RFA-249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Inderjit Singh The Collector, Gurdaspur CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CM-2039 application for listing the case by fixing some actual date of hearing has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. MAIN CASE award dated cum-Addl. District Judge, 2. the appellant situated in revenue estate of Village Pathankot (erstwhile 49-2018 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA No. Date of Decision: 18.05.2026 Inderjit Singh Versus The Collector, Gurdaspur and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 2039-CI-2026 Since the main appeal is listed today, therefore, the application for listing the case by fixing some actual date of hearing has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. MAIN CASE: By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an dated 11.01.2012 passed by the learned Reference Court Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur. Briefly stating, in the present case, some land owned by the appellant situated in revenue estate of Village Pathankot (erstwhile District Gurdaspur) came to be acquired vide IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 249-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.05.2026 …….Appellant Versus ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Since the main appeal is listed today, therefore, the application for listing the case by fixing some actual date of hearing has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an passed by the learned Reference Court Briefly stating, in the present case, some land owned by the appellant situated in revenue estate of Village Phangota Khas istrict Gurdaspur) came to be acquired vide Since the main appeal is listed today, therefore, the application for listing the case by fixing some actual date of hearing By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an passed by the learned Reference Court- Briefly stating, in the present case, some land owned by Khas, istrict Gurdaspur) came to be acquired vide SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-249 notifications dated 07.08.1995 and 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The acquisition was carried out for public purpose of construction of reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam, Pathankot. At the time of acquisition, certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the LAC') on compensation to the tune of Rs. aggrieved, the appellant 18 of the Act which came to be partly accepted while awarding of compensation of 2 assessed by the LAC. Aggrieved of the decision dated the present appeal has been preferred. 3. evidence in the shape of deposition of AW approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, valuation report and assessment report regarding the construction existing over the acquired land were proved on record as Ex 2 and A- assessed at Rs. entitled for the same benefit. 4. of respondents submits that a well the learned Reference 49-2018 (O&M) [2] notifications dated 07.08.1995 and 17.06.1996 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The acquisition was carried out for public e of construction of reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam, Pathankot. At the time of acquisition, certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the LAC') on compensation to the tune of Rs.2,56,273 aggrieved, the appellants-landowners 18 of the Act which came to be partly accepted while awarding of compensation of 20% over and above the valu assessed by the LAC. Aggrieved of the decision dated sent appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by way of evidence in the shape of deposition of AW pproved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, valuation report and assessment report regarding the construction existing over the acquired land were proved on record as Ex -3 respectively, whereby, the total value of assessed at Rs.4,43,453/- and thus, the appellant entitled for the same benefit. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that a well-reasoned award was passed by the learned Reference Court upon appreciation of evidence available 17.06.1996 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The acquisition was carried out for public e of construction of reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam, Pathankot. At the time of acquisition, certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the LAC') on 10.07.1998 granting 2,56,273/- to the landowner(s). Being sought reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be partly accepted while awarding of % over and above the value of super structure as assessed by the LAC. Aggrieved of the decision dated 11.01.2012 sent appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by way of evidence in the shape of deposition of AW-2, namely, Pawan Kapil pproved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, valuation report and assessment report regarding the construction existing over the acquired land were proved on record as Exs. A-1, A whereby, the total value of the building was and thus, the appellant-landowner was On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf reasoned award was passed by Court upon appreciation of evidence available issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The acquisition was carried out for public e of construction of reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam, Pathankot. At the time of acquisition, certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land granting to the landowner(s). Being sought reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be partly accepted while awarding of e of super structure as 11.01.2012, Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by way of Pawan Kapil, pproved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, valuation report and assessment report regarding the construction , A- the building was landowner was On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf reasoned award was passed by Court upon appreciation of evidence available SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-249 on record and the same thus, calls for no interference and the present a 5. through the paper behalf of the appellant 6. sum of Rs. over the acquired land. From the deposition of RW Divisional H was passed on the basis of assessment made by a committee consisting of 3 members constituted by the respondents however, the determination was never made as per CSR rates. It is not disputed that as per the policy decision dated 18.11.1993 by the Deputy Commissioner Shahpurkandi Dam Project, the valuation of house and other structures over the acquired land needs to be carried out as per the current Common Schedule of Rates (CSR) as applicable to PWD Irrigation Branch. 7. been proved on record as Rs. landowner valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engin (Ex.AX), Valuation Report (Ex.A 49-2018 (O&M) [3] on record and the same thus, calls for no interference and the appeal needs to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the su behalf of the appellant-landowner. As per the records, the appellant sum of Rs.2,56,273/- as compensation towards structure existing over the acquired land. From the deposition of RW Divisional Head Draftman, Ranjit Sagar Dam, it is clear that an award was passed on the basis of assessment made by a committee consisting of 3 members constituted by the respondents however, the determination was never made as per CSR rates. It is disputed that as per the policy decision dated 18.11.1993 by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman of Sub Committee (R&R), Shahpurkandi Dam Project, the valuation of house and other structures over the acquired land needs to be carried out as per the t Common Schedule of Rates (CSR) as applicable to PWD Irrigation Branch. On the contrary, the valuation of the super structure has been proved on record as Rs.4,43,453 landowners through deposition of AW valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engin ), Valuation Report (Ex.A-2) and Assessment Report (Ex.A on record and the same thus, calls for no interference and the ppeal needs to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I find substance in the submissions made on As per the records, the appellant-landowner was awarded as compensation towards structure existing over the acquired land. From the deposition of RW-1, Manjit Singh, , Ranjit Sagar Dam, it is clear that an award was passed on the basis of assessment made by a committee consisting of 3 members constituted by the respondents-authority, however, the determination was never made as per CSR rates. It is disputed that as per the policy decision dated 18.11.1993 by the Chairman of Sub Committee (R&R), Shahpurkandi Dam Project, the valuation of house and other structures over the acquired land needs to be carried out as per the t Common Schedule of Rates (CSR) as applicable to PWD On the contrary, the valuation of the super structure has 4,43,453/- by the appellant through deposition of AW-2/Pawan Kapil; the approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan ) and Assessment Report (Ex.A-3 on record and the same thus, calls for no interference and the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone bmissions made on landowner was awarded as compensation towards structure existing Manjit Singh, , Ranjit Sagar Dam, it is clear that an award was passed on the basis of assessment made by a committee authority, however, the determination was never made as per CSR rates. It is disputed that as per the policy decision dated 18.11.1993 by the Chairman of Sub Committee (R&R), Shahpurkandi Dam Project, the valuation of house and other structures over the acquired land needs to be carried out as per the t Common Schedule of Rates (CSR) as applicable to PWD On the contrary, the valuation of the super structure has by the appellants- ; the approved eering) through Site plan 3). SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-249 8. respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his deposition, thus, in such circumstances, the needs to be relied upon as a relevant and substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation in favour of appellant "Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rattan Chand and Anr. 2012(1) RCR(Civil), 192 went on valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting the same, in order to balance the equities, the appellant entitled for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two valuations i.e. one made by the LAC @ one which has been proved on record by the appellant through the expert valuer (AW Rs.3,49,863 benefits. 9. of. 10. expired in the appeal(s)/cross legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications before the learned Executing Court. 11. 49-2018 (O&M) [4] Despite a lengthy cross respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his on, thus, in such circumstances, the needs to be relied upon as a relevant and substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation in favour of appellants-landowners. Under similar circumstances, this Co Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rattan Chand and Anr. 2012(1) RCR(Civil), 192 went on valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting the same, in order to balance the equities, the appellant entitled for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two valuations i.e. one made by the LAC @ one which has been proved on record by the appellant through the expert valuer (AW-1) @ 3,49,863/- (4,43453 + 2,56,273/2) alongwith all other statutory In view of the aforesaid, the Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/cross-objection(s) legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications before the learned Executing Court. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall als Despite a lengthy cross-examination of AW respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his on, thus, in such circumstances, the valuation Report (Ex.A needs to be relied upon as a relevant and substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation in favour . Under similar circumstances, this Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rattan Chand and Anr., reported as to take average of both the valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting the same, in order to balance the equities, the appellants-landowners are held entitled for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two valuations i.e. one made by the LAC @ Rs.2,56,273/- and the other one which has been proved on record by the appellants-landowner ) @ Rs.4,43,453/- which comes to /2) alongwith all other statutory In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is disposed Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand examination of AW-2, respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his Report (Ex.A-2) needs to be relied upon as a relevant and substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation in favour urt in , reported as to take average of both the valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting the same, in held entitled for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two and the other landowners which comes to /2) alongwith all other statutory present appeal is disposed Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications o stand SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-249 disposed of. 18.05.2026 sanjay 49-2018 (O&M) [5] disposed of. 18.05.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document