RFA-2368 110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Gian Singh and ors. State of Punjab and CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) laid to the decision dated Additional District Judge, Reference Court’). 2. Tehsil Pathankot notifications dat Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') for public purpose. bearing trees as well as non and a separate award No.17 dated 29.01.1997 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) in exercise of its 2368-1999 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: Gian Singh and ors. Versus State of Punjab and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH Present: Mr.R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the appellants/ landowners. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G., Punjab. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present appeal challenge has been laid to the decision dated 06.04.1999 Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Reference Court’). Briefly stating, some land, situated in Village Tehsil Pathankot, was acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notifications dated 27.12.1993 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') for public purpose. At the time of acquisition, certain fruit bearing trees as well as non-fruit bearing trees existed over the same separate award No.17 dated 29.01.1997 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) in exercise of its ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-2368-1999 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.02.2026 …….Appellants Versus ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA , Advocate for the appellants/ landowners. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G., Punjab. way of filing the present appeal challenge has been 06.04.1999 passed by the learned Gurdaspur, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the , some land, situated in Village Sidhauri, , was acquired by the Government of Punjab vide and 30.01.1995, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the At the time of acquisition, certain fruit fruit bearing trees existed over the same separate award No.17 dated 29.01.1997 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) in exercise of its way of filing the present appeal challenge has been passed by the learned the Sidhauri, , was acquired by the Government of Punjab vide issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the At the time of acquisition, certain fruit fruit bearing trees existed over the same separate award No.17 dated 29.01.1997 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) in exercise of its SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2368 powers under Section 11 of the Act 3. appellants/ landowners filed of compensation by dismissed appeal. 4. for the appellants submits that fruit bearing as well as the non LAC having relied upon formula dated 15.05.1985 prepared by Dr. G.S. Nijj Learned counsel also submits that the acquisition proceedings in the present case thus the assessment of compensation should have been by giving appropriate increase between May 1985 to December, 1993, by relying upon In support, learned counsel for the appellants places reliance upon the decision dated 02.08.2012 passed in RF Kartar Singh and Karnail Singh sons of Shri Kesar Singh son of Shri Kesar Singh successor in interest of late Shri Kesar, both residents of Village Hardosaran, Tehsil Pathankot Vs. Punjab State through Collector Gurdaspur and others 5. assessment of market value as regards the trees was carried out by 2368-1999 (O&M) [2] powers under Section 11 of the Act, in this regard. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ landowners filed reference petition of compensation by invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be dismissed vide decision dated 06.04.1999. While impugning the aforesaid decision, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the assessment of market value for the fruit bearing as well as the non-fruit bearing trees was made by the having relied upon formula dated 15.05.1985 prepared by Dr. .S. Nijjar, the then Director of Horticulture, Punjab, Chandigarh. Learned counsel also submits that the acquisition proceedings in the present case were initiated vide notification dated thus the assessment of compensation should have been by giving appropriate increase between May 1985 to December, 1993, by relying upon the price index prevailing at that point in time. In support, learned counsel for the appellants places reliance upon the decision dated 02.08.2012 passed in RF Kartar Singh and Karnail Singh sons of Shri Kesar Singh son of Shri Kesar Singh successor in interest of late Shri Kesar, both residents of Village Hardosaran, Tehsil Pathankot Vs. Punjab State through Collector Gurdaspur and others On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the assessment of market value as regards the trees was carried out by ] , in this regard. issatisfied with the aforesaid award, the reference petition seeking enhancement invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be vide decision dated 06.04.1999. Hence, the present the aforesaid decision, learned counsel the assessment of market value for the fruit bearing trees was made by the having relied upon formula dated 15.05.1985 prepared by Dr. Director of Horticulture, Punjab, Chandigarh. Learned counsel also submits that the acquisition proceedings in the initiated vide notification dated 27.12.1993 and thus the assessment of compensation should have been carried out by giving appropriate increase between May 1985 to December, the price index prevailing at that point in time. In support, learned counsel for the appellants places reliance upon the decision dated 02.08.2012 passed in RFA-3478-1992, titled as Kartar Singh and Karnail Singh sons of Shri Kesar Singh son of Shri Kesar Singh successor in interest of late Shri Kesar, both residents of Village Hardosaran, Tehsil Pathankot Vs. Punjab State through Collector Gurdaspur and others. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the assessment of market value as regards the trees was carried out by issatisfied with the aforesaid award, the seeking enhancement invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be Hence, the present the aforesaid decision, learned counsel the assessment of market value for the fruit bearing trees was made by the having relied upon formula dated 15.05.1985 prepared by Dr. Director of Horticulture, Punjab, Chandigarh. Learned counsel also submits that the acquisition proceedings in the and carried out by giving appropriate increase between May 1985 to December, the price index prevailing at that point in time. In support, learned counsel for the appellants places reliance upon 1992, titled as Kartar Singh and Karnail Singh sons of Shri Kesar Singh son of Shri Kesar Singh successor in interest of late Shri Kesar, both residents of Village Hardosaran, Tehsil Pathankot Vs. Punjab On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the assessment of market value as regards the trees was carried out by SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2368 the LAC having relied upon the formula dated 15.05.1985 and the time gap between the date of formula and the notification was not much, thus the appellants were not entitled for any appreciation. 6. through the paper behalf of the appellants. 