RFA-815 114 (2) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Kanshi Nath and another The Land Acquisition Collector, Phase D, Amritsar CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) laid to the decision dated Additional District Judge, Reference Court compensation 2. situated Government of Punjab vide notification dated 02.06.1988, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for ‘the Act’, for public purpose, namely, for ‘ Beautification Scheme 815-1994 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: Kanshi Nath and another Versus The Land Acquisition Collector, Phase D, Amritsar CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Parteek Mahajan, Advocate and Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 23.09.1993 Additional District Judge, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Reference Court’), for enhancement of market value and the compensation amount. Briefly stating, certain land/ in Gali Fatehbadian, Amritsar, was acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notification dated 02.06.1988, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for ‘the Act’, for public purpose, namely, for ‘ Beautification Scheme, Amritsar’. The Land Acquisition Collector ( ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-815-1994 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.03.2026 …….Appellants Versus The Land Acquisition Collector, Phase D, Amritsar ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Parteek Mahajan, Advocate and Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocate Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab. way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been 23.09.1993 passed by the learned (hereinafter referred to as ‘the , for enhancement of market value and the land/owned by the appellant, , Amritsar, was acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notification dated 02.06.1988, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, for public purpose, namely, for ‘Golden Temple The Land Acquisition Collector ( way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been passed by the learned the , for enhancement of market value and the owned by the appellant, , Amritsar, was acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notification dated 02.06.1988, issued short Golden Temple The Land Acquisition Collector (for MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.01 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-815 short ‘the LAC’), vide award dated 27.06.1989, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 4,400/ commercial sites and Rs. 2,200/ addition to valuing the structures Rs.3,54,690/ LAC awarded Rs. 2,20,492.26 towards the structures and 2,59,600/ yard for 72 sq. yards and Rs. 4,400/ along with all other statutory benefits including solatium @ 30% and interest thereupon, under the Act. 3. Reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be dismissed by the Reference Court vide its decision dated 23.09.1993, while upholding the award passed by the LAC. 4. Court, the present appeal landowner 5. through the paper 6. parties tha value of the land acquired for the public purpose namely, “ beautification scheme/Galiara Yojana around Golden Temple, Amritsar” (as mentioned in the award by the LAC in the present case) 815-1994 (O&M) [2] ‘the LAC’), vide award dated 27.06.1989, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 4,400/ commercial sites and Rs. 2,200/- per square yard for residential addition to valuing the structures Rs.3,54,690/-. Subsequently, after accounting for depreciation, LAC awarded Rs. 2,20,492.26 towards the structures and 2,59,600/- towards the land value (calculated at Rs. 2,200/ yard for 72 sq. yards and Rs. 4,400/ along with all other statutory benefits including solatium @ 30% and interest thereupon, under the Act. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/landowners invoked Reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be dismissed by the Reference Court vide its decision dated 23.09.1993, while upholding the award passed by the LAC. Aggrieved of the Award passed Court, the present appeal was preferred at the instance of appellant landowners. I have head learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the parties that the matter with respect to the determination of market value of the land acquired for the public purpose namely, “ beautification scheme/Galiara Yojana around Golden Temple, ” (as mentioned in the award by the LAC in the present case) ] ‘the LAC’), vide award dated 27.06.1989, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 4,400/- per square yard for per square yard for residential addition to valuing the structures on the acquired land fter accounting for depreciation, t LAC awarded Rs. 2,20,492.26 towards the structures and Rs. calculated at Rs. 2,200/- per sq. yard for 72 sq. yards and Rs. 4,400/- per sq. yard for 23 sq. yards along with all other statutory benefits including solatium @ 30% and Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/landowners invoked Reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be dismissed by the Reference Court vide its decision dated 23.09.1993, while upholding the award passed by the LAC. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference preferred at the instance of appellant I have head learned counsel for the parties and gone It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the t the matter with respect to the determination of market value of the land acquired for the public purpose namely, “ beautification scheme/Galiara Yojana around Golden Temple, ” (as mentioned in the award by the LAC in the present case) ‘the LAC’), vide award dated 27.06.1989, assessed the market rd for per square yard for residential in on the acquired land at the Rs. per sq. per sq. yard for 23 sq. yards) along with all other statutory benefits including solatium @ 30% and Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/landowners invoked Reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be dismissed by the Reference Court vide its decision dated 23.09.1993, while by the learned Reference preferred at the instance of appellants/ I have head learned counsel for the parties and gone It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the t the matter with respect to the determination of market value of the land acquired for the public purpose namely, “for beautification scheme/Galiara Yojana around Golden Temple, ” (as mentioned in the award by the LAC in the present case) MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.01 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-815 in pursuance of notification dated 02.06.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Act, stands adjudicated upon by this Court wide decision dated 28.11.2025 passed in The Land Acquisition Collector, Phase A’, Amritsar para-No. 10 from the aforementioned judgment is extracted here under:- 7. to the same benefit of Rs. 4,805/ per square yard for the commercial and residential portions, respectively, of the property in question, towards the land value has been awarded to other landowners Kishore available under the amended provision 1894 as applicable to the present acquisition. 8. the area under acquisition while submitting that area of his acquired land was measuring 149.4 square yards whereas the measurement 815-1994 (O&M) [3] ance of notification dated 02.06.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Act, stands adjudicated upon by this Court wide decision dated 28.11.2025 passed in RFA No. 436 of 1995 The Land Acquisition Collector, Phase A’, Amritsar No. 10 from the aforementioned judgment is extracted here “10. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, by applying the increase per annum at the rate of 12.5% per annum on compound basis, the market price of the acquired la of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, i.e. 02.06.1988, comes to Rs. 4,805/ and Rs. 2,403 per square yard for commercial and residential sites, respectively.” Accordingly, the appellants/landowners are held to the same benefit of Rs. 4,805/- per square yard and Rs. 2,403/ per square yard for the commercial and residential portions, respectively, of the property in question, towards the land value has been awarded to other landowners Kishore (supra) along with all other statutory benefits and interest available under the amended provision 1894 as applicable to the present acquisition. Further, a plea has been raised by the appellant di the area under acquisition while submitting that area of his acquired land was measuring 149.4 square yards whereas the measurement ] ance of notification dated 02.06.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Act, stands adjudicated upon by this Court wide decision dated RFA No. 436 of 1995 titled ‘Nand Kishore vs. The Land Acquisition Collector, Phase A’, Amritsar’. Releva No. 10 from the aforementioned judgment is extracted here Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, by applying the increase per annum at the rate of 12.5% per annum on compound basis, the market price of the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, i.e. 02.06.1988, comes to Rs. 4,805/- per square yard and Rs. 2,403 per square yard for commercial and residential sites, respectively.” Accordingly, the appellants/landowners are held entitled per square yard and Rs. 2,403/ per square yard for the commercial and residential portions, respectively, of the property in question, towards the land value has been awarded to other landowners by this Court in case of Nand along with all other statutory benefits and interest available under the amended provision of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as applicable to the present acquisition. Further, a plea has been raised by the appellant disputing the area under acquisition while submitting that area of his acquired land was measuring 149.4 square yards whereas the measurement ance of notification dated 02.06.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Act, stands adjudicated upon by this Court wide decision dated Nand Kishore vs. ’. Relevant No. 10 from the aforementioned judgment is extracted here Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, by applying the increase per annum at the rate of 12.5% per annum on compound basis, nd as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, i.e. per square yard and Rs. 2,403 per square yard for commercial and entitled per square yard and Rs. 2,403/- per square yard for the commercial and residential portions, as Nand along with all other statutory benefits and interest of the Land Acquisition Act, sputing the area under acquisition while submitting that area of his acquired land was measuring 149.4 square yards whereas the measurement MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.01 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-815 carried out by LAC reflected it to be 95 square yards. From the material available on record, the plea raised by the been established by way of any demarcation report or any other documentary evidence and thus, no interference is called for to the said extent with the impugned award. 