RFA-2372 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Anirudh Singh State of Punjab and ors. CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) award 19.03.2002 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court'). 2. in Village acquired vide notifications dated under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Award under Section 11 of the Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Act') on 25.08.1998. The public purpose of of Reservoir area of township 3. qua the structures existing over the land in question, at the time of 372-2002 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA No. Date of Decision: 18.05.2026 Anirudh Singh Versus State of Punjab 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 19.03.2002 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court'). Briefly stating, the land owned by the appellant, situated lage Darkua Bangla, Tehsil Dhar Kalan, District Gurdaspur, was acquired vide notifications dated 07.08.1995 under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Award under Section 11 of the Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Act') on 25.08.1998. The public purpose of Reservoir area of Ranjit Sagar Dam Project township. The present reference petition pertains to enhancement qua the structures existing over the land in question, at the time of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2372-2002 (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 award 19.03.2002 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court'). Briefly stating, the land owned by the appellant, situated Tehsil Dhar Kalan, District Gurdaspur, was 07.08.1995 and 27.08.1996 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Award under Section 11 of the Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Act') on 25.08.1998. The public purpose of acquisition was for construction Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, of Shahpurkandi The present reference petition pertains to enhancement qua the structures existing over the land in question, at the time of By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award 19.03.2002 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Briefly stating, the land owned by the appellant, situated Tehsil Dhar Kalan, District Gurdaspur, was issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Award under Section 11 of the Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Act') acquisition was for construction of Shahpurkandi The present reference petition pertains to enhancement qua the structures existing over the land in question, at the time of SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2372 acquisition. Vide awa rejected the claim made by the appellant. 4. the appellant submits that appellant was not able to lead his evidence as he was under the impression that his ca with other connected matters and the evidence was being led in one of those connected cases and thus, the error committed on his part was bona fide 5. prayer made herein while opportunities, the appellant failed to lead his evidence and thus, the award passed by the learned Reference Court do not warrant any interference. 6. through the 7. reliance upon a decision dated 07.10.2016 made by this Court in "Darshana Devi versus State of Haryana and others", bearing RFA No.1718 of 2002 and award 25% increase on the value of structure as assessed by the Collector vide award dated 12.03.1998. The relevant portion of the aforementioned judgment is reproduced hereunder: 372-2002 (O&M) [2] acquisition. Vide award dated 19.03.2002 rejected the claim made by the appellant. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was not able to lead his evidence as he was under the impression that his ca with other connected matters and the evidence was being led in one of those connected cases and thus, the error committed on his part bona fide. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made herein while submitting that despite granting ample opportunities, the appellant failed to lead his evidence and thus, the award passed by the learned Reference Court do not warrant any interference. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. In the present case, it would be more practical to place reliance upon a decision dated 07.10.2016 made by this Court in "Darshana Devi versus State of Haryana and others", bearing RFA No.1718 of 2002 and award 25% increase on the value of structure as assessed by the Collector vide award dated 12.03.1998. The relevant portion of the aforementioned judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "26. Ordinarily, the landowners claim an exaggerated amount as regards construction that exists on the 19.03.2002, the Reference Court rejected the claim made by the appellant. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was not able to lead his evidence as he was under the impression that his case had been tagged along with other connected matters and the evidence was being led in one of those connected cases and thus, the error committed on his part On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submitting that despite granting ample opportunities, the appellant failed to lead his evidence and thus, the award passed by the learned Reference Court do not warrant any I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone In the present case, it would be more practical to place reliance upon a decision dated 07.10.2016 made by this Court in "Darshana Devi versus State of Haryana and others", bearing RFA No.1718 of 2002 and award 25% increase on the value of super structure as assessed by the Collector vide award dated 12.03.1998. The relevant portion of the aforementioned judgment is reproduced Ordinarily, the landowners claim an exaggerated amount as regards construction that exists on the , the Reference Court Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was not able to lead his evidence se had been tagged along with other connected matters and the evidence was being led in one of those connected cases and thus, the error committed on his part On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submitting that despite granting ample opportunities, the appellant failed to lead his evidence and thus, the award passed by the learned Reference Court do not warrant any I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone In the present case, it would be more practical to place reliance upon a decision dated 07.10.2016 made by this Court in "Darshana Devi versus State of Haryana and others", bearing RFA super structure as assessed by the Collector vide award dated 12.03.1998. The relevant portion of the aforementioned judgment is reproduced Ordinarily, the landowners claim an exaggerated amount as regards construction that exists on the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2372 8. upon decision made in the case of Darshana Devi (supra), the appellant is held entitled for enhancement of 25% over and above the awarded in his favour vide award dated assessmen 9. 10. disposed of. 18.05.2026 sanjay 372-2002 (O&M) [3] acquired land. Likewise, the assessment of compensation for superstructure by the State is generally conservative, and is not reflective of its true value or worth. For, the exact value of the structure can never be determined with mathematical precision, various decisions has been awarding 25% increase on the value of the superstructure assessed by the Collector as a thumb rule. As a result, appellant Darshana Devi shall be entitled to 25% increase upon the compensation i.e. 42,977 by the Collector in this regard." In view of the discussion made hereinabove and relying upon decision made in the case of Darshana Devi (supra), the appellant is held entitled for enhancement of 25% over and above the awarded in his favour vide award dated assessment of the structures. Appeal stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 18.05.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? acquired land. Likewise, the assessment of compensation for superstructure by the State is generally conservative, and is not reflective of its true value or worth. For, the exact value of the structure can never be determined with mathematical precision, therefore, this court in various decisions has been awarding 25% increase on the value of the superstructure assessed by the Collector as a thumb rule. As a result, appellant Darshana Devi shall be entitled to 25% increase upon the compensation i.e. 42,977/- awarded to her by the Collector in this regard." In view of the discussion made hereinabove and relying upon decision made in the case of Darshana Devi (supra), the appellant is held entitled for enhancement of 25% over and above the awarded in his favour vide award dated 25.08.1998 against th Appeal stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No acquired land. Likewise, the assessment of compensation for superstructure by the State is generally conservative, and is not reflective of its true value or worth. For, the exact value of the structure can never be determined with therefore, this court in various decisions has been awarding 25% increase on the value of the superstructure assessed by the Collector as a thumb rule. As a result, appellant Darshana Devi shall be entitled to 25% increase awarded to her In view of the discussion made hereinabove and relying upon decision made in the case of Darshana Devi (supra), the appellant is held entitled for enhancement of 25% over and above the against the 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