s value, not on the value

of the remaining unacquired land.

Placing direct reliance on the Division Bench judgment

in Tehal Singh v. State of Punjab through Collector

Land Acquisition Drainage Circle Patiala,3 the High

Court ruled that since the severed land was not on the

abadi side and the drain was constructed beyond it,

3 1987 RRR 495

Page 20 of 50

Clause (2) of the Tehal Singh (supra) formula applied,

which mandates 40% compensation.

D. Solatium: The High Court reduced the solatium

benefits, restricting them strictly to 30% on the

enhanced market value of the land only under Section

23(2) of the Act of 1894. The reasoning assigned by the

High Court was twofold:

i. Correction of Clerical Error: The High Court set

aside the Reference Court's erroneous direction in

the relief clauses of Karni Khera, Odian, and

Alamshah awarding "50% solatium" on the

unacquired land. It clarified that this was a clerical

and typographical slip where the word "solatium"

was mistakenly substituted for "severance charges”

which the Reference Court had intended to grant at

ii. No Solatium on Auxiliary Assets: The High Court

set aside the Reference Court's award of 30%

solatium and 12% additional interest on auxiliary

Page 21 of 50

structures (kothas, tubewells) and fruit-bearing

trees.

Placing reliance on the landmark Supreme

Court ruling in State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh,4 the

High Court held that additional amounts under Section

23(1A) and solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act of

1894 are payable only on the market value of the land

determined under the first factor of Section 23(1) of the

Act of 1894. They are strictly not payable on damages or

expenses awarded under the second to sixth factors of

Section 23(1) of the Act of 1894 (which explicitly covers

trees, crops, structures, and severance damages).

E. Tubewell Compensation: The High Court modified all

Reference Court awards across the 11 acquired villages.

The High Court set aside the Rs. 1,00,000/- per tubewell

enhancement granted by ADJ Sodhi as well as the lower

Rs. 10,000/- rates, standardizing tubewell displacement

compensation across the board to a flat sum of Rs.

50,000/- per tubewell. Furthermore, the High Court

4 (2011) 4 SCC 734

Page 22 of 50

held that landowners are not entitled to statutory

benefits under Section 23(1A) (12% p.a. additional

interest) or Section 23(2) (30% solatium) of the Act of

1894 on tubewell, structure, tree, or severance awards,

restricting solatium and Section 23(1A) of the Act of

1894 benefits strictly to the bare land market value.

4. FINDINGS

For the sake of adjudication, this Court frames 5

substantial issues, which are:

Issue 1 – Whether the High Court was justified in

modifying the market value of the acquired land to

graded radial rates ranging from Rs. 2,99,000/- to Rs.

3,39,000/- per acre based on distance from the

municipal limits and proximity to the international

border?

Issue 2 - Whether the High Court was correct in

restricting the compensation for fruit-bearing trees

strictly to the 280 standing trees located on the acquired

land portion and declining compensation under Section

Page 23 of 50

23(1) of the Act of 1894, for the 482 fruit-bearing trees

lost on the remaining unacquired land?

Issue 3 – Whether the High Court was correct in

reducing the severance charges from 50% of the value of

the unacquired land to a uniform rate of 40% of the

value of the acquired land by applying Clause (2) of the

Tehal Singh (supra) formula?

Issue 4 - Whether statutory solatium under Section

23(2) and additional interest under Section 23(1A) of the

Act of 1894 are legally payable on auxiliary assets, such

as standing fruit-bearing trees, tubewells, and kothas,

or if such benefits are strictly restricted to the market

value of the bare land only?

Issue 5 – Whether the High Court was legally right,

correct, and justified in modifying the tubewell

compensation to a standardized flat displacement sum

of Rs. 50,000/- per tubewell across all contiguous

villages, and in strictly excluding statutory solatium

[30% u/s 23(2) of the Act of 1894] and additional

interest [12% p.a. u/s 23(1A) of the Act of 1894] from

Page 24 of 50

being calculated on tubewell and auxiliary asset

compensation?

5. DETERMINATION ON ISSUE 1: MARKET VALUE

5.1. The statutory mandate of Section 23(1) of the Act of

1894 states that the Court must determine

compensation based on:

“First the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1)”.

To ascertain fair market value under this section, the

Court must evaluate both positive potentiality factors—

such as proximity to developed urban centers, access to

national highways, and surrounding institutional

expansions—and also negative factors, while ensuring

that contiguous tracts of land acquired for a unified

public purpose under the same scheme are awarded

consistent, non-discriminatory compensation.

5.2. Spatial Contiguity, Project-Wide Parity, and the

Erroneous Rejection of the Sultanpur Benchmark

(Ex. PW - 7/1)

Page 25 of 50

5.2.1. We find that the Reference Court, in Para 15 of its

award, correctly relied upon the Village Sultanpur

baseline (Ex. PW - 7/1). Reference Court’s reasoning was

well- founded and are reproduced below:

“The perusal of the file shows that the Collector did not consider the fact that the land of village Sultanpur was acquired for sludge carrier water and the land acquired vide that award was of the same quality and situated on the same road and the compensation at the rate of Rs. 5 lacs were awarded vide letter dated 24.5.1996 Ex. PW - 7/1. The present land has been acquired on 6.8.2001 after gap of five years from the date of earlier award. It is well known fact that prices of the land appreciate every year considerable and during the five years and prices of the land situated on the same road might have increased many-folds. So, the Collector vide impugned award in the present case dated 6.8.2001 should not have granted compensation at the rate below Rs. 5 lacs per acre, though the prices of the land in the year 2001 might have increased at least above Rs. 8 lacs per acre. ... Hence the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 2,25,000/- per acre to Rs. 5 lacs per acre which is reasonable, fair and just compensation.”

5.2.2. The High Court, however, rejected this baseline under

Para 50 of its impugned judgment on the grounds that

Sultanpur was within municipal limits of Fazilka town

while Karni Khera was essentially rural in nature. This

classification ignores the land acquisition jurisprudence

regarding project – wide parity. The acquired lands in

Karni Khera are located a mere 1.5 km from Sultanpur

Page 26 of 50

on the exact same road, acquired for identical public

purpose of integrated drainage project.

5.2.3. In Ali Mohammad Beigh and Others v. State of

Jammu & Kashmir,5 the Supreme Court established

the doctrine of parity in project-wide acquisitions, when

the lands are more or less situated nearby and when the

acquired lands are identical and similar and the

acquisition is for the same purpose, it would be

improper to discriminate between the landowners

unless there are strong reasons, which are missing

herein. Moreover, the High Court disregarded the

deposition of the State's own witness, SDO Irrigation

(RW-1), who conceded that the urban abadi of Fazilka

town was actively expanding directly toward the

acquired land of Karni Khera. In Union of India v.

Harinder Pal Singh and Others,6 this Court reinforced

this contiguity principle:

“15. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and we see no justification to interfere with the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which, in our view, took a pragmatic approach in fixing the market value

5 (2017) 4 SCC 717 6 (2005) 12 SCC 564

Page 27 of 50

of the lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings at a uniform rate. From the sketch plan of the area in question, it appears to us that while the lands in question are situated in five different villages, they can be consolidated into one single unit with little to choose between one stretch of land and another. The entire area is in a stage of development and the different villages are capable of being developed in the same manner as the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur where the market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a uniform rate of Rs 40,000 per acre. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court discarded the belting method of valuation having regard to the local circumstances and features and no cogent ground has been made out to interfere with the same.

16. In our view, in the absence of any contemporaneous document, the market value of the acquired lands of Village Kala Ghanu Pur which were acquired at the same time as the lands in the other five villages was correctly taken to be a comparative unit for determination of the market value of the lands comprising the lands forming the subject- matter of the acquisition proceedings under consideration…….”

5.3. Strategic Highway Frontage (NH-10), Suburban

Development Potential, and the Misapplication of

the "Smallness Cut"

5.3.1. The High Court also erred in applying a 20% deduction

for "smallness" on the rural sale exemplar (Ex. P-1)

under Para 45 of its judgment:

“There is also a difference of two years between the sale deed and the notification dated 14.11.2000 and therefore even if the benefit of cumulative increase is given for the period of two years @ 5%. The market value would work out to ₹ 3,91,960/- per acre on which a cut would have to be applied for smallness also. The market value would come to ₹ 3,13,568/- after giving a 20% cut.”

Page 28 of 50

This mechanical reduction directly overlooked the

Reference Court’s factual findings regarding the

suburban potential of the land as recorded in Para 15:

“As per site plan Ex. P29, the land of the present petitioners is situated at a distance of half kilometer from the land earlier acquired vide award dated 24.5.1996; secondly, the land of the petitioners is towards the abadi of the Fazilka and this fact has been admitted by RW1 Bakhshish who has also admitted that the Abadi of Fazilka is extended towards the acquired land. It is well settled that the land situated near the Abadi of town fetches more price than the agricultural land situated in rural area. ... So the acquired land has potentiality being developed as urban land being used for commercial and industries purposes.”

The acquired tracts in Karni Khera directly abut

present-day National Highway 7 (NH 7- Highway

connecting Fazilka (Punjab) to Mana (Uttarakhand)) –

historically designated and referred to in Annexure P-7

of IA 145497 of 2019 as National Highway 10 (the Delhi-

to-Sulemanki Road), making them premium, high-

yielding, and fully developed suburban orchard plots.

In Udho Dass v. State of Haryana and Others,7 this

Court pointed out that, while dealing with the question

of the potential value of land, the existence of highways,

public roads, layouts of building plots or developed

Page 29 of 50

residential extensions in the vicinity or proximity of the

acquired land must be taken into consideration.

This Court in Udho Dass (supra) also recognized that

cumulative annual increases in prime northern areas

often vastly exceed nominal rates:

“18. ….The 12% per annum increase which had often been found to be adequate in matters relating to compensation, hardly did justice to those land owners whose lands had been taken away and the increase was even at times up to 100% a year for land which had the potential of being urbanized and commercialized….”

5.3.2. Furthermore, the record reveals that major institutions,

including the BSF Headquarters and M.R. College, were

operating in the immediate vicinity. In Bhagwathula

Samanna and Others v. Special Tahsildar and Land

Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam,8 this Court has

held that where the acquired area is already surrounded

by fully functional institutional and commercial

establishments, the imposition of a development cut is

legally impermissible as the land has already achieved

its suburban potential and even in the vast area there

may be land which is fully developed having all

8 AIR 1992 SC 666; (1991) 4 SCC 506

Page 30 of 50

amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If a

smaller area within the large tract is already developed

and suitable for building purposes and has in its vicinity

roads, drainage, electricity, communications, etc., then

the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it

is part of the large tract acquired may not be justified.

5.4. Arbitrary Nature of the Radial "Hub-and-Distance"

step-down pricing model and Internal Spatial

Contradictions

5.4.1. The High Court implemented an abstract mathematical

step-down formula under Paras 43 and 51 of its

impugned judgment that are reproduced below:

“43….Though the Land Acquisition Collector has granted a uniform rate of compensation but it would be apparent that the distances as such from Fazilka town are different and therefore the land which is situated in the villages away from the town would not command the same amount of potential of market value... It is but natural that the land which is falling closer to the border would be cheaper in comparison to the land which is situated closer to the municipal limits of Fazilka and similarly, the land which is away from the municipal limits of Fazilka on the other side would also not command the same amount of premium.”

“51…..Resultantly, this Court reduces the market value @ ₹ 20,000/- per acre for each village as it goes away from the center from village Awa and Kotha as the potentiality decreases.”

Page 31 of 50

5.4.2. By contrast, the Reference Court relied on transaction-

based local evidence. In Para 12 (page 103), the

Reference Court observed:

“PW - 2 Subash Arora, Registration Clerk Tehsil Office Fazilka has proved the copies of the rates for the year 2004-2005 fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur for registration of the sale deeds for the Sub Division Fazilka as Ex. P11 and Ex. P12. He has deposed that as per Ex.P12 village Karni Khera falls in the list of Special villages. He has further deposed that the land of village Karni Khera falls within 5 km Radius of Municipal areas of Fazilka and as such registration charges are being charged at the rate of 9% which are urban rate of registration.”

5.4.3. By ignoring this transaction-based local evidence and

imposing an abstract mathematical reduction, the High

Court’s radial step-down model created an artificial,

legally unsustainable disparity between a contiguous

tract of land acquired under a single notification. This

mechanical fragmentation directly violates the landmark

principle reaffirmed by this Court in Krishan Kumar v.

State of Haryana,9 which held:

“18. a) A fundamental principle in land acquisition jurisprudence is that lands with similar locational and developmental potential must be compensated equitably unless clear, objective distinctions justify otherwise... … Arbitrary differentiation in compensation, based on superficial considerations, necessarily violates settled constitutional principles of fairness and equality.”

