RFA-2521 119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Harbaksh Singh and another State of Punjab CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) laid to the decision dated Additional District Judge, Reference Court’) 2. Tehsil Kharar, District Ropoar Punjab vide no issued under Section short, 'the Act') for passed by the exercise of its powers under Section 11 of the Act assessing the compensation of 3. landowner 2521-1999 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: 2 Harbaksh Singh and another Versus State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Hardip Singh, Advocate for the appellants/ landowners. Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present appeal challenge has been laid to the decision dated 27.04.1999 Additional District Judge, Ropar-cum- Reference Court’). Briefly stating, 10K-16M of Tehsil Kharar, District Ropoar, was acquired by the Government of vide notifications dated 06/07.10.1989 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') for public purpose. An award dated passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) exercise of its powers under Section 11 of the Act assessing the compensation of 706 Eucalyptus trees Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant landowners filed reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-2521-1999 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.01.2026 …….Appellants Versus ..….Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA , Advocate for the appellants/ landowners. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. way of filing the present appeal challenge has been 27.04.1999 passed by the learned -Reference Court, (for short ‘the 16M of land, situated in Village Majat, , was acquired by the Government of 06/07.10.1989 and 20/21.12.1989 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for An award dated 08.02.1990 was Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) exercise of its powers under Section 11 of the Act assessing the trees to the tune of Rs.70,841.73 P Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, way of filing the present appeal challenge has been passed by the learned , (for short ‘the Majat, , was acquired by the Government of 20/21.12.1989, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for was Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) in exercise of its powers under Section 11 of the Act assessing the 70,841.73 P. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 19:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2521 which came to be 4. through the paper behalf of the appellant 5. appellants at the time of arguments is with respect to enhancement of claim against 625 subject land at the time of acquisition. 6. form of report Ex.R1 with respect to the appellants/ landowners formula dated 1 Horticulture, Punjab). The report Ex.R1 has been proved on record by RW1-Jagjiwan Lal, Forest Guard and Assistant, Division Forest Office, Ropar. 7. the trees was done formula prepared by Dr.Nijjar was ever taken circumstances, the appellants market value against 625 Eucalyptus trees as depicted in the report Ex.R1 while taking into account the age document. In addition, the appellants shall also be entitled for award of appreciatio the date of formula prepared by Dr. Nijjar i.e. 15.05.1985 upto the 2521-1999 (O&M) [2] which came to be dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants/ landowners. In the present case, the only claim set up by the appellants at the time of arguments is with respect to enhancement of claim against 625 Eucalyptus trees which were existing over the subject land at the time of acquisition. On consideration of evidence available on record in the form of report Ex.R1 with respect to the appellants/ landowners are entitled for market value formula dated 15.05.1985 prepared by Dr. Nijj Horticulture, Punjab). The report Ex.R1 has been proved on record by Jagjiwan Lal, Forest Guard and Assistant, Division Forest Office, Ropar. A perusal of the record further rees was done vide report Ex.R2 which nowhere reflects that the formula prepared by Dr.Nijjar was ever taken circumstances, the appellants are held entitled for re market value against 625 Eucalyptus trees as depicted in the report Ex.R1 while taking into account the age document. In addition, the appellants shall also be entitled for award of appreciation as per the percentage of ri the date of formula prepared by Dr. Nijjar i.e. 15.05.1985 upto the ] dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I find substance in the submissions made on In the present case, the only claim set up by the appellants at the time of arguments is with respect to enhancement of trees which were existing over the subject land at the time of acquisition. consideration of evidence available on record in the form of report Ex.R1 with respect to the age and number of trees, the entitled for market value in terms of the .05.1985 prepared by Dr. Nijjar (the then Direct Horticulture, Punjab). The report Ex.R1 has been proved on record by Jagjiwan Lal, Forest Guard and RW2-Naib Singh, Junior Assistant, Division Forest Office, Ropar. further shows that the valuation of vide report Ex.R2 which nowhere reflects that the formula prepared by Dr.Nijjar was ever taken into account. In such are held entitled for re-assessment of market value against 625 Eucalyptus trees as depicted in the report Ex.R1 while taking into account the age and girth from the said document. In addition, the appellants shall also be entitled for award n as per the percentage of rise in the price index from the date of formula prepared by Dr. Nijjar i.e. 15.05.1985 upto the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I find substance in the submissions made on In the present case, the only claim set up by the appellants at the time of arguments is with respect to enhancement of trees which were existing over the consideration of evidence available on record in the number of trees, the the r (the then Director, Horticulture, Punjab). The report Ex.R1 has been proved on record by Singh, Junior the valuation of vide report Ex.R2 which nowhere reflects that the . In such assessment of market value against 625 Eucalyptus trees as depicted in the report girth from the said document. In addition, the appellants shall also be entitled for award e in the price index from the date of formula prepared by Dr. Nijjar