RFA-1568 114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Smt. Kartar Kaur (Deceased) through LRs The Land Acquisition Collector and another CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) laid to the decision dated Additional District Judge, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Reference Court 2. acquired by the issued under short ‘the 1894 Act’) for the public purpose, namely, “ Temple Bea 1568-1995 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: Smt. Kartar Kaur (Deceased) through LRs Versus The Land Acquisition Collector and another 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. Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate and Mr. Samuel Gill, Advocate for MC, Amritsar. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 15.12.1994 Additional District Judge, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Reference Court’). Briefly stating, certain land owned by the appellants was acquired by the respondent State vide issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’) for the public purpose, namely, “ Temple Beautification Scheme”. The Land Acquisition Collector ( ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-1568-1995 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.03.2026 Smt. Kartar Kaur (Deceased) through LRs …….Appellants Versus The Land Acquisition Collector and another ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Parteek Mahajan, Advocate and Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocate Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate and Mr. Samuel Gill, Advocate for MC, Amritsar. way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been 15.12.1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the certain land owned by the appellants was State vide notifications dated 02.06.1988 ection 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’) for the public purpose, namely, “for Golden The Land Acquisition Collector ( way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been passed by the learned the certain land owned by the appellants was notifications dated 02.06.1988 ection 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for Golden The Land Acquisition Collector (for MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.01 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-1568 short ‘the LAC’), vide award dated value of the acquired land at Rs. 4,400/ commercial sites and Rs. 2,200/ in addition to valuing the structures on the 5,71,154/ 3. appellants preferred reference application under Section 19 of the Punjab Development of Damaged Area, Act 1951 which was dismissed by the learned Reference Court, holding that the reference petition preferred under Section 19 of the Punjab Development of Damaged Area Act 1951 was not maintainable and course for the appellants was to file an application under of the 1894 Act. 4. learned Reference Court, the present appeal has been preferred at the instance of appellant(s)/landowner(s). 5. through the paper 6. against the award dated heading, it was mentioned by the appellants/landowners that the objections were being preferred under Section 19 of the Punjab Development of Damaged Area Act, 1951 and accordingly, the 1568-1995 (O&M) [2] ‘the LAC’), vide award dated 12.10.1989 value of the acquired land at Rs. 4,400/ commercial sites and Rs. 2,200/- per square yard for residential sites in addition to valuing the structures on the 5,71,154/-. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the LAC, the appellants preferred reference application under Section 19 of the Punjab Development of Damaged Area, Act 1951 which was dismissed by the learned Reference Court, holding that the reference petition preferred under Section 19 of the Punjab Development of Damaged Area Act 1951 was not maintainable and course for the appellants was to file an application under 1894 Act. Aggrieved of the award dated 15.12.1994 passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeal has been preferred at the instance of appellant(s)/landowner(s). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone rough the paper-book. It may be noticed here that at the time of filing objections against the award dated 12.10.1989 heading, it was mentioned by the appellants/landowners that the objections were being preferred under Section 19 of the Punjab Development of Damaged Area Act, 1951 and accordingly, the ] 12.10.1989 assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 4,400/- per square yard for per square yard for residential sites in addition to valuing the structures on the acquired land at Rs. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the LAC, the appellants preferred reference application under Section 19 of the Punjab Development of Damaged Area, Act 1951 which was dismissed by the learned Reference Court, holding that the reference petition preferred under Section 19 of the Punjab Development of Damaged Area Act 1951 was not maintainable and that the proper course for the appellants was to file an application under Section 18 Aggrieved of the award dated 15.12.1994 passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeal has been preferred at the instance of appellant(s)/landowner(s). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone It may be noticed here that at the time of filing objections 12.10.1989 passed by the LAC, in the heading, it was mentioned by the appellants/landowners that the objections were being preferred under Section 19 of the Punjab Development of Damaged Area Act, 1951 and accordingly, the assessed the market per square yard for per square yard for residential sites, acquired land at Rs. