(O&M) the L.a.C, Pwd, Jalandhar Vs Amar Singh & Others

For the reasons mentioned i n the application, which i s supported by an affidavit, sufficient cau s e has been made out fo r condoning the delay of 2 days in filing the present cross-objectio n (wrongly typed as appeal) and the present application is thus, allowed. CM-593-CI-2026 and CM-594-CI-2026

¶15

All o wed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

CM-595-CI-2026 and CM-596-CI-2026

¶17

Th e se are applications for bringing on record the legal heir s of respondent N os.1 and 2 who have unfort u nately died. Notice of applications to non-ap p licants/respondents. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab accepts notice o n behalf of appellant-State and raises no obj e ction to the prayer made i n the application s .

¶18

For the reasons mentioned in t h e applications, the same ar e allowed, subje c t to all just exceptions and t h e applicants as mentioned i n paragraph 2 o f applications are ordered to be impleaded as lega l

¶19

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.13 18:58 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶20

RFA-936-1996 (O&M) with XOBJR-3-2026 (O&M)

¶21

2

¶22

representatives of deceased-Amar Singh-respondent No.1 and deceased-Mansha Singh-respondent No.2.

¶23

Amended memo of parties be taken on record.

¶24

RFA-936-1996 with XOBJR-3-2026

¶25

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 16.10.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur (hereinafter to as the ‘Reference Court’), whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the respondents-landowners, seeking enhancement of compensation was partly allowed.

¶26

Briefly stating, land measuring 9.96 acres, situated within the revenue estate of Village Jalahar, District Gurdaspur was acquired for the public purpose namely for construction of Bodh Chakki Dhar Road vide notification dated 26.07.1989 published on 11.08.1989 and notification dated 25.01.1990 (published on 09.02.1990) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, respectively. Vide award No.2 dated 19.11.1991, the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) awarded compensation @ Rs.12,000/- per acre each for Barani Aval and Barani Dom land, Rs.8,000/- per acre for Barani Som land, Rs.6,000/- per acre for Banjar Kadim land and Rs.4,000/- per acre for Gair mumkin abadi land besides awarding Rs.33,210/- for the house which included Rs.5670/- as labour cost for construction of new house and other statutory benefits under the Act.

¶27

The respondents-landowners, feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Reference Court pleading that the aforesaid of land was not less than Rs.6,000/per marla besides claiming Rs.2,00,000/as compensation for the house constructed over their acquired land. 4. Upon notice, the same was contested by the appellant(s)State by filing reply. It was pleaded that the rate of compensation awarded by the LAC was fair, adequate and reasonable. Moreover, it was pleaded that for the house, Rs.5670/- has been awarded adequately towards shifting charges as well.

¶28

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.13 18:58 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶29

RFA-936-1996 (O&M) with XOBJR-3-2026 (O&M)

¶30

3

¶31

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Reference Court:-

¶32

“1. What was the market price of the acquired property at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the awarded amount to the claimant is inadequate and to what extent? OPA

¶33

2. Relief.”

¶34

After considering the evidence, the learned Reference Court, vide award dated 16.10.1995 held the respondents-landowners entitled for Rs.1,01,778/- more as compensation of the house besides 12% interest from date of notification under Section 4 in the present case till date of award of Collector or taking possession of house, whichever is earlier.

¶35

Aggrieved of the aforesaid award dated 16.10.1995 passed by the learned Reference Court, the appellant(s)-State filed the present appeal.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.

¶37

In the present case, the dispute relates to the determination of the market value against the construction existing over the acquired land owned by the respondents/cross-objectors/landowners. Both the parties have produced on record their respective assessment reports regarding the construction. The appellant(s)-State proved on record the report Exs.R-3 and R-4 vide which the value of the construction was assessed to be Rs.27,540/-. The Report Ex. R-4 was produced on record by RW-2-Gurjit Singh, J.E. O/o Central Works Division, Pathankot. However, a reading of his statement shows that original of Exs.R-3 and R-4 were not produced on record. In such circumstances, no illegality or perversity can be found on the part of the learned Reference Court for having discarded Exs. R-3 and R-4. 10. On the other hand, the respondents/crossobjectors/landowners proved on record their assessment-valuation report dated 03.11.1990 as Ex.A-6 6 whereby the value of the house was assessed to be Rs.1,07,448/-. The assessment report Ex.A-6 was prepared and proved on record by Sh. T.R. Sharma, Sub-Divisional TEJWINDER SINGH Officer (retd.). Punjab Irrigation Department Shahpur Kandi Town, having 2026.02.13 18:58 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶38

RFA-936-1996 (O&M) with XOBJR-3-2026 (O&M)

¶39

4

¶40

appeared as AW-3, whose testimony could not be impeached despite detailed cross-examination by the appellant-State.

¶41

In view of the above, the award dated 16.10.1995 passed by the learned Reference Court, Gurdaspur being based on proper appreciation of evidence, calls for no interference.

¶42