RFA-1991 127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Swaran Singh State of Punjab and CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CM-3908 terms of the decision rendered by this Court in RFA objection to the prayer mad through the contents of the application, the same is allowed oral request of the parties, the main appeal is ordered on board for hearing today itself. 1991-2002 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CM RFA Date of Decision: 1 Swaran Singh Versus State of Punjab and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 08-CI-2023 This is an application for disposal of the main appeal in terms of the decision rendered by this Court in RFA Notice of the application was issued on 13.09.2023. Learned counsel for the respondents does not objection to the prayer made in the application. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the application, the same is allowed oral request of the parties, the main appeal is ordered on board for hearing today itself. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-3908-CI-2023 in/and RFA-1991-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.01.2026 …..Appellant …..Respondents HARKESH MANUJA R.S. Manhas, Advocate Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab. This is an application for disposal of the main appeal in terms of the decision rendered by this Court in RFA-1993-2002. Notice of the application was issued on 13.09.2023. Learned counsel for the respondents does not raise any e in the application. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the application, the same is allowed. On the oral request of the parties, the main appeal is ordered to be taken up This is an application for disposal of the main appeal in raise any Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone . On the to be taken up SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1991 MAIN CASE award dated 0 cum-Addl. District Judge, 2. the appellant situated in the revenue estate of Village Teeka Doong, Gurdaspur) came to be acquired vide notifications dated and 24.11.1995 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The acquisition was carried out for public purpose of Shahpurkandi Dam Project construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the LAC') on Rs.1,33,490 landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be dismissed. present appeal has been preferred. 3. evidence in the shape of deposition of AW Saini, approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, valuation report and assessment report regarding the construction existing over the acquired land were proved on record as 1991-2002 (O&M) [2] N CASE By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 01.12.2001 passed by the learned Reference Court Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur. Briefly stating, in the present case, some land owned by the appellant situated in the revenue estate of Village Teeka Doong, Tehsil Dhar Kalan, Gurdaspur) came to be acquired vide notifications dated 24.11.1995 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The acquisition was carried out for public purpose of Shahpurkandi Dam Project. At the time of acqui construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the LAC') on 12.03.1998 granting compensation to the tune of 1,33,490/- to the landowner(s). Being agg landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act which came dismissed. Aggrieved of the decision dated 0 esent appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by way of e in the shape of deposition of AW , approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, valuation report and assessment report regarding the construction existing over the acquired land were proved on record as By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an passed by the learned Reference Court Briefly stating, in the present case, some land owned by the appellant situated in the revenue estate of Village Tharra Jhikla Tehsil Dhar Kalan, Pathankot (erstwhile district Gurdaspur) came to be acquired vide notifications dated 23.06.1995 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The acquisition was carried out for public purpose i.e. for Hydel Channel . At the time of acquisition, certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the granting compensation to the tune of to the landowner(s). Being aggrieved, the appellant landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act which came Aggrieved of the decision dated 01.12.2001, the Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by way of e in the shape of deposition of AW-1 namely, Ved Parkash , approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, valuation report and assessment report regarding the construction existing over the acquired land were proved on record as By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an passed by the learned Reference Court- Briefly stating, in the present case, some land owned by Jhikla Pathankot (erstwhile district 23.06.1995 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The i.e. for Hydel Channel sition, certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the granting compensation to the tune of rieved, the appellant- landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act which came , the Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by way of Ved Parkash , approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, valuation report and assessment report regarding the construction existing over the acquired land were proved on record as SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1991 Exs. A-2 and A was assessed at Rs. was entitled for the same benefit. 4. of respondents submits tha the learned Reference Court upon appreciation of evidence available on record and the same thus, calls for no interference and the present appeal needs to be dismissed. 5. through the paper behalf of the appellant 6. sum of Rs. over the acquired la Goel, Extra Assistant Engineer, PWD, B&R was passed on the basis of assessment made by the respondents authority acquired land Schedule of Rates (CSR) as applicable to PWD Irrigation Branch. 7. been proved on record as Rs. through deposi (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan (Ex.A and Valuation Report (Ex.A 1991-2002 (O&M) [3] 2 and A-1 respectively whereby, the total value of the building was assessed at Rs.4,44,000/- and thus, the appellant was entitled for the same benefit. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that a well-reasoned award was passed by the learned Reference Court upon appreciation of evidence available on record and the same thus, calls for no interference and the present appeal needs to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-landowner. As per the records, the appellant sum of Rs.1,33,490/- as compensation towards structure existing over the acquired land. From the deposition of RW Goel, Extra Assistant Engineer, PWD, B&R was passed on the basis of assessment made by the respondents . The valuation of house and other structures over the acquired land needs to be carried out as per the current Common Schedule of Rates (CSR) as applicable to PWD Irrigation Branch. On the contrary, the valuation of the super structure has been proved on record as Rs.4,40,000/ through deposition of AW-1/Ved Parkash Saini (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan (Ex.A Valuation Report (Ex.A-1). respectively whereby, the total value of the building and thus, the appellant-landowner On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf reasoned award was passed by the learned Reference Court upon appreciation of evidence available on record and the same thus, calls for no interference and the present appeal needs to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I find substance in the submissions made on As per the records, the appellant-landowner was awarded as compensation towards structure existing nd. From the deposition of RW-1, Fakir Chand Goel, Extra Assistant Engineer, PWD, B&R, it is clear that an award was passed on the basis of assessment made by the respondents and other structures over the needs to be carried out as per the current Common Schedule of Rates (CSR) as applicable to PWD Irrigation Branch. On the contrary, the valuation of the super structure has 4,40,000/- by the appellant-landowner Ved Parkash Saini; the approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan (Ex.A respectively whereby, the total value of the building landowner On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf reasoned award was passed by the learned Reference Court upon appreciation of evidence available on record and the same thus, calls for no interference and the and gone book. I find substance in the submissions made on landowner was awarded as compensation towards structure existing Fakir Chand , it is clear that an award was passed on the basis of assessment made by the respondents- and other structures over the needs to be carried out as per the current Common On the contrary, the valuation of the super structure has landowner ; the approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan (Ex.A-2) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1991 8. respondents have not been able to impeach the credibili deposition, thus, in such circumstances, the Assessment Report (Ex.A-2) needs to be relied upon as a relevant and substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation in favour of appellant Court in " reported as 2012(1) RCR(Civil), 192 went on the valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting the same, in order to balance the equities, the appellan for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two valuations i.e. one made by the LAC @ Rs.1,33,490/ one which has been proved on record by the appellant through the expert valuer (AW Rs.2,86,745/ statutory benefits. 9. of. 10. expired in the appeal(s)/cros legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications before the learned Executing Court. 1991-2002 (O&M) [4] Despite a lengthy cross respondents have not been able to impeach the credibili deposition, thus, in such circumstances, the Assessment Report ) needs to be relied upon as a relevant and substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation in favour of appellant-landowner. Under similar circu Court in "Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rattan Chand and Anr. reported as 2012(1) RCR(Civil), 192 went on the valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting the same, in order to balance the equities, the appellan for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two valuations i.e. one made by the LAC @ Rs.1,33,490/ one which has been proved on record by the appellant through the expert valuer (AW-1) @ Rs. Rs.2,86,745/- [(Rs.4,40,000+ 1,33,490) statutory benefits. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is disposed 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 appropriate applications before the learned Executing Court. Despite a lengthy cross-examination of AW respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his deposition, thus, in such circumstances, the Assessment Report ) needs to be relied upon as a relevant and substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation in landowner. Under similar circumstances, this Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rattan Chand and Anr. reported as 2012(1) RCR(Civil), 192 went on to take average of both the valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting the same, in order to balance the equities, the appellant-landowner is held entitled for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two valuations i.e. one made by the LAC @ Rs.1,33,490/-and the other one which has been proved on record by the appellant-landowner 1) @ Rs.4,40,000/- which comes to (Rs.4,40,000+ 1,33,490)/2] alongwith all other In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is disposed Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately 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 appropriate applications examination of AW-1, ty of his deposition, thus, in such circumstances, the Assessment Report ) needs to be relied upon as a relevant and substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation in mstances, this Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rattan Chand and Anr." to take average of both the valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting the same, in landowner is held entitled for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two and the other landowner which comes to alongwith all other In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is disposed Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately 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 appropriate applications SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1991 11. disposed of. 19.01.2026 sanjay 1991-2002 (O&M) [5] Pending misc. application(s), if disposed of. .01.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document