124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RAMJAAN STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. HARKESH MANUJA 1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’). 2. Briefly stating, the land owned by the appellant, situated Thara Jhikla Teeka Dung, acquired vide notifications dated 23.06.1995 and 24.11.1995 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the Act’) 12.03.1998. The Hydel Channel of Shahpurkandi Dam Project. 3. The present reference petition pert structures existing over the land in question, at the time of acquisition. Vide award dated made by the appellant. 4. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for th appellant submits that 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 committe fide. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: Versus NJAB AND ORS. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present appeal, challenge has been dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, . (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’). Briefly stating, the land owned by the appellant, situated Thara Jhikla Teeka Dung, Tehsil Dhar Kalan acquired vide notifications dated 23.06.1995 and 24.11.1995 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Award by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the Act’) 12.03.1998. The public purpose of acquisition was for construction of Hydel Channel of Shahpurkandi Dam Project. The present reference petition pertains to enhancement structures existing over the land in question, at the time of acquisition. Vide award dated 24.09.2021, the Reference Court made by the appellant. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for th 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 committe IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-2460-2002 Date of Decision: March 20, 2026 ........Appellant ......Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, . (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’). Briefly stating, the land owned by the appellant, situated in Village Dhar Kalan, District Gurdaspur, was acquired vide notifications dated 23.06.1995 and 24.11.1995 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively Award under Section 11 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the Act’) on purpose of acquisition was for construction of Hydel Channel of Shahpurkandi Dam Project. ains to enhancement qua the structures existing over the land in question, at the time of acquisition. 24.09.2021, the Reference Court rejected the claim Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the 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 was bona 2002 , 2026 award dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, in Village was acquired vide notifications dated 23.06.1995 and 24.11.1995 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively under Section 11 of the Act on purpose of acquisition was for construction of the structures existing over the land in question, at the time of acquisition. rejected the claim e 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 bona TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.30 19:01 I agree to specified portions of this document RFA-2460-2002 -2- 5. 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. 7. 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 hereunder:- “26. Ordinarily, the landowners claim an exaggerated amount as regards construction that exists on the 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.” 8. 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 amount awarded in his favour vide award dated 12.03.1998 against the assessment of the structures. 9. Appeal stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. 10. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 20.03.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.30 19:01 I agree to specified portions of this document