7. notification dated 27.12.1993 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act and the assessment of compensation wa formula dated 15.05.1985 whereas, undisputedly between 1985 there had been appropriate increase in the price index which had gone from 127 points to 272 points thereby making increase of 145 per cent over the price assessed by D dated 15.05.1985. The aforementioned increase has even been approved by this Court in thereof is reproduced hereunder: 2368-1999 (O&M) [3] the LAC having relied upon the formula dated 15.05.1985 and the time gap between the date of formula and the notification was not much, thus the appellants were not entitled for any appreciation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone hrough the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. Acquisition in the present case was carried out vide notification dated 27.12.1993 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act and the assessment of compensation wa formula dated 15.05.1985 whereas, undisputedly between 1985 there had been appropriate increase in the price index which had gone from 127 points to 272 points thereby making increase of 145 per cent over the price assessed by D dated 15.05.1985. The aforementioned increase has even been approved by this Court in Kartar Singh thereof is reproduced hereunder:- “The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for value of the t the owner by the acquisition of land. The grievance expressed is that the Reference Court had accepted the valuation of the trees made as per the formula called 'Dr. Nijjar's formula' for assessing the trees for the year 1985. The learned counsel for the appellants would argue that in Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited Versus Zail Singh in RFA No.1907 of 2002, decided on 28.09.2010, this Court had factored the increase for assessment of value of ] the LAC having relied upon the formula dated 15.05.1985 and the time gap between the date of formula and the notification was not much, thus the appellants were not entitled for any appreciation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I find substance in the submissions made on Acquisition in the present case was carried out vide notification dated 27.12.1993 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act and the assessment of compensation was made on the basis of formula dated 15.05.1985 whereas, undisputedly between 1985-1993 there had been appropriate increase in the price index which had gone from 127 points to 272 points thereby making increase of 145 per cent over the price assessed by Dr. G.S. Nijjar in its formula dated 15.05.1985. The aforementioned increase has even been Kartar Singh case (supra). Relevant para “The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for value of the trees which were lost to the owner by the acquisition of land. The grievance expressed is that the Reference Court had accepted the valuation of the trees made as per the formula called 'Dr. Nijjar's formula' for assessing the trees for earned counsel for the appellants would argue that in Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited Versus Zail Singh in RFA No.1907 of 2002, decided on 28.09.2010, this Court had factored the increase for assessment of value of the LAC having relied upon the formula dated 15.05.1985 and the time gap between the date of formula and the notification was not I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I find substance in the submissions made on Acquisition in the present case was carried out vide notification dated 27.12.1993 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act s made on the basis of 1993 there had been appropriate increase in the price index which had gone from 127 points to 272 points thereby making increase of 145 r. G.S. Nijjar in its formula dated 15.05.1985. The aforementioned increase has even been case (supra). Relevant para “The appeal is for enhancement of rees which were lost to the owner by the acquisition of land. The grievance expressed is that the Reference Court had accepted the valuation of the trees made as per the formula called 'Dr. Nijjar's formula' for assessing the trees for earned counsel for the appellants would argue that in Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited Versus Zail Singh in RFA No.1907 of 2002, decided on 28.09.2010, this Court had factored the increase for assessment of value of SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2368 8. versus Pritam Singh, 2004(4) RCR 5 upheld the increase based on difference of the wholesale price index. 9. the present passed by the the appellants/ landowners shall be entitled for increase of 145% over and above the 29.01.1997 as non- provided under the Act. 10. disposed of. 24.02.2026 sanjay 2368-1999 (O&M) [4] trees for the subsequent years by taking note of the increase in price index. In this case, the learned counsel argues that as against the valuation made as per Dr. Nijjar's formula of the year 1985, the price index had gone from 127 points to 150 points in 1987. This, according to him, would mean an increase of 23% over the price assessed by the application of Dr. Nijjar's formula. 2. I adopt the valuation and would provide for 23% increase on the valuation made as per the application of Dr. Nijjar's formula……..” This Court, even in case of versus Pritam Singh, 2004(4) RCR 5 upheld the increase based on difference of the wholesale price index. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove the present appeal is allowed. Impugned passed by the learned Reference Court is set aside to the extent the appellants/ landowners shall be entitled for increase of 145% over and above the amount assessed by the Collector 29.01.1997 towards compensation for the fruit bearing trees as well -fruit bearing trees, besides all other statutory benefits provided under the Act. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? ] equent years by taking note of the increase in price index. In this case, the learned counsel argues that as against the valuation made as per Dr. Nijjar's formula of the year 1985, the price index had gone from 127 points to 150 points in 1987. rding to him, would mean an increase of 23% over the price assessed by the application of Dr. I adopt the valuation and would provide for 23% increase on the valuation made as per the application of Dr. Nijjar's formula……..” s Court, even in case of Union of India and another versus Pritam Singh, 2004(4) RCR 5, under similar facts, has upheld the increase based on difference of the wholesale price index. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove appeal is allowed. Impugned decision dated 06.04.1999 learned Reference Court is set aside to the extent that the appellants/ landowners shall be entitled for increase of 145% over by the Collector vide its award dated for the fruit bearing trees as well besides all other statutory benefits Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No equent years by taking note of the increase in price index. In this case, the learned counsel argues that as against the valuation made as per Dr. Nijjar's formula of the year 1985, the price index had gone from 127 points to 150 points in 1987. rding to him, would mean an increase of 23% over the price assessed by the application of Dr. I adopt the valuation and would provide for 23% increase on the valuation made as per the Union of India and another , under similar facts, has upheld the increase based on difference of the wholesale price index. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, dated 06.04.1999 that the appellants/ landowners shall be entitled for increase of 145% over dated for the fruit bearing trees as well besides all other statutory benefits Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document