105 (3 cases IN TH (1) Madan Lal a Punjab Stat (2) Onkar Nath Punjab Stat (3) Beas Dev a State of Pun CORAM: Present: ases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RFA Date n Lal and others Versus b State and another RFA Nath and another Versus b State and another AND RFA Dev and others Versus of Punjab and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR Mr. Gurdial Singh Jaswal, Adv for the appellant(s) / landowne (in RFA Nos. 710 & 1180 of 19 Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advoc for the appellant(s)-landowner( (in RFA No. 2198 of 2004) Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Additional for the respondent(s)-State of **** UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH RFA No. 710 of 1996 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.11.2025 ...Appellants ...Respondents RFA No. 1180 of 1996 (O&M) ...Appellants ...Respondents RFA No. 2198 of 2004 (O&M) ...Appellants ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA , Advocate owner(s) of 1996) vocate for Advocate wner(s) ional Advocate General, Punjab te of Punjab. DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.13 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose off the present three appeals bearing RFA Nos. 710 & 1180 of 1996 and RFA No. 2198 of 2004, as the same arise out of common acquisition. In all the appeals, the appellants-landowners are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being culled out from RFA No. 710 of 1996. [2] Challenge has been made to Award dated 30.10.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”), whereby the reference petition filed by the appellant(s)-landowner(s) were accepted, while awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 12,500/- per acre in respect of Barani land and Banjar Qadim land respectively alongwith other statutory benefits. FACTS [3] Briefly, the facts are that in pursuance of Punjab Govt. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “1894 Act”) issued on 28.07.1987, followed by Notification dated 20.10.1987 under Section 6 thereof, certain land owned by the appellants situated within the revenue estate of Village Neknama Sainso, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, was acquired. The public purpose for acquisition was stated to be “for construction of Kandi Canal from RD 19300 to 24300 meters”. The LAC, vide Award dated 29.03.1989, assessed the market value of Barani land at the rate of Rs. 7,290.05 per acre while Rs. 3,719.93 per acre for Banjar Qadim and Gair Mumkin land. DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.13 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- [4] Dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award, landowners / interested persons filed objections under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which were decided/disposed off vide award dated 30.10.1995 by the learned Reference Court, whereby market value of the acquired land was determined at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 12,500/- per acre in respect of Barani land and Banjar Qadim land respectively alongwith other statutory benefits. [5] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book / relevant record. [6] A perusal of the record in the form of examination-in-chief of Sh. Kulwant Singh, Patwari, Office of LAC, Dholbaha (Hoshiarpur), who appeared as RW-1, shows that the possession of the land under acquisition was taken over on 01.02.1981 whereas the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued on 28.07.1987. No revenue record has been produced by the respondents to rebut the statement made by RW-1 about taking over the possession of the land on 01.02.1981, in the shape of any khasra girdawari or jamabandi pertaining to the relevant period. In such circumstances, since the factum of taking over the possession of the land on 01.02.1981, in the wake of admission made by RW-1, stands un- rebutted, the appellants-landowners are entitled for grant of amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value in terms of Section 23 (1-A) of the 1894 Act from the date of taking over the possession of the land i.e. 01.02.1981 till the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 28.07.1987. As such, the same is thus granted to the appellants. DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.13 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -4- [7] With respect to the market value awarded by the learned Reference Court, no interference is called for as the same is based on proper appreciation of evidence and nothing material has been left for consideration. However, considering the fact that the bifurcation of land into two parts has been admitted by RW-1 in his cross- examination and the same is also traceable from the very purpose of acquisition, i.e. construction of Kandi Canal, the appellants- landowners are thus held entitled for award of damages towards severance of land at the rate of 15% as awarded to other similarly placed landowners pertaining to the adjoining revenue estates as per decision dated 26.11.2012 rendered by this Court in RFA No. 1522 of 2000, titled “Kishan Chand son of Dalipa Ram Versus Land Acquisition Officer, Dholbaha Dam Construction Circule, Hoshiarpur and another”. [8] With the above observations, the appeals are disposed off accordingly. [9] 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. [10] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off. November 10, 2025 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.13 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document