1 106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH THE LAND ACQUISITION AMAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Ranbir Pathania, Advocate for cross objectors/respondents/landowners. HARKESH MANUJA CM-592-CI-2026 Notice of the application. Mr. behalf of appellant For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay of 2 days in filing the present (wrongly typed as appeal) CM-593-CI-2026 and CM Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. CM-595-CI-2026 and CM These are applications for bringing on record the legal heirs of respondent Nos.1 and 2 who have unfortunately died. Noti Mr. behalf of appellant the applications. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, t allowed, subject to all just exceptions paragraph 2 of application RFA-936-1996 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-936-1996 (O&M) Date of Decision: ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANR. Versus (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Ranbir Pathania, Advocate for cross objectors/respondents/landowners. **** MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 2026 Notice of the application. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab accepts notice on behalf of appellant-State. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay of 2 days in filing the present (wrongly typed as appeal) and the present application is thus, allo 2026 and CM-594-CI-2026 Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. 2026 and CM-596-CI-2026 These are applications for bringing on record the legal heirs of respondent Nos.1 and 2 who have unfortunately died. Notice of applications to non-applicants/respondents. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab accepts notice on behalf of appellant-State and raises no objection to the prayer made in the applications. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, t , subject to all just exceptions and the of applications are ordered to be impleaded as legal (O&M) with XOBJR-3-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (O&M) with XOBJR-3-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 10, 2026 COLLECTOR AND ANR. .......Appellants (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS & OTHERS ......Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Ranbir Pathania, Advocate for cross- objectors/respondents/landowners. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab accepts notice on For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay of 2 days in filing the present cross-objection and the present application is thus, allowed. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. These are applications for bringing on record the legal heirs of respondent Nos.1 and 2 who have unfortunately died. applicants/respondents. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab accepts notice on State and raises no objection to the prayer made in For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are and the applicants as mentioned in ordered to be impleaded as legal 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) February 10, 2026 Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab accepts notice on For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, sufficient cause has been made out for objection These are applications for bringing on record the legal heirs Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab accepts notice on State and raises no objection to the prayer made in are as mentioned in ordered to be impleaded as legal TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.13 18:58 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 RFA-936-1996 (O&M) with XOBJR-3-2026 (O&M) representatives of deceased-Amar Singh-respondent No.1 and deceased-Mansha Singh-respondent No.2. Amended memo of parties be taken on record. RFA-936-1996 with XOBJR-3-2026 By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 16.10.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur (hereinafter to as the ‘Reference Court’), whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the respondents-landowners, seeking enhancement of compensation was partly allowed. 2. Briefly stating, land measuring 9.96 acres, situated within the revenue estate of Village Jalahar, District Gurdaspur was acquired for the public purpose namely for construction of Bodh Chakki Dhar Road vide notification dated 26.07.1989 published on 11.08.1989 and notification dated 25.01.1990 (published on 09.02.1990) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, respectively. Vide award No.2 dated 19.11.1991, the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) awarded compensation @ Rs.12,000/- per acre each for Barani Aval and Barani Dom land, Rs.8,000/- per acre for Barani Som land, Rs.6,000/- per acre for Banjar Kadim land and Rs.4,000/- per acre for Gair mumkin abadi land besides awarding Rs.33,210/- for the house which included Rs.5670/- as labour cost for construction of new house and other statutory benefits under the Act. 3. The respondents-landowners, feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Reference Court pleading that the aforesaid of land was not less than Rs.6,000/- per marla besides claiming Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the house constructed over their acquired land. 4. Upon notice, the same was contested by the appellant(s)- State by filing reply. It was pleaded that the rate of compensation awarded by the LAC was fair, adequate and reasonable. Moreover, it was pleaded that for the house, Rs.5670/- has been awarded adequately towards shifting charges as well. TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.13 18:58 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 RFA-936-1996 (O&M) with XOBJR-3-2026 (O&M) 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Reference Court:- “1. What was the market price of the acquired property at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the awarded amount to the claimant is inadequate and to what extent? OPA 2. Relief.” 6. After considering the evidence, the learned Reference Court, vide award dated 16.10.1995 held the respondents-landowners entitled for Rs.1,01,778/- more as compensation of the house besides 12% interest from date of notification under Section 4 in the present case till date of award of Collector or taking possession of house, whichever is earlier. 7. Aggrieved of the aforesaid award dated 16.10.1995 passed by the learned Reference Court, the appellant(s)-State filed the present appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. 9. In the present case, the dispute relates to the determination of the market value against the construction existing over the acquired land owned by the respondents/cross-objectors/landowners. Both the parties have produced on record their respective assessment reports regarding the construction. The appellant(s)-State proved on record the report Exs.R-3 and R-4 vide which the value of the construction was assessed to be Rs.27,540/-. The Report Ex. R-4 was produced on record by RW-2-Gurjit Singh, J.E. O/o Central Works Division, Pathankot. However, a reading of his statement shows that original of Exs.R-3 and R-4 were not produced on record. In such circumstances, no illegality or perversity can be found on the part of the learned Reference Court for having discarded Exs. R-3 and R-4. 10. On the other hand, the respondents/cross- objectors/landowners proved on record their assessment-valuation report dated 03.11.1990 as Ex.A-6 6 whereby the value of the house was assessed to be Rs.1,07,448/-. The assessment report Ex.A-6 was prepared and proved on record by Sh. T.R. Sharma, Sub-Divisional Officer (retd.). Punjab Irrigation Department Shahpur Kandi Town, having TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.13 18:58 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 RFA-936-1996 (O&M) with XOBJR-3-2026 (O&M) appeared as AW-3, whose testimony could not be impeached despite detailed cross-examination by the appellant-State. 11. In view of the above, the award dated 16.10.1995 passed by the learned Reference Court, Gurdaspur being based on proper appreciation of evidence, calls for no interference. 12. Accordingly, the present appeal and cross-objection are both dismissed being devoid of merits. 13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 10.02.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.13 18:58 I agree to specified portions of this document