Harbakash Singh Vs Pb.State

RFA-2521-1999 (O&M) [1]

119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

*********

RFA-2521-1999 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.01.2026 Harbaksh Singh and another …….Appellants Versus State of Punjab ..….Respondent

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶6

Present: Mr.Hardip Singh, Advocat e for the appellants/ landow n ers.

¶7

Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab.

¶8

-.-

¶9

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

By way of filing the pres e nt appeal challenge has b e en laid to the decision dated 27.04.1999 passed by the lear n ed Addition a l District Judge, Ropar-cum - Reference Court, (for short ‘the Referen c e Court’). 2. Briefly stating, 10K-16M o f land, situated in Village M a jat, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropoar, was a cquired by the Governmen t of Punjab v ide notifications dated 06/ 0 7.10.1989 and 20/21.12.1989, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short, 'the Act') for public purpose. A n award dated 08.02.1990 w as passed by the Land Acquisition C o llector (for short ‘the LAC’ ) in exercise of its powers under Section 11 of the Act assessing the compen s ation of 706 Eucalyptus tree s to the tune of Rs.70,841.73 P. 3. Dissatisfied with the af o resaid award, the appella n ts/ landown e rs filed reference petition i n voking Section 18 of the A ct,

¶11

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 19:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶12

RFA-2521-1999 (O&M) [2]

¶13

which c a me to be dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.

¶14

I have heard learned co u nsel for the parties and g o ne through t he paper-book. I find substa n ce in the submissions made on behalf o f the appellants/ landowners. 5. In the present case, t h e only claim set up by t he appellan t s at the time of arguments is with respect to enhancement of claim a g ainst 625 Eucalyptus trees which were existing over the subject l a nd at the time of acquisition. 6. On consideration of evid e nce available on record in the form of r e port Ex.R1 with respect to t h e age and number of trees, the appellan t s/ landowners are entitled f o r market value in terms of the formula d ated 15.05.1985 prepared b y Dr. Nijjar (the then Direc t or, Horticult u re, Punjab). The report Ex. R 1 has been proved on record by RW1-Ja g jiwan Lal, Forest Guard and RW2-Naib Singh, Ju n ior Assistan t , Division Forest Office, Rop a r. 7. A perusal of the record fu r ther shows that the valuatio n of the tree s was done vide report Ex.R2 which nowhere reflects that the formula prepared by Dr.Nijjar was e v er taken into account. In s u ch circumst a nces, the appellants are h e ld entitled for re-assessmen t of market v alue against 625 Eucalyptu s trees as depicted in the re p ort Ex.R1 w hile taking into account th e age and girth from the said docume n t. In addition, the appellants shall also be entitled for aw a rd of appre c iation as per the percentag e of rise in the price index from the date of formula prepared by Dr. Nijjar i.e. 15.05.1985 upto the

¶15

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 19:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

RFA-2521-1999 (O&M) [3]

¶17

date of n otification under Section 4 o f the Act in the case in hand i.e. 07.10.1 9 89, along with all other stat u tory benefits as provided un d er the Act.

¶18

Accordingly, since the l a nd in the present case w as acquired vide notification dated 07.10.1989 issued under Section 4 of the 189 4 Act and the assessment of c ompensation was made on the basis of formula dated 15.05.1985 w hereas, undisputedly betw e en 1985-19 8 9 there had been appreciati o n in the price index from 127.2 points t o 165.7 points, thereby mak i ng increase of around 30.2 7 % over th e price assessed by Dr. G.S. Nijjar in its formula da t ed 15.05.1 9 85, the appellants/ landow n ers shall also be entitled for appreciation of 30.27%. The enhanc e ment of compensation against 625 tree s of Eucalyptus in terms of s uch increase in price index h as even be e n approved by this Court v ide decision dated 02.08.2 0 12 passed i n RFA-3478-1992, titled as Kartar Singh and Karnail Singh sons of Shri Kesar Singh son of Shri Kesar Singh successor in interst of late Shri Kesar, both residents of Village Hardosaran, Tehsil Pathankot Vs. Punjab State through Collector Gurdaspur and others .” Relevant para thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

¶19

“The appeal is for enhancement o f compensation for val u e of the trees which were lost t o the owner by the ac q uisition of land. The grievanc e expressed is that the Reference Court had accepte d the valuation of the t rees made as per the formul a called 'Dr. Nijjar's for m ula' for assessing the trees f o r the year 1985. The le a rned counsel for the appellant s

¶20

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 19:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

RFA-2521-1999 (O&M) [4]

¶22

would argue that in Punjab Small Industries an d Export Corporation L i mited Versus Zail Singh in RF A No.1907 of 2002, de c ided on 28.09.2010, this Cou r t had factored the incr e ase for assessment of value o f trees for the subseq u ent years by taking note of th e increase in price in d ex. In this case, the learne d counsel argues that as against the valuation made a s per Dr. Nijjar's form u la of the year 1985, the pric e index had gone from 1 27 points to 150 points in 198 7 . This, according to hi m , would mean an increase o f 23% over the price a s sessed by the application of D r . Nijjar's formula.

¶23

2. I adopt the v a luation and would provide f o r 23% increase on t h e valuation made as per th e application of Dr. Nijj a r's formula……..”

¶24

Accordingly, in view of the discussion mad e hereina b ove, the present appeal is a llowed to the extent that th e appellan t s-landowners shall be entit l ed for award of fuel/ timb e r value as per Dr.Nijjar’s formula along with increase of 30.27% ov e r and above the amount assessed towards compensation for 62 5 trees of Eucalyptus based on Dr N ijjar formula by taking int o account the age and number of t r ees from the report Ex.P1, besides a ll other statutory benefits pr o vided under the 1894 Act. 10. Pending misc. applicati o n(s), if any, shall also st a nd dispose d of.

¶25

29.01.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sanjay JUDGE Whether speaking/reason e d? Yes/No Whether Reportable? Yes/No

¶26

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 19:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harbakash Singh v. Pb.State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harbakash Singh v. Pb.State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinku Mandal and Others Vs Mahendi Hassan and Others

(O&M) Parkash Chand & Another Vs State of Haryana & Another

Bateri Devi and Ors. Vs Virender Kumar Ors.

Nisha and Ors. Vs Nitin Bansal and Anr.

State of Punjab Vs Shamsher Singh and Others

State of Punjab Vs Tarlochan Singh & Ors.