9 (2025) 5 SCR 2853: (2025 INSC 638)

Page 32 of 50

This Court in Krishan Kumar (supra) further cautioned

against letting administrative or revenue classifications

dictate different valuations, for contiguous tracts:

“19…..Artificial boundaries created for administrative convenience cannot be allowed to obstruct the application of the fundamental principle of fairness.”

5.4.4. Pertinently, the High Court's reliance on General

Manager, ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai

Patel10 and Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana11 was

misplaced. In Manoj Kumar (supra), this Court noted:

“The awards and judgment in the cases of others not being inter parties are not binding as precedents. Recently, we have seen the trend of the Courts to follow them blindly probably under the misconception of the concept of equality and fair treatment. ... As per situation of a village, nature of land its value differ from the distance to distance even two to three-kilometer distance may also make the material difference in value. Land abutting Highway may fetch higher value but not land situated in interior villages.”

5.4.5. Some of the acquired lands here were not interior

agricultural lands but prime highway-facing orchards

with immense urban potential. Additionally, the radial

model created severe physical anomalies. Under this

formula, Village Sabuana (10 km away from the border)

was penalized with a depressed rate of Rs. 2,79,000/-

10 (2008) 14 SCC 745 11 (2018) 2 RCR (Civil) 815

Page 33 of 50

per acre, whereas Village Alam Shah (directly on the

border at 1.5 km) was awarded Rs. 3,19,000/- per acre.

This highlights the arbitrary nature of the radial model.

5.4.6. In the light of these findings, we hold that the High Court

misdirected itself in modifying the market value of the

acquired lands to graded radial rates ranging from Rs.

2,99,000/- to Rs. 3,39,000/- per acre. To maintain full

constitutional parity and non-discrimination as

mandated in Krishna Kumar (supra) the Reference

Court’s determination of Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre was

legally and factually correct, as it was grounded in

project-wide contiguity, suburban potentiality (validated

by the 9% urban stamp duty rate), and established 1996

Sultanpur benchmark (Ex. PW - 7/1). Accordingly, the

uniform market value of Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre across

all contiguous villages under challenge stands fully

restored.

6. DETERMINATION ON ISSUE 2: COMPENSATION FOR

FRUIT-BEARING TREES

Page 34 of 50

6.1. We now turn to the question of whether the High Court

was correct in restricting the compensation for fruit-

bearing trees strictly to the 280 standing trees (246

Malta orange and 34 Guava plants) physically located

on the acquired land portion.

6.2. We find that the High Court's restriction of orchard

compensation to the 280 pleaded trees is legally and

procedurally correct. In reference under Section 18 of

the Act of 1894, the reference petition stands as the

"plaint" and strictly defines the scope of the dispute. In

their original reference petition instituted on September

20, 2002 (LA Case No. 70), the landowners explicitly

pleaded orchard damages strictly limited to 280 trees

standing on the acquired strip. Although the claimants

subsequently led oral evidence to allege that an

additional 482 Malta trees on the unacquired land dried

up in 2005 due to the destruction of the Israeli-pattern

drip irrigation system. However, the landowners never

amended their petition filed under Section 18 of the Act

Page 35 of 50

of 1894 to include these additional 482 trees for

claiming damages.

6.3. It is a settled principle of civil law that evidence cannot

be led beyond pleadings. As established by this Court in

Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal,12 a Court cannot

make out a new case, decide an issue that does not arise

from pleadings. The Reference Court thus committed a

grave error in awarding lump-sum compensation of

Rs.9,00,000/- for 946 trees. In the absence of a formal

amendment to the reference petition, the claimants'

compensation must be restricted to the 280 pleaded

trees. Using the scientifically accepted "Nijjar Formula"

rate of Rs.1,922.50/- per tree, the compensation qua

trees is thus correctly restricted to Rs.5,38,300/- by the

High Court in the impugned order.

7. DETERMINATION ON ISSUE 3 – SEVERANCE AND

DAMAGES FOR PHYSICAL BIFURCATION

Page 36 of 50

7.1. We now divert towards the issue as to whether the High

Court was correct in reducing severance charges from

50% to 40% of the value of acquired lands.

7.2. Under Section 23(1) of the Act of 1894, the Court is

statutorily mandated to determine the compensation

amount based inter alia on:

“...thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land;”.

