RFA-3993 115(5) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Alla Ditta and State of Punjab and ors. CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CM-2280 some actual date of objection to the prayer made in the application. through the contents of the applica main appeal is ordered itself. 3993-2002 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CM RFA Date of Decision: Alla Ditta and ors. Versus State of Punjab and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 80-CI-2025 This is an application for listing the main appeal by fixing some actual date of hearing. Notice of the application was issued on 01.09.2025. Learned counsel for the respondents does not objection to the prayer made in the application. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the application, the same is allowed main appeal is ordered to be taken up on board for hearing today IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-2280-CI-2025 in/and RFA-3993-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.03.2026 …..Appellants …..Respondents MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr.R.S. Manhas, Advocate Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab. listing the main appeal by fixing Notice of the application was issued on 01.09.2025. Learned counsel for the respondents does not raise any objection to the prayer made in the application. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone tion, the same is allowed. T to be taken up on board for hearing today listing the main appeal by fixing raise any Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone The to be taken up on board for hearing today SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.12 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3993 MAIN CASE award dated 0 cum-Addl. District Judge, 2. the appellant Teeka Doong, Gurdaspur) came to be acquired vide notifications dated and 24.11.1995 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The acquisition was carried out for public Channel of Shahpurkandi Dam Project certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the LAC') on Rs.2,65,020 appellant which came to be 01.12.20 3. evidence in the shape of deposition of AW Saini, approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, valuation and assessment existing over the acquired land were proved on record as Exs. A 3993-2002 (O&M) [2] MAIN CASE By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 01.12.2001 passed by the learned Reference Court Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur. Briefly stating, in the present case, some land owned by the appellants situated in the revenue estate of Village Teeka Doong, Tehsil Dhar Kalan, Gurdaspur) came to be acquired vide notifications dated 24.11.1995 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 Channel of Shahpurkandi Dam Project certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the LAC') on 12.03.1998 granting compensation to the tune of 2,65,020/- to the landowner(s). Being aggrieved appellants-landowners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved of the decision dated .2001, the present appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant evidence in the shape of deposition of AW , approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, valuation and assessment report regarding the construction existing over the acquired land were proved on record as Exs. A 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 situated in the revenue estate of Village Tharra Jhikla Tehsil Dhar Kalan, Pathankot (erstwhile district Gurdaspur) came to be acquired vide notifications dated 23.06.1995 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 purpose, namely, for Hydel Channel of Shahpurkandi Dam Project. At the time of acquisition, certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land Acquisition Collector (for granting compensation to the tune of to the landowner(s). Being aggrieved thereof, the sought reference under Section 18 of the Act Aggrieved of the decision dated appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that by way of evidence in the shape of deposition of AW-2 namely, Ved Parkash , approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site report regarding the construction existing over the acquired land were proved on record as Exs. A 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 Jhikla hile district 23.06.1995 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The for Hydel . At the time of acquisition, certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land Acquisition Collector (for granting compensation to the tune of , the sought reference under Section 18 of the Act Aggrieved of the decision dated submits that by way of Ved Parkash , approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site report regarding the construction existing over the acquired land were proved on record as Exs. A-1 SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.12 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3993 and A-2 assessed at Rs. entitled for the same b 4. of respondents submits that a well the learned Reference Court upon appreciation of evidence available on record and the same thus, calls for no interference an present appeal needs to be dismissed. 5. through the paper behalf of the appellant 6. awarded sum of Rs. existing over the acquired land. From the deposition of RW Chand Goel, Extra Assistant Engineer, PWD, B&R award was passed on the basis of assessment made b respondents 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. 7. has been proved on record as Rs. landowner 3993-2002 (O&M) [3] respectively whereby, the total value of the building was assessed at Rs.4,04,000/- 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 an present appeal needs to be dismissed. 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. As per the records, the appellant awarded sum of Rs.2,54,530/- as compensation towards structure existing over the acquired land. From the deposition of RW Chand Goel, Extra Assistant Engineer, PWD, B&R award was passed on the basis of assessment made b respondents-authority. Pertinently, the valuation of house 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 other hand, the valuat has been proved on record as Rs. landowners through deposition of AW respectively whereby, the total value of the building was and thus, the appellants-landowners were On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf 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 present appeal needs to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I find substance in the submissions made on As per the records, the appellants-landowners were as compensation towards structure existing over the acquired land. From the deposition of RW-1, Fakir Chand Goel, Extra Assistant Engineer, PWD, B&R, it is clear that the award was passed on the basis of assessment made by the he 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 the valuation of the super structure has been proved on record as Rs.4,04,000/- by the appellant through deposition of AW-2/Ved Parkash Saini; the respectively whereby, the total value of the building was were On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf reasoned award was passed by the learned Reference Court upon appreciation of evidence available d the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I find substance in the submissions made on were as compensation towards structure Fakir the y the 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 ion of the super structure by the appellants- ; the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.12 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3993 approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan (Ex.A 8. respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his deposition, thus, in such circumstances, the Assessment 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 of appellant Court in " reported as 2012(1) RCR(Civil), 192 went on the valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting the same, in order to balance the equities, the appellant entitled for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two valuations i.e. one made by the LAC @ Rs. one which has been proved on record by the appellant through the expert valuer (AW Rs.3,29,265 statutory benefits. 9. of. 10. expired in the appeal(s)/cross legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek 3993-2002 (O&M) [4] approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan (Ex.A-1) and Valuation Report ( Despite a lengthy cross respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his deposition, thus, in such circumstances, the Assessment Report ) needs to be relied upon as a relevant and substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation in favour of appellants-landowners. Under similar circumstances, this Court in "Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rattan Chand and Anr. reported as 2012(1) RCR(Civil), 192 went on the valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting the same, in order to balance the equities, the appellant entitled for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two valuations i.e. one made by the LAC @ Rs. one which has been proved on record by the appellant through the expert valuer (AW-2) @ Rs. 3,29,265/- [(Rs.4,04,000+ Rs.2,54,530 statutory benefits. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is disposed 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 approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Valuation Report (Ex.A-2). Despite a lengthy cross-examination of AW respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his deposition, thus, in such circumstances, the Assessment Report ) needs to be relied upon as a relevant and substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation in . Under similar circumstances, this Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rattan Chand and Anr. reported as 2012(1) RCR(Civil), 192 went on to take average of both the valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting the same, in order to balance the equities, the appellants-landowners are held entitled for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two valuations i.e. one made by the LAC @ Rs.2,54,530/- and the other one which has been proved on record by the appellants-landowner ) @ Rs.4,04,000/- which comes to Rs.2,54,530)/2] alongwith all other 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 approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through examination of AW-2, respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his deposition, thus, in such circumstances, the Assessment Report ) needs to be relied upon as a relevant and substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation in . Under similar circumstances, this Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rattan Chand and Anr." oth the valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting the same, in held entitled for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two and the other landowners which comes to alongwith all other 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 SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.12 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3993 execution of before the learned Executing Court. 11. disposed of. 06.03.2026 sanjay 3993-2002 (O&M) [5] 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. 06.03.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? the present decision by moving appropriate applications Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No the present decision by moving appropriate applications Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.12 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document