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the LAC, the appellants preferred reference application under Section 19 of the Punjab Development of Damaged Area, Act 1951 which was dismissed by the learned Reference Court, holding that the reference petition preferred under Section 19 of the Punjab Development of that the proper Section 18 Aggrieved of the award dated 15.12.1994 passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeal has been preferred at I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone It may be noticed here that at the time of filing objections passed by the LAC, in the heading, it was mentioned by the appellants/landowners that the objections were being preferred under Section 19 of the Punjab Development of Damaged Area Act, 1951 and accordingly, the MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.01 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-1568 learned Reference Court dismissed the refer the same 6.1. mentioning of wrong provision in the objections preferred at the instance of appellants/ lando LAC, was wholly uncalled the appellants/landowners those were forwarded to the competent Court having jurisdiction to entertain and dec required to adjudicate dismissing it on technical grounds such as the provision in the heading of the objections, objections wer Tribunal/President, District Judge, Amritsar through the LAC. 6.2. learned Reference Court on Issue No. 1 regarding the maintainability of the reference peti held to be maintainable in law. 7. the parties that the matter with respect to the determination of market value of the land acquired for the public p beautification scheme/Galiara Yojana around Golden Temple, Amritsar” (as mentioned in the award by the LAC in the present case) in pursuance of notification dated 02.06.1988 issued under Section 4 1568-1995 (O&M) [3] learned Reference Court dismissed the refer same were required to be filed under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. In this regard, in the humble opinion of this Court, merely mentioning of wrong provision in the objections preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners against the award passed by the LAC, was wholly uncalled-for. Once the objections the appellants/landowners against the award passed by the LAC and were forwarded to the competent Court having jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same, the learned Reference Court was required to adjudicate upon the claim on merits, rather than dismissing it on technical grounds such as the provision in the heading of the objections, objections were duly addressed to the Land Acquisition Tribunal/President, District Judge, Amritsar through the LAC. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court on Issue No. 1 regarding the maintainability of the reference petition are hereby set aside, and the reference is held to be maintainable in law. Further, 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 p beautification scheme/Galiara Yojana around Golden Temple, ” (as mentioned in the award by the LAC in the present case) in pursuance of notification dated 02.06.1988 issued under Section 4 ] learned Reference Court dismissed the reference petition holding that were required to be filed under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. In this regard, in the humble opinion of this Court, merely mentioning of wrong provision in the objections preferred at the wners against the award passed by the Once the objections were preferred by against the award passed by the LAC and were forwarded to the competent Court having jurisdiction to , the learned Reference Court was the claim on merits, rather than dismissing it on technical grounds such as the mentioning of incorrect provision in the heading of the objections, especially when the e duly addressed to the Land Acquisition Tribunal/President, District Judge, Amritsar through the LAC. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court on Issue No. 1 regarding the maintainability tion are hereby set aside, and the reference is Further, 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) in pursuance of notification dated 02.06.1988 issued under Section 4 ence petition holding that were required to be filed under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. In this regard, in the humble opinion of this Court, merely mentioning of wrong provision in the objections preferred at the wners against the award passed by the preferred by against the award passed by the LAC and were forwarded to the competent Court having jurisdiction to , the learned Reference Court was the claim on merits, rather than mentioning of incorrect when the e duly addressed to the Land Acquisition In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court on Issue No. 1 regarding the maintainability tion are hereby set aside, and the reference is Further, it has not been disputed by learned counsel for the parties that the matter with respect to the determination of market urpose namely, “for beautification scheme/Galiara Yojana around Golden Temple, ” (as mentioned in the award by the LAC in the present case) in pursuance of notification dated 02.06.1988 issued under Section 4 MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.01 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-1568 of the Act, stands adjudicated upon by 28.11.2025 passed in The Land Acquisition Collector, Phase A’, Amritsar para-No. 10 from the aforementioned judgment is extracted here under:- 8. assessed by this Court @ sites and Rs. 2,403 consequently, t landowners question. appellants/landowners commercial character, was to be 9. admittedly, the plot in question measuring 143.8 sq. yards was purchased by the appellants from Amritsar Improvement Trust, 1568-1995 (O&M) [4] of the Act, stands adjudicated upon by 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 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. 4,8 and Rs. 2,403 per square yard for commercial and residential sites, respectively.” Thus, the market price of the acquired land assessed by this Court @ Rs. 4,805/- and Rs. 2,403/- per square yard for residential site consequently, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants/ landowners is limited to the extent of the nature of the property in question. It has been submitted by appellants/landowners that the property commercial character, therefore, the assessment of compensation was to be made accordingly. In this regard, a perusal of the record shows that dmittedly, the plot in question measuring 143.8 sq. yards was purchased by the appellants from Amritsar Improvement Trust, ] 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’. 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, 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.” the market price of the acquired land stands - per square yard for commercial uare yard for residential site he contention raised on behalf of the appellants/ is limited to the extent of the nature of the property in It has been submitted by the counsel for the perty was not residential but the assessment of compensation perusal of the record shows that dmittedly, the plot in question measuring 143.8 sq. yards was purchased by the appellants from Amritsar Improvement Trust, this Court wide decision dated Nand Kishore vs. ’. Relevant No. 10 from the aforementioned judgment is extracted here 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. per square yard and Rs. 2,403 per square yard for commercial and stands for commercial uare yard for residential sites, he contention raised on behalf of the appellants/ is limited to the extent of the nature of the property in the counsel for the as not residential but of the assessment of compensation perusal of the record shows that dmittedly, the plot in question measuring 143.8 sq. yards was purchased by the appellants from Amritsar Improvement Trust, MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.01 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-1568 Amritsar, for residential purposes. The site plan was also got sanctioned for the said purpose. appreciation of material evidence available on record finding qua documentary evidence was produced by the appellants/ landowners to show that the property in qu commercial property by the Municipal Committee, Amritsar 9.1. existed over the plot in question and the appellants/ landowners, for publishing and sale of books. Th character of the property rested upon the appellants failed to do so by producing circumstances, the nature of commercial for the purposes of assessment of market value against its acquisition and was thus rightly assessed being of residential nature. Consequently, Reference Court 9.2. for the same benefit of value as has been awarded to other landowners by this Court in case of Nand Kishore statutory benefits and interest available under the amended provision of the Land Acquisition Act 1568-1995 (O&M) [5] Amritsar, for residential purposes. The site plan was also got sanctioned for the said purpose. The learned Reference Court upon appreciation of material evidence available on record qua the subject property documentary evidence was produced by the appellants/ landowners to show that the property in question was ever assessed commercial property by the Municipal Committee, Amritsar Undisputedly, at the time of acquisition, 2½ story house existed over the plot in question and the appellants/ landowners, the ground for publishing and sale of books. The onus character of the property rested upon the appellants failed to do so by producing any cogent circumstances, the nature of property could not be held to be commercial for the purposes of assessment of market value against its acquisition and was thus rightly assessed being of residential . Consequently, the reasons recorded by the learned Reference Court does not warrant for Accordingly, the appellants/landowners are held entitled for the same benefit of Rs. 2,403/- value as has been awarded to other landowners by this Court in case Nand Kishore (supra) for residential plots along with all other statutory benefits and interest available under the amended provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as applicable to the present ] Amritsar, for residential purposes. The site plan was also got he learned Reference Court upon appreciation of material evidence available on record recorded the erty being a residential plot. documentary evidence was produced by the appellants/ landowners estion was ever assessed to be commercial property by the Municipal Committee, Amritsar. Undisputedly, at the time of acquisition, 2½ story house existed over the plot in question and even as per the case set up by ound-floor thereof was being used e onus to prove the commercial character of the property rested upon the appellants, however, they any cogent evidence. In such property could not be held to be commercial for the purposes of assessment of market value against its acquisition and was thus rightly assessed