9. some meri appellants/landowners that while assessing the market value of the structures existing on the acquired land, 1,34,197.74/ value assessed fo perusal of the award dated 27.06.1989 passed by the LAC shows that the value of the structures on the acquired land was initially assessed at Rs. was only Rs. from the assessed value without recording any reasons absence of any justification for the deduction made by the LAC, such action on the part of unwarranted. 10. for the complete amount of compensation as assessed by the LAC including the deduction of Rs. 11. dated 23.09.1993 815-1994 (O&M) [4] carried out by LAC reflected it to be 95 square yards. From the material available on record, the plea raised by the been established by way of any demarcation report or any other documentary evidence and thus, no interference is called for to the said extent with the impugned award. However, in the humble opinion of this Court, there is some merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants/landowners that while assessing the market value of the structures existing on the acquired land, 1,34,197.74/- made by the LAC on account of depreciation from the value assessed for the structures was arbitrary and unjustified. perusal of the award dated 27.06.1989 passed by the LAC shows that the value of the structures on the acquired land was initially assessed at Rs. 3,54,690/- whereas the amount ultimately awarded was only Rs. 2,20,492.26. A deduction of Rs. from the assessed value without recording any reasons absence of any justification for the deduction made by the LAC, such action on the part of the respondents is unjustifiable and unwarranted. Accordingly, the appellants/ landowners are held entitled for the complete amount of compensation as assessed by the LAC including the deduction of Rs. 1,34,197.7 In view of the aforesaid discu 23.09.1993 passed by the learned Reference Court is modified ] carried out by LAC reflected it to be 95 square yards. From the material available on record, the plea raised by the appellant has not been established by way of any demarcation report or any other documentary evidence and thus, no interference is called for to the said extent with the impugned award. However, in the humble opinion of this Court, there is t in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants/landowners that while assessing the market value of the structures existing on the acquired land, the deduction of Rs. made by the LAC on account of depreciation from the r the structures was arbitrary and unjustified. perusal of the award dated 27.06.1989 passed by the LAC shows that the value of the structures on the acquired land was initially whereas the amount ultimately awarded . A deduction of Rs. 1,34,197.74 was made from the assessed value without recording any reasons. In the absence of any justification for the deduction made by the LAC, such the respondents is unjustifiable and Accordingly, the appellants/ landowners are held entitled for the complete amount of compensation as assessed by the LAC 1,34,197.74. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court is modified carried out by LAC reflected it to be 95 square yards. From the appellant has not been established by way of any demarcation report or any other documentary evidence and thus, no interference is called for to the However, in the humble opinion of this Court, there is t in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants/landowners that while assessing the market value of the the deduction of Rs. made by the LAC on account of depreciation from the r the structures was arbitrary and unjustified. A perusal of the award dated 27.06.1989 passed by the LAC shows that the value of the structures on the acquired land was initially whereas the amount ultimately awarded was made In the absence of any justification for the deduction made by the LAC, such the respondents is unjustifiable and Accordingly, the appellants/ landowners are held entitled for the complete amount of compensation as assessed by the LAC ssion, the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court is modified MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.01 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-815 and the appellants/ landowners are held entitled for award of market value @ for the commercial and res of structure on the acquired land, besides all other statutory benefits and interest as provided in the Act (as amended up especially the interest on solatium as well. 12. unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropria 13. disposed of. 20.03.2026 sanjay 815-1994 (O&M) [5] and the appellants/ landowners are held entitled for award of market value @ Rs. 4,805/- per square yard and Rs. 2,403/ for the commercial and residential portions of structure on the acquired land, besides all other statutory benefits and interest as provided in the Act (as amended up especially the interest on solatium as well. Disposed of accordingly. Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .03.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? ] and the appellants/ landowners are held entitled for award of market per square yard and Rs. 2,403/- per square yard idential portions; Rs. 3,54,690/- on account of structure on the acquired land, besides all other statutory benefits and interest as provided in the Act (as amended up-to-date), especially the interest on solatium as well. Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving te application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No and the appellants/ landowners are held entitled for award of market per square yard on account of structure on the acquired land, besides all other statutory benefits date), Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.01 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt