105 IN THE Rajinder Na The State o CORAM: Present: HARKESH appeal pref (for short “ 09.09.1994 (hereinafte of compens trees. [2] landowners District SAS issued unde 11.11.1983 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RFA N Date o der Nath and others Versus tate of Punjab AM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Nitish Kaushal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Additiona for the respondent. **** KESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) The appellants-landowners, l preferred under Section 54 of the L hort “1894 Act”), are seeking modi .1994 passed by the learned Additi inafter to be referred as “Reference pensation amount regarding the fru Briefly stating, some land o wners, situated within the revenue SAS Nagar was acquired vide no under Section 4 of the 1894 Act; fo .1983 issued under Section 6 UNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH FA No. 562 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.11.2025 ...Appellants ...Respondent E HARKESH MANUJA vocate ditional Advocate General, Punjab ers, by instituting the present f the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 modification of the award dated itional District Judge, Ropar rence Court”) for enhancement fruit bearing trees and other and owned by the appellants- enue estate of Village Mataur, de notification dated 19.11.1980 followed by notification dated 6 thereof. Subsequently, a njab DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.21 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- supplementary award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short “LAC”) on 10.10.1988 regarding the existing tree(s) over the land in question and a sum of Rs. 3,400/- was awarded as compensation. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants-landowners preferred reference petition under Section 18 of the 1894 Act and the learned Reference Court vide its decision/award dated 09.09.1994 awarded a sum of Rs. 17,152/- for four mango trees whereas Rs.3,000/- was granted against one Kikar tree. Hence, the present appeal. [3] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record/paper-book, I find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the appellants. [4] A perusal of the record shows that as per the report/ Ex. A-1, made by Sh. Jasbir Singh, Deputy Director, Horticulture (Retd.), who was examined as AW-1, the total value of three mango trees and one Kikar tree found on the land of the appellants, was assessed as Rs. 25,728/- & Rs. 3,000/- respectively based on the age of productivity etc. As per the said report, the Mango Trees existing over the acquired land were of the ‘A’ Category, whereas the same were treated under ‘C’ Category by the learned Reference Court without recording any justified reasons. In such circumstances, relying upon the report Ex. A-1, which appears to be comprehensive and reliable, in the humble opinion of this Court, the same needs to be relied upon for the purpose of determination of value of trees in comparison to the report produced by the respondent. DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.21 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- [5] Accordingly, the appellants-landowners are held entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs. 25,728/- towards Mango Tree(s) alongwith consequential / statutory benefits and interest as provided in the 1894 Act (as amended up-to-date), especially the interest on solatium as well. [6] Disposed off accordingly. [7] Also, wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately died in the appeal(s) / cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal representatives have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. [8] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. November 14, 2025 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.21 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document