being of residential the reasons recorded by the learned for any interference in this regard , the appellants/landowners are held entitled per square yard towards land value as has been awarded to other landowners by this Court in case for residential plots along with all other statutory benefits and interest available under the amended provision 1894 as applicable to the present Amritsar, for residential purposes. The site plan was also got he learned Reference Court upon recorded the No documentary evidence was produced by the appellants/ landowners to be Undisputedly, at the time of acquisition, 2½ story house as per the case set up by used to prove the commercial however, they In such property could not be held to be commercial for the purposes of assessment of market value against its acquisition and was thus rightly assessed being of residential the reasons recorded by the learned in this regard. , the appellants/landowners are held entitled towards land value as has been awarded to other landowners by this Court in case for residential plots along with all other statutory benefits and interest available under the amended provision 1894 as applicable to the present MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.01 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-1568 acquisition. 10. contended that the deduction of value assessed for the structures was arbitrary and unjustified. perusal of the award dated 12.10.1989 passed by the LAC shows that a de recording any reasons 10.1. appellants/landowners who went on to face compulsory acquisition of their land holdings cannot be deprived of th even apprising them of the reasons for any such deduction made. Such action on the part of the respondents is unjustifiable and unwarranted. 10.2. for the complete a including the deduction 11. dated 15.12.1994 and the appellants/ landowners are held value @ Rs.2403/ compensation assessed by acquired land besides all other statutory benefits an (as amended up 1568-1995 (O&M) [6] acquisition. Further, learned counsel for the appellants/landowners contended that the deduction of 17.5% value assessed for the structures was arbitrary and unjustified. perusal of the award dated 12.10.1989 passed by the LAC shows that a deduction of 17.5% was made from the assessed value without recording any reasons. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the appellants/landowners who went on to face compulsory acquisition of their land holdings cannot be deprived of th even apprising them of the reasons for any such deduction uch action on the part of the respondents is unjustifiable and unwarranted. Accordingly, the appellants/ landowners for the complete amount of compensation as assessed by LAC including the deduction made under the award In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned award 15.12.1994 passed by the learned Reference Court is modified and the appellants/ landowners are held value @ Rs.2403/- per sq. yard compensation assessed by the LAC acquired land, including the deduction besides all other statutory benefits an (as amended up-to-date), especially the interest on solatium as well. ] Further, learned counsel for the appellants/landowners 17.5% made by the LAC from the value assessed for the structures was arbitrary and unjustified. perusal of the award dated 12.10.1989 passed by the LAC shows was made from the assessed value without In the facts and circumstances of the present case the appellants/landowners who went on to face compulsory acquisition of their land holdings cannot be deprived of their due entitlement without even apprising them of the reasons for any such deduction was uch action on the part of the respondents is unjustifiable and Accordingly, the appellants/ landowners are held entitled mount of compensation as assessed by LAC made under the award. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court is modified and the appellants/ landowners are held entitled for award of market and the complete amount of on account of structure on the including the deduction made towards depreciation besides all other statutory benefits and interest as provided in the Act date), especially the interest on solatium as well. Further, learned counsel for the appellants/landowners made by the LAC from the value assessed for the structures was arbitrary and unjustified. A perusal of the award dated 12.10.1989 passed by the LAC shows was made from the assessed value without In the facts and circumstances of the present case the appellants/landowners who went on to face compulsory acquisition of eir due entitlement without was uch action on the part of the respondents is unjustifiable and entitled mount of compensation as assessed by LAC In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court is modified entitled for award of market the complete amount of on account of structure on the made towards depreciation, d interest as provided in the Act date), especially the interest on solatium as well. MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.01 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-1568 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 appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. 13. disposed of. 20.03.2026 sanjay 1568-1995 (O&M) [7] 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 posed of. 20.03.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? ] 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 appropriate 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 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