7.3. We find that the High Court committed a fundamental

legal error under Section 23(1) Thirdly of the Act of 1894,

by shifting the baseline of calculation from the

unacquired remaining land to the acquired land portion.

In the case of lead claimant Surinder Ahuja in Village

Karni Khera, the State physically acquired 79 Kanals

and 2 Marlas of land for the construction of the Aspal

Extension Drain. This narrow acquisition, in a strip,

severely impacted and bifurcated the remaining 249

Kanals and 17 Marlas of unacquired land of the same

claimant. By calculating the 40% severance charges on

the narrow-acquired strip rather than on the extensive

Page 37 of 50

unacquired remaining holdings, the High Court's

formula considerably reduced the compensation due,

leaving the landowners uncompensated for the

permanent loss of utility across the vast majority of their

fragmented estate. This directly violates the rule laid

down in Smt. Tribeni Devi v. Collector of Ranchi,13

where this Court held that when a portion of land is

acquired and a large portion is left behind, the physical

separation inherently causes a severe diminution in the

value of the land that is left out, for which separate,

robust severance compensation must be allowed.

7.4. Moreover, the High Court mechanically applied Tehal

Singh v. State of Punjab through Collector Land

Acquisition Drainage Circle Patiala,14 which states:

“11…. (2)Where the severed land is not the abadi side of the village, and S.Y.L. Canal is being constructed beyond it and it is two acres or less in area, compensation for severance shall be 40% of the market value of the land so acquired. … ”

The High Court erred in treating it as a geometric rule of

thumb based on distance from the village abadi. In doing

13 (1972) 1 SCC 480 14 1987 RRR 495

Page 38 of 50

so, the High Court herein completely ignored the

physical reality of the infrastructure on record. The

State's own witness, SDO Irrigation (RW-1), admitted in

cross-examination that:

“...the width of the drain is about 100 feet, and its depth is 10 to 15 feet and the side banks of the drain are 10 to 12 feet high approximately and it is not possible to cross the drain without the bridge.”.

In Para 52 of its judgment, the High Court itself recorded

the SDO's admissions:

“The SDO's evidence who appeared as RW 1 in the cases would show that the width of drain is 130 ft. and the sides of the banks are also between 15 to 30 ft and the height was of 50ft average. Resultantly, the landowners would but obviously, feel difficulty in approaching the other side, though it has come on record that bridges had also been provided which are also at a distance of 2 km apart. The bridges also are not of those capacity which would allow the heavy machinery to cross over as it has come on record that the bridge leading to village Odian was 7 ft. width the capacity of 9 tonnes and combine harvester etc. could not cross the same.”

7.5. The physical barrier of the Aspal Extension Drain—

measuring 100 to 130 feet in width with banks up to a

minimum of 10 feet extending to 30 feet constitutes an

insurmountable gap, because modern mechanized

farming machinery (such as tractors and combine

harvesters) cannot physically cross a 7-feet bridge, the

Page 39 of 50

unacquired remaining land on the opposite bank was

left in a state of absolute, practical isolation.

7.6. This Court has long recognized that rendering

unacquired land inaccessible constitutes a constructive

total loss of its agricultural utility. In Walchandnagar

Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and

Another,15 this Court considered that when an

acquisition destroys the functional integrity of a

landowner's remaining system, the State is liable to

compensate for the actual loss of utility of the

remaining, unacquired infrastructure.

7.7. By ignoring facts, the High Court misapplied the Tehal

Singh (supra) precedent. The drain's massive physical

barrier and the inaccessibility of the severed piece of

land rendered the unacquired land partially unusable.

7.8. The High Court’s decision to reduce severance charges

to a flat 40% of the acquired land’s value is legally and

factually unsustainable. Under Section 23(1) of the Act

of 1894 the damage caused due to severance damage is

15 (2022) 5 SCC 71

Page 40 of 50

explicitly designed to compensate for the diminution in

value of the unacquired remaining land. The Reference

Court’s award of 50% of the value of the unacquired land

was fully justified. Accordingly, the Reference Court's

50% severance award on the unacquired land is hereby

restored.

7.9. Accordingly, to uphold the constitutional mandate of

Krishan Kumar (supra) and restore project-wide parity

across all contiguous revenue estates, the High Court’s

decision to reduce severance charges to a flat 40% of the

acquired lands’ value is set aside. The Reference Court’s

award of 50% severance charges calculated on the

market value of the unacquired remaining land is hereby

fully restored across all villages under challenge.

