RFA-448 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Himat Singh @ Himmat Singh (Deceased) through LRs. Punjab State CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) award dated 28.03.2012 passed by the learned Reference Court cum-Addl. District Judge, 2. the appellant situated in revenue estate Pathankot (erstwhile notifications dated 07.08.1995 and 23.07.1996 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). T purpose of construction of reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam, Pathankot. At the time of acquisition, certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land 4489-2012 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA No. Date of Decision: 18.05.2026 Singh @ Himmat Singh (Deceased) through LRs. Versus Punjab State 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 dated 28.03.2012 passed by the learned Reference Court Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur. Briefly stating, in the present case, some land owned by the appellant situated in revenue estate Pathankot (erstwhile District Gurdaspur) came to be acquired vide notifications dated 07.08.1995 and 23.07.1996 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 of construction of reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam, Pathankot. At the time of acquisition, certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 4489-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.05.2026 Singh @ Himmat Singh (Deceased) through LRs. …….Appellants 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 dated 28.03.2012 passed by the learned Reference Court Briefly stating, in the present case, some land owned by the appellant situated in revenue estate of Village Darkua Bangla, istrict Gurdaspur) came to be acquired vide notifications dated 07.08.1995 and 23.07.1996 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter he acquisition was carried out for public purpose of construction of reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam, Pathankot. At the time of acquisition, certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 28.03.2012 passed by the learned Reference Court- Briefly stating, in the present case, some land owned by of Village Darkua Bangla, istrict Gurdaspur) came to be acquired vide notifications dated 07.08.1995 and 23.07.1996 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter he acquisition was carried out for public purpose of construction of reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam, Pathankot. At the time of acquisition, certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-448 Acquisition Collector (for short 'the LAC') on 2 compensation to the tune of Rs. aggrieved, the appellant 18 of the Act which came to be partly accepted while awarding of compensation of 2 assessed by the LAC. Aggrieved of the decision dated the present appeal has been preferred. 3. evidence in the shape o approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, valuation report and assessment report regarding the construction existing over the acquired land were proved on record as Ex 2 and A- assessed at Rs. entitled for the same benefit. 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 and the present a 5. through the paper behalf of the appellant 4489-2012 (O&M) [2] ion Collector (for short 'the LAC') on 2 compensation to the tune of Rs.68,693 aggrieved, the appellant-landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be partly accepted while awarding of compensation of 20% over and above the value of super structure as assessed by the LAC. Aggrieved of the decision dated sent appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by way of evidence in the shape of deposition of AW approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, valuation report and assessment report regarding the construction existing over the acquired land were proved on record as Ex -4 respectively, whereby, the total value of the building was assessed at Rs.3,52,188/- and thus, the appellant entitled for the same benefit. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that a well-reasone the learned Reference Court upon appreciation of evidence available on record and the same thus, calls for no interference and the appeal needs to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-landowner. ion Collector (for short 'the LAC') on 25.08.1998 granting 8,693/- to the landowner(s). Being landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be partly accepted while awarding of % over and above the value of super structure as assessed by the LAC. Aggrieved of the decision dated 28.03.2012 sent appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by way of f deposition of AW-1 namely, Pawan Kapil approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, valuation report and assessment report regarding the construction existing over the acquired land were proved on record as Exs. A-1, A whereby, the total value of the building was and thus, the appellant-landowner was 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 ppeal needs to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I find substance in the submissions made on .1998 granting to the landowner(s). Being landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be partly accepted while awarding of % over and above the value of super structure as 28.03.2012, Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by way of Pawan Kapil, approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, valuation report and assessment report regarding the construction , A- whereby, the total value of the building was landowner was On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf d 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 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I find substance in the submissions made on SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-448 6. sum of Rs. the acquired land. From the depos Draftman the basis of assessment made by a committee consisting of 3 members constituted by the respondents determination was never made as that as per the policy decision dated 18.11.1993 by the Deputy Commissioner Shahpurkandi Dam Project, the valuation of house and other structures over the acquired land needs to be car current Common Schedule of Rates (CSR) as applicable to PWD Irrigation Branch. 7. been proved on record as Rs. through deposition of AW (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan (Ex.A Valuation Report (Ex.A 8. respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his deposition, thus, in such circumstances, the needs to be relied upon as a relevant and substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensati of appellant 4489-2012 (O&M) [3] As per the records, the appellant sum of Rs.68,693/- as compensation towards structure existing over the acquired land. From the deposition of RW Draftman, Ranjit Sagar Dam, it is clear that an award was passed on the basis of assessment made by a committee consisting of 3 members constituted by the respondents determination was never made as per CSR rates. It is not disputed that as per the policy decision dated 18.11.1993 by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman of Sub Committee (R&R), Shahpurkandi Dam Project, the valuation of house and other structures over the acquired land needs to be car current Common Schedule of Rates (CSR) as applicable to PWD Irrigation Branch. On the contrary, the valuation of the super structure has been proved on record as Rs.3,52,188 through deposition of AW-1/Pawan Kapil (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan (Ex.A Valuation Report (Ex.A-1) and Assessment Report (Ex.A Despite a lengthy cross respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his deposition, thus, in such circumstances, the needs to be relied upon as a relevant and substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensati of appellant-landowner. Under similar circumstances, this Court in As per the records, the appellant-landowner was awarded as compensation towards structure existing over ition of RW-1, Manjit Singh, Head , Ranjit Sagar Dam, it is clear that an award was passed on the basis of assessment made by a committee consisting of 3 members constituted by the respondents-authority, however, the per CSR rates. It is not disputed that as per the policy decision dated 18.11.1993 by the Deputy Chairman of Sub Committee (R&R), Shahpurkandi Dam Project, the 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 On the contrary, the valuation of the super structure has 188/- by the appellant-landowner wan Kapil; the approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan (Ex.A- ) and Assessment Report (Ex.A-4). Despite a lengthy cross-examination of AW respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his deposition, thus, in such circumstances, the valuation Report (Ex.A needs to be relied upon as a relevant and substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation in favour landowner. Under similar circumstances, this Court in landowner was awarded as compensation towards structure existing over Manjit Singh, Head , Ranjit Sagar Dam, it is clear that an award was passed on the basis of assessment made by a committee consisting of 3 authority, however, the per CSR rates. It is not disputed that as per the policy decision dated 18.11.1993 by the Deputy Chairman of Sub Committee (R&R), Shahpurkandi Dam Project, the valuation of house and other ried out as per the current Common Schedule of Rates (CSR) as applicable to PWD On the contrary, the valuation of the super structure has landowner ; the approved valuer -2), examination of AW-1, respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his Report (Ex.A-1) needs to be relied upon as a relevant and substantive piece of on in favour landowner. Under similar circumstances, this Court in SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-448 "Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rattan Chand and Anr. 2012(1) RCR(Civil), 192 went on valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting order to balance the equities, the appellant for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two valuations i.e. one made by the LAC @ one which has been proved on record by the app through the expert valuer (AW Rs.2,10,440 benefits. 9. of. 10. expired in the appeal(s)/cross legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications before the learned Execu 11. disposed of. 18.05.2026 sanjay 4489-2012 (O&M) [4] Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rattan Chand and Anr. 2012(1) RCR(Civil), 192 went on valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting order to balance the equities, the appellant for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two valuations i.e. one made by the LAC @ one which has been proved on record by the app through the expert valuer (AW-1) @ 440/- (3,52,188 + 68,693/2) alongwith all other statutory In view of the aforesaid, the Wherever the landowner(s) has 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 applications before the learned Executing Court. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 18.05.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rattan Chand and Anr., reported as to take average of both the valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting the same, in order to balance the equities, the appellant-landowner is held entitled for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two valuations i.e. one made by the LAC @ Rs.68,693/- and the other one which has been proved on record by the appellant-landowner ) @ Rs.3,52,188/- which comes to /2) alongwith all other statutory In view of the 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 execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No , reported as to take average of both the the same, in landowner is held entitled for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two and the other landowner which comes to /2) alongwith all other statutory present appeal is disposed /have unfortunately 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 applications 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