Pal Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 20031 P&H

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147153




RFA No.740 of 2015 (O&M)                                     2023:PHHC:147153
                                                                             1

105
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                               CM No.5217-CI of 2023 in/and
                               RFA No.740 of 2015 (O&M)
                               Date of Decision: 20.11.2023

PAL SINGH AND ORS.                        ......Appellants
   Vs
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS                     ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate
         for the applicants-appellants.
           ****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

CM No.5217-CI of 2023

Prayer made in this application under Section 151 CPC is for listing the main appeal for actual date. The main appeal has already been admitted vide order dated 01.05.2015.

Notice in the application.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf the respondents.

With the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties, the present application is allowed. Main appeal is taken up today.

RFA No.740 of 2015 (O&M)

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellants to modify the

award dated 26.08.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pathankot

(hereinafter to be referred as "Reference Court") seeking further

enhancement of compensation amount.

2. Briefly stating, the land owned by the appellants, situated in

Village Kot Khas, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur (now Pathankot)

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147153

RFA No.740 of 2015 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:147153

was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 16.06.1994 issued under

Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

1894 Act') followed by notification dated 28.10.1994, issued under Section

6 thereof. At the time of acquisition of land, certain fruit bearing trees as

well as non-fruit bearing trees existed over the same and a separate award

No.16 dated 04.12.1996 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector in

exercise of its power under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, in this regard.

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellants-landowners filed reference

seeking enhancement of compensation by invoking Section 18 of the 1894

Act. The aforementioned reference petition came to be allowed with

increase @ 4.9% over the amount awarded under the Collector's award vide

judgment dated 26.08.2014 under the orders of Reference Court-cum-Addl.

District Judge, Gurdaspur.

4. By way of present appeal, impugning the aforementioned award

dated 26.08.2014, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

assessment of market value for the fruit bearing as well as non-fruit bearing

trees was made by the Land Acquisition Collector having relied upon

formula dated 15.05.1985 prepared by Dr. G.S. Nijjer, Director of

Horticulture Department, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh. Learned

counsel also submits that the acquisition proceedings in the present case

were initiated vide notification dated 16.06.1994 and thus the assessment of

compensation should have been carried out by giving appropriate increase

between May 1985 to June 1994, by relying upon the price index prevailing

at that point of time. In support, learned counsel for the appellants places

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147153

RFA No.740 of 2015 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:147153

reliance upon decision dated 02.08.2012 passed in RFA No.3478 of 1992 in

case of "Kartar Singh and Karnail Singh sons of Shri Kesar Singh son of

Shri Kesar Singh successor in interest of late Shri Kesar, both residents

of Village Hardosaran, Tehsil Pathankot Vs. Punjab State through

Collector Gurdaspur and Others".

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the

assessment of market value as regards the trees was carried out by the Land

Acquisition Collector having relied upon the formula dated 15.05.1985 and

the time gap between the date of formula and the notification was not much,

thus the appellants were not entitled for any appreciation.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the

paperbook. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the

appellants.

7. Acquisition in the present case was carried out vide notification

dated 16.06.1994 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act and the

assessment of compensation was made on the basis of formula dated

15.05.1985 whereas, undisputedly between 1985-1994 there was adequate

appreciation in the price index which had gone from 127 points to 297

points thereby making increase of 170 per cent over the price assessed by

Dr. G.S. Nijjer in its formula dated 15.05.1985. The aforementioned

formula of increase given in favour of landowners was approved by this

Court vide decision dated 02.08.2012 passed in RFA No.3478 of 1992 in

case of Kartar Singh (Supra). Relevant para thereof is reproduced

hereunder:-

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147153

RFA No.740 of 2015 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:147153

"The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for value of the trees which were lost to the owner by the acquisition of land. The grievance expressed is that the Reference Court had accepted the valuation of the trees made as per the formula called 'Dr. Nijjar's formula' for assessing the trees for the year 1985. The learned counsel for the appellants would argue that in Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited Versus Zail Singh in RFA No.1907 of 2002, decided on 28.09.2010, this Court had factored the increase for assessment of value of trees for the subsequent years by taking note of the increase in price index. In this case, the learned counsel argues that as against the valuation made as per Dr. Nijjar's formula of the year 1985, the price index had gone from 127 points to 150 points in 1987. This, according to him, would mean an increase of 23% over the price assessed by the application of Dr. Nijjar's formula.

2. I adopt the valuation and would provide for 23% increase on the valuation made as per the application of Dr. Nijjar's formula........"

8. This Court, even in case of Union of India and another versus

Pritam Singh, 2004(4) RCR (Civil) 5, under similar facts and

circumstances, upheld the increase based on difference of the wholesale

price index.

9. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the

impugned award dated 26.08.2014, passed by the Reference Court is set

aside and the present appeal is allowed to the extent that based on the

appreciation of price index between 1985 to 1994, the appellants-

landowners shall be entitled for increase of 170% over and above the

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147153

RFA No.740 of 2015 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:147153

amount assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector vide its award dated

04.12.1996 towards compensation for the fruit bearing as well as non-fruit

bearing trees besides all other statutory benefits and interests provided as

admissible under the 1894 Act.

                                           (HARKESH MANUJA)
November 20, 2023                               JUDGE
Atik
          Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
          Whether reportable        Yes/No




                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147153

                                 5 of 5