RFA-247 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Gulshan Kumar The Collector, Gurdaspur CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) award dated cum-Addl. District Judge, 2. the appellant situated in revenue estate of Village Pathankot (erstwhile notifications dated 07.08.1995 and 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 construction of reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam, Pathankot. At the time of acquisition, certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land 247-2018 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA No. Date of Decision: 18.05.2026 Gulshan Kumar Versus The Collector, Gurdaspur 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) By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 11.01.2012 passed by the learned Reference Court Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur. Briefly stating, in the present case, some land owned by the appellant situated in revenue estate of Village Pathankot (erstwhile District Gurdaspur) came to be acquired vide notifications dated 07.08.1995 and 17.06.1996 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The acquisition was carried out for public e of construction of reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam, Pathankot. At the time of acquisition, certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 247-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.05.2026 …….Appellant Versus ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab. 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 revenue estate of Village Pangota Khas istrict Gurdaspur) came to be acquired vide 17.06.1996 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 e of construction of reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam, Pathankot. At the time of acquisition, certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land 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 Pangota Khas, istrict Gurdaspur) came to be acquired vide 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 e of construction of reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam, Pathankot. At the time of acquisition, certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-247 Acquisition Collector (for short 'the LAC') on compensation to the tune of Rs. aggrieved, the appellant 18 of the Act which came to be partly accepted while awarding of compensation of 2 assessed by the LAC. Aggrieved of the decision dated the present appeal has been preferred. 3. evidence 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 Ex AX and AY assessed at Rs. entitled for the same benefit. 4. of respondents submits that a well the learned Reference Cour on record and the same thus, calls for no interference and the present a 5. through the paper behalf of the appellant 247-2018 (O&M) [2] Acquisition Collector (for short 'the LAC') on compensation to the tune of Rs.1,12,264/ aggrieved, the appellant-landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be partly accepted while awarding of compensation of 20% over and above the value assessed by the LAC. Aggrieved of the decision dated sent appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by way of evidence in the shape of deposition of AW oved 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 Ex X and AY respectively, whereby, the total value of the b assessed at Rs.1,95,141/- and thus, the appellant 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 appeal needs to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the submiss behalf of the appellant-landowner. Acquisition Collector (for short 'the LAC') on 10.07.1998 granting 1,12,264/- to the landowner(s). Being landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be partly accepted while awarding of % over and above the value of super structure as assessed by the LAC. Aggrieved of the decision dated 11.01.2012 sent appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by way of evidence in the shape of deposition of AW-2 namely, Pawan Kapil oved 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 Exs. A whereby, the total value of the building was and thus, the appellant-landowner was On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf reasoned award was passed by t upon appreciation of evidence available on record and the same thus, calls for no interference and the ppeal needs to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I find substance in the submissions made on granting to the landowner(s). Being landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be partly accepted while awarding of of super structure as 11.01.2012, Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by way of Pawan Kapil, oved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, valuation report and assessment report regarding the construction . A-1, uilding was landowner was On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf reasoned award was passed by t upon appreciation of evidence available on record and the same thus, calls for no interference and the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone ions made on SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-247 6. sum of Rs. over the acquired land. From the deposition of RW Divisional Head D was passed on the basis of assessment made by a committee consisting of 3 members constituted by the respondents however, the determination was never made as per CSR rates. It is not disputed Deputy Commissioner Shahpurkandi Dam Project, the valuation of house and other structures over the acquired land needs to be carried out as per the current Common Irrigation Branch. 7. been proved on record as Rs. through deposition of AW (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan (Ex.A Valuation Report (Ex.A 8. respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his deposition, thus, in needs to be relied upon as a relevant and substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation in favour of appellant 247-2018 (O&M) [3] As per the records, the appellant sum of Rs.1,12,264/- as compensation towards structure existing over the acquired land. From the deposition of RW Divisional Head Draftman, Ranjit Sagar Dam, it is clear that an award was passed on the basis of assessment made by a committee consisting of 3 members constituted by the respondents however, the determination was never made as per CSR rates. It is not disputed that as per the policy decision dated 18.11.1993 by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman of Sub Committee (R&R), Shahpurkandi Dam Project, 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.1,95,141 through deposition of AW-2/Pawan Kapil sessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan (Ex.A Valuation Report (Ex.A-1) and Assessment Report (Ex.A Despite a lengthy cross respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his deposition, thus, in such circumstances, the 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 circumstances, this Court in As per the records, the appellant-landowner was awarded as compensation towards structure existing over the acquired land. From the deposition of RW-1, Manjit Singh, , Ranjit Sagar Dam, it is clear that an award was passed on the basis of assessment made by a committee consisting of 3 members constituted by the respondents-authority, however, the determination was never made as per CSR rates. It is that as per the policy decision dated 18.11.1993 by the Chairman of Sub Committee (R&R), Shahpurkandi Dam Project, the valuation of house and other structures over the acquired land needs to be carried out as per the Schedule of Rates (CSR) as applicable to PWD On the contrary, the valuation of the super structure has 1,95,141/- by the appellant-landowner Pawan Kapil; the approved valuer sessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan (Ex.A ) and Assessment Report (Ex.AY). Despite a lengthy cross-examination of AW respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his such circumstances, the valuation Report (Ex.A needs to be relied upon as a relevant and substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation in favour landowner. Under similar circumstances, this Court in landowner was awarded as compensation towards structure existing Manjit Singh, , Ranjit Sagar Dam, it is clear that an award was passed on the basis of assessment made by a committee authority, however, the determination was never made as per CSR rates. It is that as per the policy decision dated 18.11.1993 by the Chairman of Sub Committee (R&R), Shahpurkandi Dam Project, the valuation of house and other structures over the acquired land needs to be carried out as per the Schedule of Rates (CSR) as applicable to PWD On the contrary, the valuation of the super structure has landowner ; the approved valuer sessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan (Ex.AX), examination of AW-2, respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his 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 landowner. Under similar circumstances, this Court in SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-247 "Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rattan Chand and Anr. 2012(1) RCR(Civil), 192 went on valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting the same, in order to balance the equities, the appellant for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two valuations i.e. one made by the LAC @ one which has been proved on record by the appellant through the expert valuer (AW Rs.1,53,702 benefits. 9. of. 10. expired in the appeal(s)/cross 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. 11. disposed 18.05.2026 sanjay 247-2018 (O&M) [4] of India and Ors. Vs. Rattan Chand and Anr. 2012(1) RCR(Civil), 192 went on valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting the same, in order to balance the equities, the appellant for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two valuations i.e. one made by the LAC @ one which has been proved on record by the appellant through the expert valuer (AW-2) @ 1,53,702/- (1,94,141 + 1,12,264/2) alongwith all other statutory In view of the aforesaid, the Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/cross-objection(s) after filing ther 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. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 18.05.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? of India and Ors. Vs. Rattan Chand and Anr., reported as 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.1,12,264/- and the other one which has been proved on record by the appellant-landowner ) @ Rs.1,95,141/- which comes to /2) alongwith all other statutory 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 Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No , reported as 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 /2) alongwith all other statutory present appeal is disposed Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately eof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document