i.e. 15.05.1985 upto the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 19:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2521 date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand i.e. 07.10.1989, along with all other statutory benefits as prov the Act. 8. acquired vide the 1894 Act and the assessment of compensation was made on the basis of formula dated 15.05.1985 whereas, un 1985-1989 points to over the price assessed by Dr. G.S. Nijj 15.05.1985 appreciation of 30.27% 625 trees of even been approved by this Court vide decision dated 02.08.2012 passed in sons of Shri Kesar Singh son of Shri Kesar Singh successor in interst of late Shri Kesar, both residents of Village Hardosaran, Tehsil Pathankot Vs. Punjab State through Collector Gurdaspur and others 2521-1999 (O&M) [3] date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand i.e. 07.10.1989, along with all other statutory benefits as prov Accordingly, since the land in the present case was acquired vide notification dated 07.10.1989 the 1894 Act and the assessment of compensation was made on the basis of formula dated 15.05.1985 whereas, un 1989 there had been appreciation points to 165.7 points, thereby making increase over the price assessed by Dr. G.S. Nijj 15.05.1985, the appellants/ landowners s appreciation of 30.27%. The enhancement of compensation against 625 trees of Eucalyptus in terms of such increase in price index has even been approved by this Court vide 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 interst of late Shri Kesar, both residents of Village Hardosaran, Tehsil Pathankot Vs. Punjab State through Collector Gurdaspur and others.” Relevant para thereof is reproduced hereunder: “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 the year 1985. The learned counsel for the appellants ] date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand i.e. 07.10.1989, along with all other statutory benefits as provided under since the land in the present case was 07.10.1989 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 appreciation in the price index from 127 points, thereby making increase of around 30.27% over the price assessed by Dr. G.S. Nijjar in its formula dated , the appellants/ landowners shall also be entitled for . The enhancement of compensation against in terms of such increase in price index has even been approved by this Court vide decision dated 02.08.2012 Kartar Singh and Karnail Singh sons of Shri Kesar Singh son of Shri Kesar Singh successor in interst of late Shri Kesar, both residents of Village Hardosaran, Tehsil Pathankot Vs. Punjab State through Collector Gurdaspur Relevant para thereof is reproduced hereunder:- “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 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 date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand i.e. ided under since the land in the present case was issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act and the assessment of compensation was made on the disputedly between in the price index from 127.2 30.27% r in its formula dated hall also be entitled for . The enhancement of compensation against in terms of such increase in price index has even been approved by this Court vide decision dated 02.08.2012 Kartar Singh and Karnail Singh sons of Shri Kesar Singh son of Shri Kesar Singh successor in interst of late Shri Kesar, both residents of Village Hardosaran, Tehsil Pathankot Vs. Punjab State through Collector Gurdaspur “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 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 SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 19:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2521 9. hereinabove, the present appeal is allowed to the extent that the appellant value as per Dr.Nijj and above the amount assessed towards compensation for trees of Eucalyptus account the age and number of trees from the report Ex.P1, besides all other statutory benefits provided under the 1894 Act. 10. disposed of. 29.01.2026 sanjay 2521-1999 (O&M) [4] 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 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 an 23% increase on the valuation made as per the application of Dr. Nijjar's formula……..” Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present appeal is allowed to the extent that the appellants-landowners shall be entitled for value as per Dr.Nijjar’s formula along with increase and above the amount assessed towards compensation for of Eucalyptus based on Dr Nijjar formula by taking into account the age and number of trees from the report Ex.P1, besides all other statutory benefits provided under the 1894 Act. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .01.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? ] would argue that in Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited Versus Zail Singh in RFA 7 of 2002, decided on 28.09.2010, this Court had factored the increase for assessment of value of 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 er 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. I adopt the valuation and would provide for 23% increase on the valuation made as per the application of Dr. Nijjar's formula……..” Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present appeal is allowed to the extent that the ntitled for award of fuel/ timber r’s formula along with increase of 30.27% over and above the amount assessed towards compensation for 625 based on Dr Nijjar formula by taking into account the age and number of trees from the report Ex.P1, besides all other statutory benefits provided under the 1894 Act. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No would argue that in Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited Versus Zail Singh in RFA 7 of 2002, decided on 28.09.2010, this Court had factored the increase for assessment of value of 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 er 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. d would provide for 23% increase on the valuation made as per the Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present appeal is allowed to the extent that the award of fuel/ timber % over 625 based on Dr Nijjar formula by taking into account the age and number of trees from the report Ex.P1, Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 19:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document