RFA-464 108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Chajju Ram (Deceased) through LRs. and anr. Union of India and ors. CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Award dated District Judge, reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners bearing and non stands dismissed 464-1998 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: Chajju Ram (Deceased) through LRs. and anr. Versus Union of India and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Sapehiya, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sudhir Nar, Sr. Panel counsel for UOI (RSA-464-1998) Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to Award dated 10.11.1997 passed by the Court of District Judge, Gurdaspur-cum-Reference Court; whereby the reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners seeking enhancement of compensation towards fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees existing over their acquired land, dismissed. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-464-1998 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.11.2025 Chajju Ram (Deceased) through LRs. and anr. …….Appellants Versus .….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Sapehiya, Advocate Mr. Sudhir Nar, Sr. Panel counsel for UOI Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the the Court of Learned Additional Reference Court; whereby the reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of appellants/ seeking enhancement of compensation towards fruit existing over their acquired land, the Additional Reference Court; whereby the reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of appellants/ seeking enhancement of compensation towards fruit existing over their acquired land, SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.14 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-464 2. appellants/landowners Sangher, the then District Gurdaspur came to be acquired vide notifications dated on 16.09.1977) and 20.04.1978 (published in the Gazette on 28.04.1978) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’), respectively, for defence purposes. Special Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) award with respect to the market value of the 30.11.1979, whereby no compensation for fruit bearing/ bearing trees and construction existing over the acquired land was granted in favour of the appellants/ landowners. 3. No.4664 of 1984 was filed at the instance which was disposed of vide order dated 08.10.1985 LAC to pronounce separate award two different awards were passed by the LAC i.e. Award No. 8 dated 03.01.1986 with respect to fruit bearing trees; whereas Aw No.8-A-1 dated 03.01.1986 qua non 4. the appellants/ landowners sought reference petition which came to be dismissed by the learned Reference Court vide 10.11.1997. Hence the present appeal. 5. 464-1998 (O&M) [2] Briefly stating, certain land owned by the appellants/landowners, situated within the revenue estate of Village Sangher, the then District Gurdaspur came to be acquired vide notifications dated 26.08.1973 (published in the State Govt. Gazette on 16.09.1977) and 20.04.1978 (published in the Gazette on 28.04.1978) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’), respectively, for defence purposes. Special Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) award with respect to the market value of the 30.11.1979, whereby no compensation for fruit bearing/ bearing trees and construction existing over the acquired land was granted in favour of the appellants/ landowners. Being aggrieved of the award passed by the LAC, CWP No.4664 of 1984 was filed at the instance was disposed of vide order dated 08.10.1985 LAC to pronounce separate award(s) two different awards were passed by the LAC i.e. Award No. 8 03.01.1986 with respect to fruit bearing trees; whereas Aw 1 dated 03.01.1986 qua non-fruit bearing trees. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award dated the appellants/ landowners sought reference petition which came to be dismissed by the learned Reference Court vide .1997. Hence the present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone certain land owned by the situated within the revenue estate of Village Sangher, the then District Gurdaspur came to be acquired vide 26.08.1973 (published in the State Govt. Gazette on 16.09.1977) and 20.04.1978 (published in the Gazette on 28.04.1978) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’), respectively, for defence purposes. Special Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) passed the award with respect to the market value of the acquired land on 30.11.1979, whereby no compensation for fruit bearing/non-fruit bearing trees and construction existing over the acquired land was granted in favour of the appellants/ landowners. Being aggrieved of the award passed by the LAC, CWP No.4664 of 1984 was filed at the instance of landowners/ appellants was disposed of vide order dated 08.10.1985, directing the (s) for trees etc. In terms thereof, two different awards were passed by the LAC i.e. Award No. 8 03.01.1986 with respect to fruit bearing trees; whereas Award fruit bearing trees. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award dated 03.01.1986, the appellants/ landowners sought reference petition which came to be dismissed by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated .1997. Hence the present appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone certain land owned by the situated within the revenue estate of Village Sangher, the then District Gurdaspur came to be acquired vide 26.08.1973 (published in the State Govt. Gazette on 16.09.1977) and 20.04.1978 (published in the Gazette on 28.04.1978) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’), respectively, for defence purposes. passed the land on fruit bearing trees and construction existing over the acquired land was Being aggrieved of the award passed by the LAC, CWP of landowners/ appellants, , directing the for trees etc. In terms thereof, two different awards were passed by the LAC i.e. Award No. 8-A ard 3.01.1986, the appellants/ landowners sought reference petition which came to dated I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.14 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-464 through the paper 6. petitions preferred at the instance of appellant been dismissed primarily on the ground while relying upon a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vs. Gurcharan Singh and another Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to case while assessing market value of the acquired land, the income from the fruit bearing trees was also included towards the land value 464-1998 (O&M) [3] through the paper-book as well as records of the case. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the reference petitions preferred at the instance of appellant been dismissed primarily on the ground while relying upon a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vs. Gurcharan Singh and another, AIR 1996 SC 106, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to “It is well settled law that the Collector or the Court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The m basis of the yield. Then necessary applying suitable multiplier, the compensation need to be awarded. Under no circumstances the Court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit bearing trees. In other words, market value of the land is determined twice over and one on the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit bearing trees. The definition of the land includes the benefits to arise f as defined in S.3(a) of the Act. After compensation is determined on the basis of the value of the land from the income applying suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only as fire compensation would be given.” A perusal of the aforesaid decision case while assessing market value of the acquired land, the income from the fruit bearing trees was also included towards the land value book as well as records of the case. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the reference petitions preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners have been dismissed primarily on the ground while relying upon a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana , AIR 1996 SC 106, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold to the following effect: It is well settled law that the Collector or the Court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield. Then necessary applying suitable multiplier, the compensation need to be awarded. Under no circumstances the Court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as bearing trees. In other words, market value of the land is determined twice over and one on the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit bearing trees. The definition of the land includes the benefits to arise from the land as defined in S.3(a) of the Act. After compensation is determined on the basis of the value of the land from the income applying suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only as fire-wood and necessary compensation would be given.” A perusal of the aforesaid decision reflects that in the said case while assessing market value of the acquired land, the income from the fruit bearing trees was also included towards the land value A perusal of the impugned order shows that the reference s/ landowners have been dismissed primarily on the ground while relying upon a decision State of Haryana , AIR 1996 SC 106, wherein the old to the following effect:- It is well settled law that the Collector or the Court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the arket value is determined on the basis of the yield. Then necessary applying suitable multiplier, the compensation need to be awarded. Under no circumstances the Court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as bearing trees. In other words, market value of the land is determined twice over and one on the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit bearing trees. The definition rom the land as defined in S.3(a) of the Act. After compensation is determined on the basis of the value of the land from the income applying suitable multiplier, then the trees wood and necessary reflects that in the said case while assessing market value of the acquired land, the income from the fruit bearing trees was also included towards the land value SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.14 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-464 and thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to hold that in such circumstances, the landowners were only to be granted fire value against the trees. However, admittedly, in the present case, while passing the Award dated value towards the land only and the income from the fruit bearing trees was never included towards the circumstances, the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh’s of the case in hand. 7. impugned Award did not care to deal with the extensive evidence led by the appellants/ landowners and even the reports Exs.A1 and A bearing trees as well as non acquired land The learned the appellants/ landowners towards valuation/ enhancement of compensation against the trees existing over the acquired land was required to deal with the evidence available on record so as to determine their claim i of there being any discussion on the evidence available on records, the learned Reference Court went wrong while declining the claim made on behalf of the appellants/ landowners. 8. 464-1998 (O&M) [4] and thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to hold that in such circumstances, the landowners were only to be granted fire value against the trees. However, admittedly, in the present case, while passing the Award dated 30.11.1979, LAC assessed the m value towards the land only and the income from the fruit bearing trees was never included towards the circumstances, the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Gurcharan Singh’s case (supra) was no to be applied to the of the case in hand. Moreover, the learned Reference Court, while passing the impugned Award did not care to deal with the extensive evidence led by the appellants/ landowners including statements of AW1 to AW4 and even the reports Exs.A1 and A2 bearing trees as well as non-fruit bearing trees, existing over the acquired land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act learned Reference Court, while dealing with the claim set up by the appellants/ landowners towards valuation/ enhancement of compensation against the trees existing over the acquired land was required to deal with the evidence available on record so as to determine their claim in a fair and just manner. Thus, in the absence of there being any discussion on the evidence available on records, the learned Reference Court went wrong while declining the claim made on behalf of the appellants/ landowners. Furthermore, the findings and thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to hold that in such circumstances, the landowners were only to be granted fire-wood value against the trees. However, admittedly, in the present case, 30.11.1979, LAC assessed the market value towards the land only and the income from the fruit bearing trees was never included towards the land value. In such circumstances, the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was no to be applied to the facts the learned Reference Court, while passing the impugned Award did not care to deal with the extensive evidence led including statements of AW1 to AW4 2 towards the valuation of fruit fruit bearing trees, existing over the at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act , while dealing with the claim set up by the appellants/ landowners towards valuation/ enhancement of compensation against the trees existing over the acquired land was required to deal with the evidence available on record so as to fair and just manner. Thus, in the absence of there being any discussion on the evidence available on records, the learned Reference Court went wrong while declining the claim made on behalf of the appellants/ landowners. Furthermore, the findings recorded by the learned and thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to hold that in such wood value against the trees. However, admittedly, in the present case, arket value towards the land only and the income from the fruit bearing value. In such circumstances, the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court facts the learned Reference Court, while passing the impugned Award did not care to deal with the extensive evidence led including statements of AW1 to AW4 fruit fruit bearing trees, existing over the at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act. , while dealing with the claim set up by the appellants/ landowners towards valuation/ enhancement of compensation against the trees existing over the acquired land was required to deal with the evidence available on record so as to fair and just manner. Thus, in the absence of there being any discussion on the evidence available on records, the learned Reference Court went wrong while declining the claim recorded by the learned SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.14 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-464 Reference Court with respect to declining the relief of interest in favour of the appellants from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 26.08.1973, 03.01.1986 regarding respectively, is also without any basis. Once the Award pertaining to the value of fruit bearing and non 03.01.1986, the appellants/ landowners were entitled calculated notification dated 26.08.1973, iss the passing of the award i.e. 03.01.1986. 9. present passed by the learned Reference Court matter is adjudication based on the evidence available on record as well as additional evidence br before this Court in the form of Awards bearing LAC Nos. 256, 257 and 258 of 1986 dated 06.02.1989. 10. District Judge at Pathankot who is requested to decide the reference within 04 months from today. Learned District Judge is also requested to expedite the hearing of reference petition keeping in mind the fact that the acquisition in the present 464-1998 (O&M) [5] Reference Court with respect to declining the relief of interest in favour of the appellants from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 26.08.1973, till the date of passing of the Awards dated 03.01.1986 regarding fruit bearing and non respectively, is also without any basis. Once the Award pertaining to the value of fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees was passed on 03.01.1986, the appellants/ landowners were entitled lated @ 12% per annum on the market value notification dated 26.08.1973, issued under Section 4 of the Act till the passing of the award i.e. 03.01.1986. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, present appeal is allowed. Impugned Award dated 10.11.1997 passed by the learned Reference Court is remanded back to the learned Reference Court for its fresh adjudication based on the evidence available on record as well as additional evidence brought on record by the appellants/ landowners before this Court in the form of Awards bearing LAC Nos. 256, 257 and 258 of 1986 dated 06.02.1989. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge at Pathankot-cum-Reference Court on who is requested to decide the reference within 04 months from today. Learned District Judge is also requested to expedite the hearing of reference petition keeping in mind the fact that the acquisition in the present Reference Court with respect to declining the relief of interest in favour of the appellants from the date of notification under Section 4 the date of passing of the Awards dated fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees, respectively, is also without any basis. Once the Award pertaining to fruit bearing trees was passed on 03.01.1986, the appellants/ landowners were entitled for an amount on the market value from the date of ued under Section 4 of the Act till the passing of the award i.e. 03.01.1986. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, the d. Impugned Award dated 10.11.1997 passed by the learned Reference Court is hereby set aside. The remanded back to the learned Reference Court for its fresh adjudication based on the evidence available on record as well as ought on record by the appellants/ landowners before this Court in the form of Awards bearing LAC Nos. 256, 257 The parties are directed to appear before the learned Reference Court on 26.11.2025, who is requested to decide the reference petition on merits afresh within 04 months from today. Learned District Judge is also requested to expedite the hearing of reference petition keeping in mind the fact that the acquisition in the present case relates to the Reference Court with respect to declining the relief of interest in favour of the appellants from the date of notification under Section 4 the date of passing of the Awards dated fruit bearing trees, respectively, is also without any basis. Once the Award pertaining to fruit bearing trees was passed on for an amount from the date of ued under Section 4 of the Act till the d. Impugned Award dated 10.11.1997 The remanded back to the learned Reference Court for its fresh adjudication based on the evidence available on record as well as ought on record by the appellants/ landowners before this Court in the form of Awards bearing LAC Nos. 256, 257 The parties are directed to appear before the learned 26.11.2025, on merits afresh within 04 months from today. Learned District Judge is also requested to expedite the hearing of reference petition keeping in case relates to the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.14 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-464 year 1973 and more than five decades have appellants/ landowners are awaiting proper adjudication of their rights/ claims. 10. disposed of. 11.11.2025 sanjay 464-1998 (O&M) [6] year 1973 and more than five decades have appellants/ landowners are awaiting proper adjudication of their rights/ claims. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? year 1973 and more than five decades have already gone by and the appellants/ landowners are awaiting proper adjudication of their Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No gone by and the appellants/ landowners are awaiting proper adjudication of their Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.14 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document