RFA-532 117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA State of Punjab and Shanti Devi and ors. CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) laid to the decision dated Additional District Judge, 2. within the revenue estate of District Gurdaspur Punjab vide notifications dated under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for Project’. award 20.04.1994 bearing tress 532-1996 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: 1 State of Punjab and ors. Versus Shanti Devi and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH Present: Mr.Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab for the appellants. None for the respondents. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present appeal challenge has been laid to the decision dated 01.12.1995 Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur-cum Briefly stating, 40 Kanals 12 Marlas of within the revenue estate of Phangota Tika, Katal, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, was sought to be acquired by vide notifications dated 13.0 Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for . The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide 20.04.1994 assessed market value in respect of the bearing tress @ Rs.47166/- including 30% solatium and 12% ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-532-1996 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.01.2026 …….Appellants Versus ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr.Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab None for the respondents. way of filing the present appeal challenge has been 01.12.1995 passed by the learned cum-Reference Court. 40 Kanals 12 Marlas of land, situated angota Tika, Katal, Tehsil Pathankot, was sought to be acquired by the Government of 03.1992 and 27.07.1992 issued Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for ‘Ranjit Sagar Dam lector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide assessed market value in respect of the fruit including 30% solatium and 12% way of filing the present appeal challenge has been passed by the learned land, situated angota Tika, Katal, Tehsil Pathankot, the Government of 3.1992 and 27.07.1992 issued Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short Ranjit Sagar Dam lector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide fruit including 30% solatium and 12% SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-532 additional amount and all other statutory benefits as provided under the Act. 3. landowners filed which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 50% over the market price of the fruit LAC as well as besides all other statutory benefits under the Act. 4. Court, the present appea 5. respondents/ landowners. 6. gone through the paper 7. notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.03.1992 and the award in favour of the respondents/ landowners qua the fruit bearing trees along with market value for the acquired land was passed on 20.04.1994. As per the evidence available on record in the form of assessment Sagar, Horticulture Development Officer, the learned Reference Court, it can be safely concluded 532-1996 (O&M) [2] additional amount and all other statutory benefits as provided under Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ landowners filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 01.12.1995 while enhancing the compensation by ver the market price of the fruit as well as solatium @ 30% and 12% additional amount as besides all other statutory benefits under the Act. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeal was preferred at the instance of No one has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondents/ landowners. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants gone through the paper-book. A perusal of the record shows that in the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.03.1992 and the award in favour of the respondents/ landowners qua the fruit bearing trees along with market value for the acquired land was ssed on 20.04.1994. As per the evidence available on record in the assessment report Ex.R1 prepared and given Sagar, Horticulture Development Officer, learned Reference Court, it can be safely concluded ] additional amount and all other statutory benefits as provided under Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide enhancing the compensation by ver the market price of the fruit bearing trees as awarded by and 12% additional amount as besides all other statutory benefits under the Act. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference preferred at the instance of State. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the appellants-State and A perusal of the record shows that in the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.03.1992 and the award in favour of the respondents/ landowners qua the fruit bearing trees along with market value for the acquired land was ssed on 20.04.1994. As per the evidence available on record in the report Ex.R1 prepared and given by RW1-Karun Sagar, Horticulture Development Officer, coupled with the finding of learned Reference Court, it can be safely concluded that the additional amount and all other statutory benefits as provided under Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide enhancing the compensation by trees as awarded by and 12% additional amount as Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference No one has chosen to appear on behalf of the State and A perusal of the record shows that in the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.03.1992 and the award in favour of the respondents/ landowners qua the fruit bearing trees along with market value for the acquired land was ssed on 20.04.1994. As per the evidence available on record in the Karun coupled with the finding of the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-532 assessment of compensation for the trees was made on the basis of formula prepared by in May 1985. 8. has granted in favour of respondents/ landowners price index w.e.f. Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand which method has been approved by this Court vide its RFA No. 3478 Punjab through Collector, Gurdaspur and ors. 9. passed by the learned Reference Court calls for no in Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. 10. disposed of. 19.01.2026 sanjay 532-1996 (O&M) [3] assessment of compensation for the trees was made on the basis of formula prepared by Dr. Nijjer (the then in May 1985. The learned Reference Court vide its impugned award has granted 50% increase of compensatio in favour of respondents/ landowners price index w.e.f. May 1985 upto the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand which method has been approved by this Court vide its decision dated 02.08.2012 passed in RFA No. 3478-1992, titled as Kartar Singh and ors. vs. State of Punjab through Collector, Gurdaspur and ors. For the aforesaid reasons, the award dated 01.12.1995 passed by the learned Reference Court calls for no in Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .01.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? ] assessment of compensation for the trees was made on the basis of the then Director Horticulture, Punjab) The learned Reference Court vide its impugned award of compensation for the fruit bearing trees in favour of respondents/ landowners on the basis of difference of May 1985 upto the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand which method has been decision dated 02.08.2012 passed in 1992, titled as Kartar Singh and ors. vs. State of Punjab through Collector, Gurdaspur and ors. For the aforesaid reasons, the award dated 01.12.1995 passed by the learned Reference Court calls for no interference. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No assessment of compensation for the trees was made on the basis of Director Horticulture, Punjab) The learned Reference Court vide its impugned award n for the fruit bearing trees ce of May 1985 upto the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand which method has been decision dated 02.08.2012 passed in 1992, titled as Kartar Singh and ors. vs. State of For the aforesaid reasons, the award dated 01.12.1995 terference. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document