Punjab-Haryana High Court
Makhan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 26 November, 2025
1
RFA No.1543 of 2001 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
109-2
RFA No.1543
No.1543 of 2001 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.
26.11.2025
.2025
MAKHAN SINGH ......Appellant
......Appellant
Vs
PUNJAB STATE THROUGH COLLECTOR AND ORS. ...Respondent
...Respondent(
.Respondent(s)
MANUJA
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ A
Present: Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate
for the appellant/landowner.
appellant
Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)
[1]. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant to modify the award
dated 30.09.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur (hereinafter
to be referred as "Reference Court") seeking further enhancement of compensation
amount.
[2]. Briefly stating, the land owned by the appellant, situated in Village
Phangota, Teeka Chibar, Tehsil
Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur (now Pathankot)
was acquired vide notification dated 30.01.1992 issued under Section 4 of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') followed by
notification dated 11.01.1993, issued under Section 6 thereof. At the time of
acquisition of land, certain fruit bearing trees as well as non-fruit
fruit bearing trees
existed over the same and a separate award No.10
No.108 dated 05.04.1995 was passed
by the Land Acquisition Collector in exercise of its power uunder
nder Section 11 of the
1894 Act, in this regard.
1 of 4
[3]. Being dissatisfied, the appellant-landowner
appellant landowner filed reference seeking
enhancement of compensation by invoking Section 18 of the 1894 Act. The
aforementioned reference petition came to be accepted vide judgment dated
30.09.2000 passed by the learned Reference Court.
[4]. By way of present appeal, impugning the aforementioned award
dated 30.09.2000,
30.09.2000, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the assessment of
market value for the fruit bearing
bearing as well as non
non-fruit bearing trees was made by
the Land Acquisition Collector having relied upon formula dated 15.05.1985
prepared by Dr. G.S. Nijjar, Director of Horticulture Department, Government of
Punjab, Chandigarh. Learned counsel further submits that the acquisition
proceedings in the present case were initiated vide notification dated 30.0
30.01.1992
.1992
and thus the assessment of compensation should have been carried out by giving
appropriate increase from May 1985 to January 1992, by relying upon
n the price
index prevailing at the relevant point in time. In support, learned counsel for the
appellant places 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
et 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 appellant
was not entitled for any appreciation.
appr
2 of 4
[6]. 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.
[7]. Acquisition in the present case was carried out vide notification dated
30.01.1992
.1992 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 1985-1992
1985 1992 there was sufficient appreciation in the price
index which went from 127 points to
t 241 points thereby making increase of 114
per cent over the price assessed by Dr. G.S.Nijjar in its formula dated 15.05.1985.
The aforementioned formula of increase based on the application of price index,
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:-
"1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for value of the trees
which were lost to the owner by
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 w
would
ould 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 increas
increasee 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......."
3 of 4
[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 30.09.2000,, passed by the learned Reference Court is
modified and the present appeal is disposed of to the extent that based on the
appreciation of price index between 1985 to 1992, the appellant
appellant-landowner shall be
entitled for increase
increas of 1144 per cent over and above the amount assessed by the
Land Acquisition Collector vide its award dated 05.04.1995 towards compensation
for the fruit bearing as well as non-fruit
non fruit bearing trees besides all other statutory
benefits and interests provided as admissible under the 1894 Act.
[10]. Further, in case of unfortunate demise of the appellant/landowner,
appellant/landowner if
the legal heir(s)--legal
legal representative(s) have not been brought on record, they shall
be entitled for filing exemption applications in their own names being legal heirs or
legal representatives of the deceased-landowner;
deceased landowner; subject of course to any
testamentary document created by the deceased.
[11]. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
November 26,
26, 2025 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
