Asha Rani Vs Pb.State & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Asha Rani Vs Pb.State & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Enhancement of 25% over and above the amount awarded vide award dated 12.03.1998 against the assessment of the structures; pending misc. application(s) disposed of.

¶¶25 (judg. paras 8-9)

Issue for consideration

Whether and to what extent the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation for the structures existing on the acquired land at the time of acquisition, the Reference Court having rejected her claim despite the deposition of Pawan Kumar, Draftsman (AW-1) and his report Ex.A1 applying CSR Rates for year 1995-96.

¶¶13 (judg. para 3)

Court's answer

Without going into the evidentiary value of the expert report Ex.A-1 (AW-1/Pawan Kumar, CSR Rates 1995-96), the Court found it more practical to rely on this Court's own decision dated 07.10.2016 in Darshana Devi (RFA No.1718 of 2002) and to award a 25% increase on the value of the superstructure as assessed by the Collector vide award dated 12.03.1998.

¶¶19 (judg. para 6)

Ratio / Principle

The appellant is held entitled to enhancement of 25% over and above the amount awarded in her favour vide award dated 12.03.1998 against the assessment of the structures.

¶¶24 (judg. para 7)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Enhancement of compensation for structures/superstructure — 25% thumb rule over Collector's assessment. Land of appellant Asha Rani in Village Shahpur Kandi Township, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur was acquired vide notifications dated 23.06.1995 (Sec. 4) and 24.11.1995 (Sec. 6) under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for construction of the Hydel Channel of Shahpurkandi Dam Project; award under Sec. 11 passed on 12.03.1998. The Reference Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, by award dated 02.08.2001, rejected her claim for enhancement qua the structures, allegedly ignoring the deposition of Pawan Kumar, Draftsman (AW-1) and his report Ex.A1 applying CSR Rates for 1995-96. Before Harkesh Manuja, J. (oral), the Court expressly declined to assess the evidentiary value of Ex.A-1 and instead relied on this Court's own decision dated 07.10.2016 in Darshana Devi v. State of Haryana (RFA No.1718 of 2002), whose reproduced para 26 reasons that landowners exaggerate construction claims while the State's superstructure assessments are conservative, hence a 25% increase on the Collector-assessed superstructure value is awarded as a thumb rule. Accordingly, the appellant was held entitled to 25% enhancement over the amount awarded on 12.03.1998 against the assessment of the structures; the appeal was partly allowed and pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. Decision dated 06.03.2026; no rupee quantum for the present appellant is stated in the judgment.

RFA-797-2002 (O&M) [1]

115(6)

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *******

RFA-797-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.03.2026

Asha Rani …..Appellants

Versus

State of Punjab and ors. …..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr.R.S. Manhas, Advocat e for the appellants. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A .G., Punjab. -.-

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present appe a l, challenge has been mad e to referenc e Court award dated 02.08.2001 passed by the Court of Addition a l District Judge, Gurdaspur.

Briefly stating, the land o w ned by the appellant, situated in Villa g e Shahpur Kandi Towns h ip, Tehsil Pathankot, Dis t rict Gurdaspur, came to be acquired vid e notifications dated 23.06.1 9 95 and 24.11.1995 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisi t ion Act, 1894, respectively (hereinafter r eferred to as ‘the Act’). Aw a rd under S e ction 11 of the Act was pas s ed on 12.03.1998. The purp o se of acqui s ition was for construction of Hydel Channel of Shahpurk a ndi Dam Pr o ject.

The present reference p e tition pertains to enhancement qua the structures existing over the land in question, at the tim e of acquisiti o n. Vide award dated 02.08. 2 001, the Reference Court-c u m-

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.12 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RFA-797-2002 (O&M) [2]

Addition a l District Judge, Gurdaspur, rejected the claim made by the appellan t .

Impugning the aforementi o ned award, learned counsel for the app e llant submits that the Refe r ence Court committed illeg a lity while ig n oring the evidence adduc e d on record in the shape of depositi o n of Pawan Kumar, Draftsm a n (AW-1) as well as Ex.A1 i.e. a report p repared by him after applyi n g the CSR Rates for year 19 9 5- 96, pert a ining to the construction exis t ing over the spot.

On the other hand, lear n ed State counsel opposes the prayer m ade herein while submitting that the evidence adduced by the parti e s was considered and dealt with by the Reference Court, which d o es not warrant any inference.

I have heard learned co u nsel for the parties and h a ve gone thr o ugh the paper-book. In the present case, the appellant h as proved o n record the report Ex.A-1 prepared by an Expert witn e ss AW-1/P a wan Kumar, after applying t h e CSR Rates in the year 19 9 5- 96, giving value of the acquired stru c ture, existing over the acquired land which has been seriously, di s puted by respondents. Thus, without g oing into the evidentiary val u e of the said report, it would be more pr a ctical to place reliance up o n a decision dated 07.10.2 0 16 made b y this Court in Darshana Devi versus State of Haryana and another bearing RFA No.1718 of 20 0 2 and award 25% increase on the valu e of super structure as assessed by the Collector vide aw a rd dated 12.03.1998. The relevant p ortion of the aforementio n ed

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.12 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RFA-797-2002 (O&M) [3]

judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“26. Ordinarily, t h e landowners claim a n exaggerated a m ount as regards constructio n that exists on th e acquired land. Likewise, th e assessment of c ompensation for superstructur e by the State i s generally conservative, and i s not reflective o f its true value or worth. For, th e exact value o f the structure can never b e determined w ith mathematical precisio n , therefore, this court in various decisions ha s been awarding 25% increase on the value o f the superstruc t ure assessed by the Collect o r as a thumb rule. As a result, appella n t Darshana De v i shall be entitled to 25 % increase upon the compensation i.e. 42,977/ - , awarded to her by the Collector in this regard.”

In view of the discussion made hereinabove and rel y ing upon d e cision made in the case o f Darshana Devi (supra), the appellan t is held entitled for enhance m ent of 25% over and above the amount a warded in her favour vide a ward dated 12.03.1998 against the asse s sment of the structures.

Appeal stands partly allo w ed in the aforesaid terms. 9. Pending misc. applicati o n(s), if any, shall also st a nd dispose d of.

06.03.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sanjay JUDGE

Whether speaking/reason e d? Yes/No Whether Reportable? Yes/No

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.12 19:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document