RFA-2638 114 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Kultaran Singh (deceased) through LRs and others State of Punjab and others CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) laid to the decision dated 21.04.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Reference Court compensation amount. 2. 26, situated in Gali Bhagwali, Amritsar, was acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notification 02.06.1988, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition 2638-2001 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: 20.03.2026 Kultaran Singh (deceased) through LRs and others Versus State of Punjab and others 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 -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 21.04.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Reference Court’), for enhancement of compensation amount. Briefly stating, some land/property bearing No. 1078/IV 26, situated in Gali Bhagwali, Amritsar, was acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notification 02.06.1988, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-2638-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.03.2026 Kultaran Singh (deceased) through LRs and others …….Appellants Versus ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Parteek Mahajan, Advocate and Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocate Mr. 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 laid to the decision dated 21.04.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ’), for enhancement of market value and the , some land/property bearing No. 1078/IV 26, situated in Gali Bhagwali, Amritsar, owned by the appellant(s) was acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notifications date 02.06.1988, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 21.04.2001 passed by the learned the market value and the , some land/property bearing No. 1078/IV- owned by the appellant(s) dated 02.06.1988, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.01 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-2638 Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, for public purpose, namely, for ‘ benefit of Municipal Corporation, Amritsa around Golden Temple LAC’), vide award dated 27.06.1989, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 4,400/ and Rs. 2,200/ valuing the structures on the acqu Subsequently, a Rs.1,42,203.97/ the land/ plot ( 275.05 sq. yards) along with all other statutory benefits including solatium @ 30% and interest thereupon, under the Act. 3. Reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be dismi by the Reference Court vide its decision dated 21.04.2001, while upholding the award passed by the LAC. 4. Court, the present appeal was preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners. 5. through the paper 6. parties that the matter with respect to the determination of market value of the land acquired for the public purpose namely 2638-2001 (O&M) [2] Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, for public purpose, namely, for ‘ benefit of Municipal Corporation, Amritsa around Golden Temple’. The Land Acquisition Collector LAC’), vide award dated 27.06.1989, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 4,400/- per square yard for commercial sites and Rs. 2,200/- per square yard for residential sites, in addition to valuing the structures on the acqu Subsequently, after accounting for depreciation, Rs.1,42,203.97/- towards the structures and land/ plot (calculated at Rs.2200/- 275.05 sq. yards) along with all other statutory benefits including solatium @ 30% and interest thereupon, under the Act. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/landowners invoked Reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be dismi by the Reference Court vide its decision dated 21.04.2001, while upholding the award passed by the LAC. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeal was preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners. I have head learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. 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 ] Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, for public purpose, namely, for ‘the benefit of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar-beautification of area The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’), vide award dated 27.06.1989, assessed the market value of per square yard for commercial sites per square yard for residential sites, in addition to valuing the structures on the acquired land at Rs. 3,63,729.69/ fter accounting for depreciation, the LAC awarded towards the structures and Rs.6,05,110/- towards - per sq. yard for the area being 275.05 sq. yards) along with all other statutory benefits including solatium @ 30% and interest thereupon, under the Act. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/landowners invoked Reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be dismissed by the Reference Court vide its decision dated 21.04.2001, while upholding the award passed by the LAC. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeal was preferred at the instance of appellants/ have head learned counsel for the parties and gone 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, “ the beautification of area ‘the LAC’), vide award dated 27.06.1989, assessed the market value of per square yard for commercial sites per square yard for residential sites, in addition to ,63,729.69/. he LAC awarded towards the area being 275.05 sq. yards) along with all other statutory benefits including Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/landowners invoked ssed by the Reference Court vide its decision dated 21.04.2001, while Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeal was preferred at the instance of appellants/ have head learned counsel for the parties and gone It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the parties that the matter with respect to the determination of market , “for MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.01 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-2638 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 of the Act, stands adjudicated upon by this Court wi 28.11.2025 passed in The Land Acquisition Collector, Phase A’, Amritsar para-No. 10 from the aforementioned judgment is extracted here under:- 6.1 stands assessed by this Court @ commercial sites consequently, t landowners question. appellants/landowners commercial character, be made accordingly. 2638-2001 (O&M) [3] 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 of the Act, stands adjudicated upon by this Court wi 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 of the 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/ and Rs. 2,403 per square yard for commercial and residential sites, respectively.” Thus, undisputedly, the market price of the acquired land stands assessed by this Court @ Rs. 4,805/ commercial sites 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, thus, the assessment of compensation was to made accordingly. ] 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 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 Rs. 4,805/- per square yard per square 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 the property was not residential but thus, the assessment of compensation was to 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 de decision dated Nand Kishore vs. ’. Relevant No. 10 from the aforementioned judgment is extracted here 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. r square yard and Rs. 2,403 per square yard for commercial and the market price of the acquired land for per square 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 thus, the assessment of compensation was to MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.01 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-2638 7. Court upon appreciation of material evidence available on record recorded the No documentary evidence was produced by the appellants/ landowners to show that the property in question was ever assessed to be commercial property by the Municipal Committee, Amritsar onus to prove the commercial character of the property rested upon the appellants cogent evidence 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 nature the learned Reference Court effect. 