RFA-1912 110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sohan Singh and another State of Punjab and anr. CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) laid to the decision dated Additional District Judge, ‘the Reference Court’) 2. Arain, Tehsil and District Ropar Government of 03.07.1992, Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') for of “Hydel Channel of SYL Ropar Power House 05.07.1994/30.101995 1912-2001 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: 21.01.2026 Sohan Singh and another Versus State of Punjab and anr. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH Present: Mr.Nitish Kaushal, Advocate for the appellants/ landowners. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G., Punjab. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present appeal challenge has been laid to the decision dated 15.12.2000 Additional District Judge, Rupnagar-cum ‘the Reference Court’). Briefly stating, some land, situated Arain, Tehsil and District Ropar, was sought to be acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notifications dated 03.07.1992, issued under Sections 4 Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') for public Hydel Channel of SYL Ropar Power House 05.07.1994/30.101995 was passed by the ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-1912-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.01.2026 …….Appellants Versus ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Nitish Kaushal, Advocate for the appellants/ landowners. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G., Punjab. way of filing the present appeal challenge has been 15.12.2000 passed by the learned cum-Reference Court, (for short land, situated in Village Mianpur , was sought to be acquired by the vide notifications dated 18.06.1991 and 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition public purpose i.e. for constructions Hydel Channel of SYL Ropar Power House”. An award dated was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector way of filing the present appeal challenge has been passed by the learned , (for short Mianpur , was sought to be acquired by the and of the Land Acquisition constructions An award dated Land Acquisition Collector SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.29 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1912 (for short ‘the LAC’) Act assessing the compensation of 2 trees @ Rs.1,34,000/ 3. landowner which came to be 4. through the paper behalf of the appellants/ landowners. 5. determination of market value with respect to 23 310 trees 6. the factum of number of trees being 230 of guava and 310 of mango existing over the land owned by the appellants/ landowners at the time of its acquisition. Further, appellants/landowners were awarded ma valuation report (Ex.R4) provided by Punjab. Karnail Singh Ex.R4 has categorically deposed that the value of trees was assessed as per Dr. adding the fuel/ timber value. 7. 1912-2001 (O&M) [2] (for short ‘the LAC’) in exercise of its powers under Section 11 of the Act assessing the compensation of 23 @ Rs.1,34,000/-. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant landowners filed reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find substance behalf of the appellants/ landowners. The only dispute in the present appeal relates to the determination of market value with respect to 23 trees of mango. As per the records, both the parties h the factum of number of trees being 230 of guava and 310 of mango existing over the land owned by the appellants/ landowners at the time of its acquisition. Further, a perusal of record shows that the appellants/landowners were awarded ma valuation report (Ex.R4) which was prepared on the basis of provided by Sh. Parminder Singh, Deputy Director, Horticulture, Punjab. Karnail Singh (RW1), who while proving Ex.R4 has categorically deposed that the value of trees was assessed as per Dr.Nijjar formula of adding the fuel/ timber value. On the contrary, as per the formula prepared by Dr. Nijj ] in exercise of its powers under Section 11 of the 30 Gauva trees and 310 Mango aforesaid award, the appellant reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I find substance in the submissions made on The only dispute in the present appeal relates to the determination of market value with respect to 230 trees of guava and As per the records, both the parties have consented to the factum of number of trees being 230 of guava and 310 of mango existing over the land owned by the appellants/ landowners at the perusal of record shows that the appellants/landowners were awarded market value according to the which was prepared on the basis of details h. Parminder Singh, Deputy Director, Horticulture, while proving the valuation report Ex.R4 has categorically deposed that the value of trees was r formula of 15.05.1985, however, without On the contrary, as per the formula prepared by Dr. Nijj in exercise of its powers under Section 11 of the rees and 310 Mango aforesaid award, the appellants/ reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone in the submissions made on The only dispute in the present appeal relates to the trees of guava and ave consented to the factum of number of trees being 230 of guava and 310 of mango, existing over the land owned by the appellants/ landowners at the perusal of record shows that the according to the details h. Parminder Singh, Deputy Director, Horticulture, report Ex.R4 has categorically deposed that the value of trees was , however, without On the contrary, as per the formula prepared by Dr. Nijjar SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.29 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1912 (the then Director Horticultu be added while making the assessment of market value towards the trees standing over the acquired land. This fact has even been admitted by respondent’s own witness RW1 cross-examination of RW1 b hereunder: 8. Reference Court is modified entitled for grant of fuel/ timber value as per the formula of Dr.G.S. Nijjar against 230 remaining details to be taken from 9. favour of appellants/ landowners was prepared by Dr. Nijj entitled for suitable appreciation for the time gap w.e.f. May 1985 till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case 1912-2001 (O&M) [3] (the then Director Horticulture, Punjab) the fuel/ timber value has to be added while making the assessment of market value towards the trees standing over the acquired land. This fact has even been admitted by respondent’s own witness RW1 examination of RW1 being relevant in this regard is extracted hereunder:- “Parminder Singh visited the spot. I had not gone to the spot. I had applied Dr. Nizzar formula. It is correct that I had not added fuel/ timber value. It is correct that as per Dr. Nizzar formula fuel value of fruit trees has to be added. It is correct that this formula was evolved in 1985. I have assessed the value of the year 1985. It is correct that I had not added the price index. It is incorrect that I had assessed inadequate value. It i deposing falsely.” In such circumstances, the award passed by the learned Reference Court is modified. The appellants/ landowners shall be entitled for grant of fuel/ timber value as per the formula of Dr.G.S. r against 230 trees of guava and 310 remaining details to be taken from valuation Furthermore, once the assessment of market value in favour of appellants/ landowners was prepared by Dr. Nijjar in May 1985, the appellants/landowners are entitled for suitable appreciation for the time gap w.e.f. May 1985 till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case ] re, Punjab) the fuel/ timber value has to be added while making the assessment of market value towards the trees standing over the acquired land. This fact has even been admitted by respondent’s own witness RW1-Karnail Singh. The eing relevant in this regard is extracted “Parminder Singh visited the spot. I had not gone to the spot. I had applied Dr. Nizzar formula. It is correct that I had not added fuel/ timber value. It is correct that as per Dr. Nizzar formula fuel and timber value of fruit trees has to be added. It is correct that this formula was evolved in 1985. I have assessed the value of the year 1985. It is correct that I had not added the price index. It is incorrect that I had assessed inadequate value. It is in correct that I am In such circumstances, the award passed by the learned . The appellants/ landowners shall be entitled for grant of fuel/ timber value as per the formula of Dr.G.S. trees of guava and 310 trees of mango with the valuation report Ex.R4. Furthermore, once the assessment of market value in favour of appellants/ landowners was made using the formula 5, the appellants/landowners are entitled for suitable appreciation for the time gap w.e.f. May 1985 till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case re, Punjab) the fuel/ timber value has to be added while making the assessment of market value towards the trees standing over the acquired land. This fact has even been Karnail Singh. The eing relevant in this regard is extracted “Parminder Singh visited the spot. I had not gone to the spot. I had applied Dr. Nizzar formula. It is correct that I had not added fuel/ timber value. It is and timber value of fruit trees has to be added. It is correct that this formula was evolved in 1985. I have assessed the value of the year 1985. It is correct that I had not added the price index. It is incorrect that I had s in correct that I am In such circumstances, the award passed by the learned . The appellants/ landowners shall be entitled for grant of fuel/ timber value as per the formula of Dr.G.S. of mango with the Furthermore, once the assessment of market value in the formula 5, the appellants/landowners are entitled for suitable appreciation for the time gap w.e.f. May 1985 till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.29 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1912 i.e. 18.06.1991 by taking into account appropriate increase in the price index 10. acquired vide the 1894 Act and the assessment of compensation was made on the basis of formula dated 15.05.1985 whereas, und 1985-1991 which had gone from 127 increase its formula dated 15.05.1985. The enhancement of compensation against trees approved by this Court vide decision dated 02.08.2012 passed in RFA-3478 Shri Kesar Singh son of Shri Kesar Singh successor in interst of late Shri Kesar, both residents of Village Hardosaran, Tehsil Pathankot Vs. Punjab State through Collector Gurdaspur and others.” 1912-2001 (O&M) [4] i.e. 18.06.1991 by taking into account appropriate increase in the price index during such period. Therefore, since the land in the present case was acquired vide notification dated 18.06.1991 the 1894 Act and the assessment of compensation was made on the basis of formula dated 15.05.1985 whereas, und 1991 there had been appropriate increase in the price index which had gone from 127.2 points to increase of around 80% over the price assessed by Dr. G.S. Nijj its formula dated 15.05.1985. The enhancement of compensation trees in terms of such increase in price index has even been approved by this Court vide decision dated 02.08.2012 passed in 3478-1992, titled as Kartar Singh and Karnail Singh sons of Shri Kesar Singh son of Shri Kesar Singh successor in interst of late Shri Kesar, both residents of Village Hardosaran, Tehsil Pathankot Vs. Punjab State through Collector Gurdaspur and Relevant para thereof is reproduced hereunder: “The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for value of the trees which were lost to the owner by the acquisition of land. The grievance expressed is that the Reference Court had accepted the valuation of the trees made as per the formula called 'Dr. Nijjar's formula' for assessing the trees for the year 1985. The learned counsel for the appellants would argue that in Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited Versus Zail Singh in RFA ] i.e. 18.06.1991 by taking into account appropriate increase in the Therefore, since the land in the present case was 18.06.1991 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act and the assessment of compensation was made on the basis of formula dated 15.05.1985 whereas, undisputedly between there had been appropriate increase in the price index points to 207.8 points, thereby making over the price assessed by Dr. G.S. Nijjar in its formula dated 15.05.1985. The enhancement of compensation in terms of such increase in price index has even been approved by this Court vide decision dated 02.08.2012 passed in Kartar Singh and Karnail Singh sons of Shri Kesar Singh son of Shri Kesar Singh successor in interst of late Shri Kesar, both residents of Village Hardosaran, Tehsil Pathankot Vs. Punjab State through Collector Gurdaspur and ra thereof is reproduced hereunder:- “The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for value of the trees which were lost to the owner by the acquisition of land. The grievance expressed is that the Reference Court had accepted the valuation of the trees made as per the formula ijjar's formula' for assessing the trees for the year 1985. The learned counsel for the appellants would argue that in Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited Versus Zail Singh in RFA i.e. 18.06.1991 by taking into account appropriate increase in the Therefore, since the land in the present case was issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act and the assessment of compensation was made on the isputedly between there had been appropriate increase in the price index points, thereby making r in its formula dated 15.05.1985. The enhancement of compensation in terms of such increase in price index has even been approved by this Court vide decision dated 02.08.2012 passed in Kartar Singh and Karnail Singh sons of Shri Kesar Singh son of Shri Kesar Singh successor in interst of late Shri Kesar, both residents of Village Hardosaran, Tehsil Pathankot Vs. Punjab State through Collector Gurdaspur and “The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for value of the trees which were lost to the owner by the acquisition of land. The grievance expressed is that the Reference Court had accepted the valuation of the trees made as per the formula ijjar's formula' for assessing the trees for the year 1985. The learned counsel for the appellants would argue that in Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited Versus Zail Singh in RFA SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.29 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1912 11. hereinabove, the present appeal is allowed to the extent that the appellant value as per Dr.N and above the amount assessed vide award dated 05.07.1994/30.10.1995 and 310 Mango under the 1894 Act. 12. disposed of. 21.01.2026 sanjay 1912-2001 (O&M) [5] No.1907 of 2002, decided on 28.09.2010, this Court had factored the increase for assessment of value of trees for the subsequent years by taking note of the increase in price index. In this case, the learned counsel argues that as against the valuation made as per Dr. Nijjar's formula of the year 1985, the price index had gone from 127 points to 150 points in 1987. This, according to him, would mean an increase of 23% over the price assessed by the application of Dr. Nijjar's formula. 2. I adopt the valuation and would provide for 23% increase on the valuation m application of Dr. Nijjar's formula……..” Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present appeal is allowed to the extent that the appellants-landowners shall be entitled for value as per Dr.Nijjar’s formula along with increase and above the amount assessed vide award dated 05.07.1994/30.10.1995 towards compensation for and 310 Mango trees besides all other statutory benefits provided under the 1894 Act. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 21.01.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? ] No.1907 of 2002, decided on 28.09.2010, this Court ctored the increase for assessment of value of trees for the subsequent years by taking note of the increase in price index. In this case, the learned counsel argues that as against the valuation made as per Dr. Nijjar's formula of the year 1985, the price index had gone from 127 points to 150 points in 1987. This, according to him, would mean an increase of 23% over the price assessed by the application of Dr. I adopt the valuation and would provide for 23% increase on the valuation made as per the application of Dr. Nijjar's formula……..” Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present appeal is allowed to the extent that the shall be entitled for award of fuel/ timber formula along with increase of 80% over and above the amount assessed vide award dated towards compensation for 230 Gauva trees besides all other statutory benefits provided misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No No.1907 of 2002, decided on 28.09.2010, this Court ctored the increase for assessment of value of trees for the subsequent years by taking note of the increase in price index. In this case, the learned counsel argues that as against the valuation made as per Dr. Nijjar's formula of the year 1985, the price index had gone from 127 points to 150 points in 1987. This, according to him, would mean an increase of 23% over the price assessed by the application of Dr. I adopt the valuation and would provide for ade as per the Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present appeal is allowed to the extent that the award of fuel/ timber % over and above the amount assessed vide award dated 0 Gauva trees besides all other statutory benefits provided misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.29 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document