8. DETERMINATION ON ISSUE 4: ENTITLEMENT TO

STATUTORY SOLATIUM AND ADDITIONAL

BENEFITS ON AUXILIARY ASSETS

8.1. We now move to the issue of whether statutory solatium

under Section 23(2) and additional interest under

Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1894 are legally payable on

Page 41 of 50

auxiliary assets (standing trees, tubewells, kothas, and

severance charges).

The statutory scheme of Section 23 provides that

additional interest under Section 23(1A) and solatium

under Section 23(2) of the Act of 1894 are related strictly

to the market value of the land determined under

Section 23(1) First Clause of the Act of 1894.

8.2. The Reference Court, in Para 19 of its award, erred by

treating auxiliary assets as equivalent to primary land

value for the purpose of granting statutory benefits. The

Reference Court relied on the High Court precedent of

Improvement Trust, Jind v. Narinder Kumar,16 to

hold that:

“Claimants are entitled to 30% solatium on compensation amount of trees etc.—Trees are included in the definition of land as defined under Section 3 (a)—Compensation amount for trees will be deemed to be market value of land.”

This approach directly contravenes the definitive ruling

of this Court in State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh,17

which inter alia lays down thus: -

16 1990 (1) RRR 437 17 (2011) 4 SCC 734

Page 42 of 50

“The additional amount under Section 23(1-A) and solatium under Section 23(2) are both payable only on the market value determined under Section 23(1) of the Act and not on any other amount. Solatium under Section 23(2) is not payable on the additional amount nor additional amount under Section 23(1-A) payable on solatium. Solatium and additional amount are also not payable on the damages/expenses that may be awarded under second to sixth factors under Section 23(1) of the Act.”

8.3. The standing trees fall under Section 23(1) second factor

of the Act of 1894, severance damages fall under third

factor, and tubewells/kothas fall under fourth or fifth

factors. Thus, these factors constitute separate and

independent auxiliary heads of damage rather than land

market value under the first factor. As per ratio laid

down in Amarjit Singh (supra), these factors are

strictly excluded from attracting statutory solatium and

additional interest.

8.4. The High Court was therefore correct and legally

justified in Para 62 of its judgment, where it held:

“It is made clear that landowners would not be entitled for benefits of Section 23(1A) and 23(2) on account of the amount awarded for severance, fruit trees, tubewells and structures in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Amarjit Singh (2011) 4 SCC 734. In the same, it was held that Section 23(1) refers to the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification which is the relevant factor. Additional amounts are payable only on the market value determined and not on the other amounts which are to be kept in mind while determining the compensation which pertained to

Page 43 of 50

the damage sustained to taking of any standing trees or crops on the land or severance etc. Resultantly, the second to the sixth factors were excluded as such for the above- said benefits.”

8.5. Consequently, the High Court was correct in applying

the ratio laid down in State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh

(supra) under prevailing land acquisition law. The

precedent of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in

Improvement Trust, Jind (supra) cannot override the

subsequent ruling of the Apex Court in Amarjit Singh

(supra).

8.6. We therefore affirm this portion of the High Court’s

judgment.

9. DETERMINATION ON ISSUE 5: COMPENSATION FOR

TUBEWELLS

9.1. We now turn to the last issue of compensation for the

tubewell. Upon an exhaustive review of the evidence on

record and applicable land acquisition jurisprudence,

the High Court's determination to standardize tubewell

compensation at Rs. 50,000/- flat and excluding the

statutory additions under Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) of

the Act of 1894 is legally correct.

Page 44 of 50

9.2. The Reference Court in Karni Khera committed error in

blindly adopting private valuation reports produced by

PW - 1 Manhool Ram (Ex. P4 to P8) to enhance tubewell

compensation to Rs. 1,00,000/- per tubewell, as the

expert engineer who authored those reports was never

produced in the witness box to depose, prove his reports,

or face cross-examination by the State.

9.3. It is settled that mere marking or tendering of a private

document as an exhibit does not prove the truth of its

contents without examining its author. This Court in S.

Sangeetha & ORS. v. TMT. P. Ponni18 reiterated LIC

v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen19 where it observed:

“25. We are of the firm opinion that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law.