8. 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 acquisition. 9. has contended that the deduction of Rs. LAC from the 2638-2001 (O&M) [4] A perusal of the record shows that the learned Reference Court upon appreciation of material evidence available on record recorded the finding qua the subject prop No 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 onus to prove the commercial character of the property rested upon the appellants however, they failed to do so by evidence. In such circumstances, the nature of proper 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 nature. Consequently, the learned Reference Court does not warrant 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 acquisition. Further, learned counsel for the appellants/landowners tended that the deduction of Rs. LAC from the total value assessed for the structures was arbitrary ] A perusal of the record shows that the learned Reference Court upon appreciation of material evidence available on record h the subject property being a residential plot. No 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. The onus to prove the commercial character of the property rested upon however, they failed to do so by not producing any In such 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 . Consequently, the reasons recorded by does not warrant any interference to this , 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 Further, learned counsel for the appellants/landowners tended that the deduction of Rs. 2,21,525.72/- made by the value assessed for the structures was arbitrary A perusal of the record shows that the learned Reference has a residential plot. No documentary evidence was produced by the appellants/ landowners to show that the property in question was ever assessed The onus to prove the commercial character of the property rested upon any ty could not be held to be commercial for the purposes of assessment of market value against its acquisition and was thus rightly assessed the reasons recorded by nterference to this , 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 Further, learned counsel for the appellants/landowners made by the value assessed for the structures was arbitrary MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.01 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-2638 and unjustified. A perusal of the award dated 27.06.1989 passed by the LAC shows that the value of the structures on the acquired was initially assessed at Rs. ultimately awarded was only Rs. 1,21,525.72/ any reasons 9.1 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. S action on the part of the responde unwarranted. 10. for the complete amount of compensation as assessed by the LAC including the deduction of Rs. appellants/ landowners shall recalling of such deduction towards the re value made by this Court. 11. dated 21.04.2001 passed by the learned Reference Court is modified and the appellants/ landowners are held entitled for award of market value @ Rs.2403/ structure on the acquired land, besides all other statutory benefits 2638-2001 (O&M) [5] and unjustified. A perusal of the award dated 27.06.1989 passed by the LAC shows that the value of the structures on the acquired was initially assessed at Rs. 3,63,729.69/ ultimately awarded was only Rs. 2,42,203.97/ 1,21,525.72/- was made from the assessed value without recording any reasons. In the facts and circumstances of 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. S action on the part of the responde unwarranted. Accordingly, the appellants/ landowners are held entitled for the complete amount of compensation as assessed by the LAC including the deduction of Rs.2 appellants/ landowners shall also get the benefit of restoration/ recalling of such deduction towards the re value made by this Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned award dated 21.04.2001 passed by the learned Reference Court is modified nd the appellants/ landowners are held entitled for award of market value @ Rs.2403/- per sq. yard; Rs. structure on the acquired land, besides all other statutory benefits ] and unjustified. A perusal of the award dated 27.06.1989 passed by the LAC shows that the value of the structures on the acquired land ,63,729.69/-, whereas the amount ,42,203.97/-. A deduction of Rs. was made from the assessed value without recording 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. Such action on the part of the respondents is unjustifiable and Accordingly, the appellants/ landowners are held entitled for the complete amount of compensation as assessed by the LAC 2,21,525.72/-. Pertinently, the also get the benefit of restoration/ recalling of such deduction towards the re-assessment of market In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned award dated 21.04.2001 passed by the learned Reference Court is modified nd the appellants/ landowners are held entitled for award of market per sq. yard; Rs.3,63,729.69/- on account of structure on the acquired land, besides all other statutory benefits and unjustified. A perusal of the award dated 27.06.1989 passed by land , whereas the amount . A deduction of Rs. was made from the assessed value without recording present case the appellants/landowners who went on to face compulsory acquisition of their land holdings cannot be deprived of their due entitlement without uch nts is unjustifiable and Accordingly, the appellants/ landowners are held entitled for the complete amount of compensation as assessed by the LAC Pertinently, the also get the benefit of restoration/ assessment of market In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned award dated 21.04.2001 passed by the learned Reference Court is modified nd the appellants/ landowners are held entitled for award of market on account of structure on the acquired land, besides all other statutory benefits MOHMED ATIK 2026.04.01 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-2638 and interest as provided in the Act (as amended up especially the interest on solatium as well. 11. unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, the liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. 12. disposed of. 20.03.2026 sanjay 2638-2001 (O&M) [6] and interest as provided in the Act (as amended up especially the interest on solatium as well. 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, the 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 disposed of. 20.03.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? ] and interest as provided in the Act (as amended up-to-date), especially the interest on solatium as well. 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 te), Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have objection(s) after filing y 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