RFA-248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Balbir Singh The Collector Gurdaspur and others CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CM-2045 singh is applicant brought on record as legal representative to pursue the present appeal. MAIN CASE award dated cum-Addl. District Judge, 8-2018 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA No. Date of Decision: 18.05.2026 Balbir Singh (Deceased) through LRs Versus The Collector Gurdaspur and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 2045-CI-2026 Application for impleading the LRs of appellant singh is allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. The applicants mentioned in para 2 of the application is brought on record as legal representative to pursue the present appeal. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. MAIN CASE By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 11.01.2012 passed by the learned Reference Court Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 248-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.05.2026 (Deceased) through LRs …….Appellants Versus The Collector Gurdaspur and others ..….Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab. for impleading the LRs of appellant-Balbir subject to all just exceptions. The para 2 of the application is ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of appellant-Balbir Singh, Amended memo of parties is taken on record. to tag the same at appropriate place. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an passed by the learned Reference Court Balbir subject to all just exceptions. The ordered to be Balbir Singh, By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an passed by the learned Reference Court- SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-248 2. the appellant situated in revenue estate of Village Pathankot (erstwhile 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 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 3. evidence in the shape of deposition of AW approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, valuation report and assessment report regarding existing over the acquired land were proved on record as Ex A2 and A assessed at Rs. entitled for the same benefit. 8-2018 (O&M) [2] 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 notifications dated 07.08.1995 and 17.06.1996 d 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 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.2,12,917 aggrieved, the appellants-landowners 18 of the Act which came to be partly accepted while awarding of compensation of 20% over and above the value of super structure as 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 approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, valuation report and assessment report regarding existing over the acquired land were proved on record as Ex and AX respectively, whereby, the total value of the building was assessed at Rs.3,11,909/- and thus, the appellant entitled for the same benefit. Briefly stating, in the present case, some land owned by the appellant situated in revenue estate of Village Pangota istrict Gurdaspur) came to be acquired vide 17.06.1996 issued under Sections d 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 10.07.1998 granting 2,12,917/- 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 preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by way of evidence in the shape of deposition of AW-2 namely, Pawan Kapil 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 Exs. A whereby, the total value of the building was and thus, the appellant-landowner was Briefly stating, in the present case, some land owned by Pangota, istrict Gurdaspur) came to be acquired vide issued under Sections d 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. 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 % over and above the value of super structure as 11.01.2012, Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by way of Pawan Kapil, approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, the construction . A-1, whereby, the total value of the building was landowner was SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-248 4. of respondents submits that a well the learned Reference Court upon appreciation of evidence available on record and the same thus, calls for no interference and the present a 5. through the paper behalf of the appellant 6. awarded sum of Rs. existing over the acquired land. From the deposition of RW Singh, Divisional Head Draftman award was passed on the basis of assessment made by 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 8-2018 (O&M) [3] 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 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 submissions made on behalf of the appellant-landowner. As per the records, the appellant awarded sum of Rs.2,12,917/- as compensation towards structure existing over the acquired land. From the deposition of RW Singh, Divisional Head Draftman, Ranjit Sagar Dam, it is clear that an award was passed on the basis of assessment made by 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-cum-Chairman of Sub Com 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. On the contrary, the valuation been proved on record as Rs.3,11,909 landowners through deposition of AW the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf reasoned award was passed by the learned Reference Court upon appreciation of evidence available 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 appellants-landowners were as compensation towards structure existing over the acquired land. From the deposition of RW-1, Manjit , 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 not 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 current Common Schedule of Rates (CSR) as applicable to PWD On the contrary, the valuation of the super structure has 3,11,909/- by the appellant through deposition of AW-2/Pawan Kapil; the approved the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf reasoned award was passed by the learned Reference Court upon appreciation of evidence available on record and the same thus, calls for no interference and the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I find substance in the submissions made on were as compensation towards structure Manjit , Ranjit Sagar Dam, it is clear that an a committee authority, 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 mittee (R&R), 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 of the super structure has by the appellants- ; the approved SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-248 valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan (Ex.AX), Valuation Report (Ex.A 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 subs 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 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.2,62,413 benefits. 9. of. 10. expired in the appeal(s)/cross legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek 8-2018 (O&M) [4] valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan ), Valuation Report (Ex.A-1) and As Despite a lengthy cross 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 subs evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation in favour of appellants-landowners. Under similar circumstances, this Court in 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 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) @ 2,62,413/- (3,11,909 + 2,12,917/2) 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) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan ) and Assessment Report (Ex.A1 Despite a lengthy cross-examination of AW respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his deposition, 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 appellant-landowner is held entitled for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two valuations i.e. one made by the LAC @ Rs.2,12,917/- and the other one which has been proved on record by the appellants-landowner ) @ Rs.3,11,909/- which comes to /2) alongwith all other statutory 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 valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan 1). examination of AW-2, respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his Report (Ex.A-2) tantive piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation in favour . Under similar circumstances, this Court in , reported as e average of both the valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting the same, in landowner is 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 objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-248 execution of before the learned Executing Court. 11. disposed of. 18.05.2026 sanjay 8-2018 (O&M) [5] execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications before the learned Executing Court. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 18.05.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? the present decision by moving appropriate applications Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No the present decision by moving appropriate applications Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document