31. Under the law of evidence also, it is necessary that contents of documents are required to be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. At the most, admission of documents may amount to admission of contents but not its truth. Documents having not been produced and marked as required under the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon by the Court. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely filing in a Court.”

18 (2026 INSC 813) 19 (2010) 4 SCC 491

Page 45 of 50

9.4. Furthermore, mechanical components such as electric

motors, diesel engines, and surface pumps represent

movable property that are not destroyed during

acquisition and thus can be uninstalled, shifted, and re-

used on remaining holdings. Standardizing

compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 50,000/- appropriately

balances private inflation against government

underestimation to arrive at a realistic, uniform

displacement figure across all contiguous revenue

estates.

9.5. Additionally, the High Court correctly set aside the

Reference Court's direction granting 30% solatium

under Section 23(2) and 12% per annum additional

interest under Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1894 on top

of the tubewell awards. As discussed in the previous

issue, it is squarely governed by the binding precedent

of this Court in State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh

(supra), which laid down that statutory solatium and

additional amounts are not payable on damages or

Page 46 of 50

expenses assessed for standing structures, tubewells, or

severance.

9.6. Accordingly, the High Court’s order standardizing

tubewell compensation at Rs. 50,000/- per tubewell and

denying Section 23(1A) and Section 23(2) of the Act of

1894 statutory additions thereon stand fully affirmed.

10. Before concluding we would like to briefly discuss the

extent of interference permissible under Article 136 of

the Constitution of India. Since Article 136 has been

invoked in all the instant 47 civil appeals, it would be

appropriate to discuss the scope and ambit under the

said Article.

10.1. The landmark decisions of this Court dealing with scope

and ambit of Article 136, especially Pritam Singh vs.

State,20 Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Limited vs.

Commissioner of Income Tax,21 Delhi Judicial

Services Association vs. State of Gujarat22 and

Kunhayammed and Ors. vs. State of Kerala,23 in one

20 1950 SCC 189 21 AIR 1955 SC 65 22 (1991) 4 SCC 406 23 (2000) 6 SCC 359

Page 47 of 50

voice, lay down that the remedy under Article 136

cannot be sought as a matter of right, but is highly

discretionary in nature. This Article strikes to eliminate

miscarriage of justice rather than to do justice. This

remedy can be denied for various reasons, especially

when only executive action is assailed. This remedy is

also supervisory in nature, and due to non-obstante

clause, it prevails over all other articles in Chapter IV of

the Constitution.

10.2. We have no manner of doubt that the window of

interference under Article 136 is extremely limited and

restrictive; however, in the attending facts and

circumstances herein, we have attempted to remove

injustice or institutional high-handedness wherever it

was found.

11. CONCLUSION

All these 47 Civil Appeals are disposed of in the following

terms: -

11.1. On Market Value (Issue 1): We set aside the High Court’s

radial step-down model and restore the uniform market

Page 48 of 50

value of Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre across the villages

involved in these 47 civil appeals.

11.2. On Fruit-Bearing Trees (Issue 2): We affirm and uphold

the High Court’s restriction of tree compensation strictly

to the 280 pleaded trees (totaling Rs. 5,38,300/-).

11.3. On Severance Charges (Issue 3): We set aside the High

Court’s cap on acquired land and restore the Reference

Court’s award of 50% severance charges calculated on

the market value of the remaining unacquired land.

11.4. On Statutory Benefits (Issue 4): We affirm and uphold

the High Court’s denial of Section 23(1A) and Section

23(2) of the Act of 1894 benefits on auxiliary assets and

thus restrict the payment of solatium interest @ 30%

calculated exclusively on market value.

11.5. On Tube well Compensation (Issue 5): We affirm and

uphold the High Court’s award of Rs. 50,000/- flat per

tube well on account of displacement across all six

villages.

11.6. Let additional compensation be worked out and paid

within six (6) months from the date of communication of

Page 49 of 50

this order, by the official respondents to the landowners

in these 47 civil appeals.

11.7. In case, from any landowners, after re-working the

compensation amount as per this order, any amount

becomes recoverable, then due intimation in writing

shall be given to the respective landowners in these 47

civil appeals, and after affording due and sufficient

opportunity to all concerned, the recovery shall be made

within a period of nine (09) months, from the date of

communication of this order.

11.8. No orders as to costs.

……………………………...J. (DIPANKAR DATTA)

…...………………………...J. (SHEEL NAGU)

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 29, 2026

Page 50 of 50