RFA No.1823 of 1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 204 MAHABIR SINGH & ORS Vs HARYANA STATE THROUGH COLLECTOR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. Present: Mr. S Mr. Ishan Aggarwal, Advocate Mr. Abhinash Jain, D.A.G., Haryana. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) [1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award dated 04.06.1997 passed by the (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’), whereby filed under Section 18 of the Lan the instance of Rs.38,733/- as compensation awarding other statutory benefits/interest in their favour. [2]. Briefly stating, revenue estate of village acquired vide Notification dated followed by an Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector LAC’) on 05.07.1990 the market value of the acquired 10.05.1991 was passed by the LAC regarding buildings, structures, tube well and trees upon the land in question. 1997 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.1823 of 1997 (O&M) Date of Decision: MAHABIR SINGH & ORS HARYANA STATE THROUGH COLLECTOR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Ishan Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Abhinash Jain, D.A.G., Haryana. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award dated passed by the learned District Judge, after to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’), whereby filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) at appellants/landowners was decided as compensation qua the trees mentioned in Statement N awarding other statutory benefits/interest in their favour. Briefly stating, the land owned by the appellants revenue estate of village Ghata, District Gurgaon (now Gurugram) acquired vide Notification dated 16.04.1990 issued followed by an Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector 05.07.1990 in terms of Section 11 of the 1894 Act t value of the acquired land. Thereafter supplementary Award No.3 dated was passed by the LAC regarding buildings, structures, tube well and trees upon the land in question. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.1823 of 1997 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.08.2025 ......Appellants HARYANA STATE THROUGH COLLECTOR & ORS ....Respondent(s) JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA udhir Aggarwal, Advocate with or the appellants. Mr. Abhinash Jain, D.A.G., Haryana. . By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award dated District Judge, Gurgaon (now Gurugram) after to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’), whereby Reference Petition d Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) at decided while granting them a sum of mentioned in Statement No.19 besides awarding other statutory benefits/interest in their favour. owned by the appellants situated within District Gurgaon (now Gurugram), came to be issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by an Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the in terms of Section 11 of the 1894 Act, thereby determining Thereafter supplementary Award No.3 dated was passed by the LAC regarding buildings, structures, tube well and 1 By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award dated Gurgaon (now Gurugram) Reference Petition d Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) at a sum of besides the came to be under Section 4 of the Act (for short ‘the , thereby determining Thereafter supplementary Award No.3 dated was passed by the LAC regarding buildings, structures, tube well and MOHMED ATIK 2025.08.25 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA No.1823 of 1997 [3]. Aggrieved thereof, under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be vide its award dated was enhanced to Rs.38,733/ by the appellants/landowners in the form of expert witness retired Forest Ranger and statutory benefits etc. [4]. Primary grievance of the appellants in the present appeal relates to determination of enhancement towards [5]. I have heard learned paper book. [6]. Except the oral deposition of one of the appellant appeared as PW documentary evidence in expert or an Architect was ever produced in support of their claim by the appellants/landowners. [7]. In such support the claim of the appel the award passed by the Reference Court and consequently, the present appeal is hereby dismissed [8]. All pending application August 20, 2025 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 1997 (O&M) Aggrieved thereof, the appellant(s) under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be vide its award dated 04.06.1997, and the compensation with respect to the trees was enhanced to Rs.38,733/- by relying upon ocular and documentary evidence led by the appellants/landowners in the form of expert witness retired Forest Ranger and also his report as Ex.P statutory benefits, however no enhancement was awarded with respect to tubewell Primary grievance of the appellants in the present appeal relates to determination of enhancement towards cost(s) of tubewell only. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the Except the oral deposition of one of the appellant appeared as PW-1 and went on to state that the cost of tubewell was documentary evidence in the shape of any valuation report from the building expert or an Architect was ever produced in support of their claim by the appellants/landowners. such circumstances in the absence of any substantive evidence to support the claim of the appellants, no illegality or perversity can be found with the award passed by the Reference Court and consequently, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No appellant(s)-landowners invoked Reference under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be decided by the Reference Court the compensation with respect to the trees by relying upon ocular and documentary evidence led by the appellants/landowners in the form of expert witness PW-2 Ranbir Singh, his report as Ex.P-1; besides awarding all other , however no enhancement was awarded with respect to tubewell Primary grievance of the appellants in the present appeal relates to cost(s) of tubewell only. counsel for the parties and gone through the Except the oral deposition of one of the appellant-Raj Pal, who t the cost of tubewell was Rs.1 lakh, no the shape of any valuation report from the building expert or an Architect was ever produced in support of their claim by the in the absence of any substantive evidence to no illegality or perversity can be found with the award passed by the Reference Court and consequently, the present appeal is , if any, shall stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 2 invoked Reference by the Reference Court the compensation with respect to the trees by relying upon ocular and documentary evidence led Ranbir Singh, a besides awarding all other , however no enhancement was awarded with respect to tubewell Primary grievance of the appellants in the present appeal relates to counsel for the parties and gone through the Raj Pal, who , no the shape of any valuation report from the building expert or an Architect was ever produced in support of their claim by the in the absence of any substantive evidence to no illegality or perversity can be found with the award passed by the Reference Court and consequently, the present appeal is MOHMED ATIK 2025.08.25 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment