Manjit Kumar Bhandari Manjit Kumar Bhandari ..… v. HON'BLE
Case Details
1996 with RFA No.36-1996 with CI-2010 XOBJR-156-CI IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA No.36 XOBJR-156 36-1996(O&M) with 156-CI-2010(O&M) and ors. Punjab State and ors. …...Appellants Date of Decision: 31.10.2025 Date of Decision: Manjit Kumar Bhandari Manjit Kumar Bhandari ..….Respondent Versus HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate for the respondent. for the respondent. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid by the By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid by the By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid by the By way of the present appeal, challenge has been laid by the State to the award dated 18.09.1995 passed by the State to the award dated 18. Additional 9.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court") District Judge, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court") District Judge, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court") District Judge, Gurdaspur (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court") respondent for the fruit whereby it awarded compensation to the landowner-respondent for the fruit whereby it awarded compensation to the landowner whereby it awarded compensation to the landowner bearing trees standing on the acquired land. The notification under Section bearing trees standing on the acquired land. The notification bearing trees standing on the acquired land. The notification under Sections of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the '1894 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the '1894 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the '1894 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the '1894 Act') was issued on 7/12.7.1988 and 19.01.1989, respectively, Act') was issued on 7/12.7.1988 which also and 19.01.1989, respectively, which also respondent in Village Kathlour, Tehsil covered the land of the landowner-respondent in Village Kathlour, Tehsil respondent in Village Kathlour, Tehsil covered the land o ct Gurdaspur. The land was acquired for afforestation Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. The land was acquired for afforestation ct Gurdaspur. The land was acquired for afforestation Pathankot, Distri respondent had fruit bearing trees standing on purposes and the landowner-respondent had fruit bearing trees standing on respondent had fruit bearing trees standing on purposes and the landowner by the Land Acquisition Collector was his land. The award for Rs.71355.51/- by the Land Acquisition Collector was by the Land Acquisition Collector was his land. The award . made on 7.8.1991 for the fruit bearing trees. made on 7.8.1991 for the fruit bearing trees SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.10 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1996 with RFA No.36-1996 with CI-2010 XOBJR-156-CI 2. Aggrieved thereby, th ggrieved thereby, the landowner respondent filed a reference e landowner-respondent filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement. The Reference Court had under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement. The Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement. The Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement. The Reference Court relied on the report Ex.A2 to determine the compensation payable to the relied on the report Ex.A2 to determine the compensation payable to the relied on the report Ex.A2 to determine the compensation payable to the relied on the report Ex.A2 to determine the compensation payable to the . The State respondent which was quantified as Rs.4,63,716.25/-. The State respondent which was quantified a landowner-respondent which was quantified a has filed the present appeal against the decision of the Reference Court the present appeal against the decision of the Reference Court appeal against the decision of the Reference Court respondent seeking while cross objections have been filed by the landowner-respondent seeking while cross objections have been filed by the landowner while cross objections have been filed by the landowner further enhancement of the compensation awarded. further enhancement of the compensation awarded. further enhancement of the compensation awarded. 3. that the Reference Court erred Learned State counsel has urged that the Reference Court erred Learned State counsel has urged Learned State counsel has urged in relying on the report Ex.A2 but should have given due consideration to in relying on the report Ex.A2 but should have in relying on the report Ex.A2 but should have given due consideration to the report Ex.R1 instead, instead, produced by the State. Per contra, learned counsel for produced by the State. Per contra, learned counsel for the landowner- respondent has contended that though the Reference Court -respondent has contended that though the Reference Court respondent has contended that though the Reference Court accepted the report Ex.A2, it did not take into account accepted the report Ex.A2, it did not any increase for the take into account any increase for the rise in the price index. It is contended that the valuation of the Reference rise in the price index. It is contended that the valuation of the Reference rise in the price index. It is contended that the valuation of the Reference rise in the price index. It is contended that the valuation of the Reference Court was based on the report Ex.A2 which based the valuation of the fruit Court was based on the report Ex.A2 which based the valuation of the fruit Court was based on the report Ex.A2 which based the valuation of the fruit Court was based on the report Ex.A2 which based the valuation of the fruit formula. This formula was fixed on 15.5.1985 bearing trees on the Dr. Nijjer’s formula. This formula was fixed on 15.5.1985 formula. This formula was fixed on 15.5.1985 bearing trees on the and increase in consonance with the hike in the price index w.e.f. the date of and increase in consonance with the hike in the price index w.e.f. the date of and increase in consonance with the hike in the price index w.e.f. the date of and increase in consonance with the hike in the price index w.e.f. the date of formula i.e. 15.5.1985 till the date of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act formula i.e. 15.5.1985 till the date of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act formula i.e. 15.5.1985 till the date of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act formula i.e. 15.5.1985 till the date of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act d in favour of the landowner- i.e. 7/12.7.1988 was required to be granted in favour of the landowner i.e. 7/12.7.1988 was required to be grante i.e. 7/12.7.1988 was required to be grante respondent. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paperbook. Learned State counsel has not been able to convince the the paperbook. Learned State counsel has not been able to convince the the paperbook. Learned State counsel has not been able to convince the the paperbook. Learned State counsel has not been able to convince the Court that the valuation for the fruit bearing trees should be based on the Court that the valuation for the fruit bearing trees should be based on the Court that the valuation for the fruit bearing trees should be based on the Court that the valuation for the fruit bearing trees should be based on the port Ex.R1. The Reference Court has given cogent reasons to accept the report Ex.R1. The Reference Court has given cogent reasons to accept the port Ex.R1. The Reference Court has given cogent reasons to accept the port Ex.R1. The Reference Court has given cogent reasons to accept the the valuation of the fruit bearing trees report Ex.A2 and determined the valuation of the fruit bearing trees the valuation of the fruit bearing trees report Ex.A2 and accordingly. There is no reason for this Court to adopt a different yardstick. accordingly. There is no reason for this Court to adopt a different yardstick. accordingly. There is no reason for this Court to adopt a different yardstick. accordingly. There is no reason for this Court to adopt a different yardstick. SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.10 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1996 with RFA No.36-1996 with CI-2010 XOBJR-156-CI 5. ns made on behalf of the I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the I find substance in the submissio I find substance in the submissio respondent. In the present case the notification under Section 4 of landowner-respondent. In the present case the notification under Section 4 of respondent. In the present case the notification under Section 4 of respondent. In the present case the notification under Section 4 of 7.1988. The compensation was the 1894 Act was issued on 07/12.07.1988. The compensation was 7.1988. The compensation was the 1894 Act was issued on assessed for the fruit bearing trees by the Land Acquisition Collector vide its assessed for the fruit bearing trees by the Land Acquisition Collector vide its assessed for the fruit bearing trees by the Land Acquisition Collector vide its assessed for the fruit bearing trees by the Land Acquisition Collector vide its award dated 07. 8.1991. The Reference Court relied on the report Ex.A2 to 7.08.1991. The Reference Court relied on the report Ex.A2 to 8.1991. The Reference Court relied on the report Ex.A2 to fix the valuation of the fruit bearing trees. This report is based on the Nijjer fix the valuation of the fruit bearing trees. This report is based on the Nijjer fix the valuation of the fruit bearing trees. This report is based on the Nijjer fix the valuation of the fruit bearing trees. This report is based on the Nijjer 5.1985 by Dr. G.S. Nijjer, the then formula which was prepared on 15.05.1985 by Dr. G.S. Nijjer, the then 5.1985 by Dr. G.S. Nijjer, the then formula which was prepared on 15. ent of Punjab, Chandigarh. Thus, Director Horticulture Department, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh. Thus, ent of Punjab, Chandigarh. Thus, Director Horticulture Department, Governm 1985 to July an increase in proportionate to the hike in price index from May 1985 to July an increase in proportionate to the hike in price index from May an increase in proportionate to the hike in price index from May respondent. 1988 was required to be awarded in favour of the landowner-respondent. 1988 was required to be awarded in favour of the landowner 1988 was required to be awarded in favour of the landowner The aforementioned formula of increase based on the application of the price The aforementioned formula of increase based on the application of the pri The aforementioned formula of increase based on the application of the pri The aforementioned formula of increase based on the application of the pri index given in favour of landowners was even approved by this Court vide index given in favour of landowners was even approved by this Court vide index given in favour of landowners was even approved by this Court vide index given in favour of landowners was even approved by this Court vide decision dated 0 02.08.2012 passed in RFA-3478 1992 [Kartar Singh & Karnail 3478-1992 [Kartar Singh & Karnail in interest of late Shri Kesar, both Singh sons of Shri Kesar Singh successors in interest of late Shri Kesar, both in interest of late Shri Kesar, both Singh sons of Shri Kesar Singh successor aran, Tehsil Pathankot versus Punjab State residents of Village Hardosaran, Tehsil Pathankot versus Punjab State aran, Tehsil Pathankot versus Punjab State residents of Village Hardos through Collector Gurdaspur & Ors.]. Relevant para thereof is reproduced through Collector Gurdaspur & Ors.]. Relevant para thereof is reproduced through Collector Gurdaspur & Ors.]. Relevant para thereof is reproduced through Collector Gurdaspur & Ors.]. Relevant para thereof is reproduced hereunder:- The appeal “The appeal The appeal is is is for enhancement of for enhancement of for enhancement of compensation for value of the trees which were lost compensation for value of the trees which were lost compensation for value of the trees which were lost to the owner by the acquisition of land. The to the owner by the acquisition of land. The to the owner by the acquisition of land. The grievance expressed is that the Reference Court grievance expressed is that the Reference Court grievance expressed is that the Reference Court had accepted the valuation of the trees made as per had accepted the valuation of the trees made as per had accepted the valuation of the trees made as per jjar's formula' for assessing the formula called 'Dr. Nijjar's formula' for assessing the formula called 'Dr. Ni the trees for the year 1985. The learned counsel for the trees for the year 1985. The learned counsel for the trees for the year 1985. The learned counsel for the appellants would argue that in Punjab Small the appellants would argue that in Punjab Small the appellants would argue that in Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited Versus Industries and Export Corporation Limited Versus Industries and Export Corporation Limited Versus Zail Singh in RFA No.1907 of 2002, decided on Zail Singh in RFA No.1907 of 2002, decided on Zail Singh in RFA No.1907 of 2002, decided on tored the increase for 28.09.2010, this Court had factored the increase for 28.09.2010, this Court had fac SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.10 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1996 with RFA No.36-1996 with CI-2010 XOBJR-156-CI assessment of value of trees for the subsequent assessment of value of trees for the subsequent assessment of value of trees for the subsequent years by taking note of the increase in price index. years by taking note of the increase in price index. years by taking note of the increase in price index. In this case, the learned counsel argues that as In this case, the learned counsel argues that as In this case, the learned counsel argues that as against the valuation made as per Dr. Nijjar's against the valuation made as per Dr. Nijjar's against the valuation made as per Dr. Nijjar's index had gone formula of the year 1985, the price index had gone formula of the year 1985, the price from 127 points to 150 points in 1987. This, from 127 points to 150 points in 1987. This, from 127 points to 150 points in 1987. This, according to him, would mean an increase of 23% according to him, would mean an increase of 23% according to him, would mean an increase of 23% over the price assessed by the application of Dr. over the price assessed by the application of Dr. over the price assessed by the application of Dr. Nijjar's formula. 2. I adopt the valuation and would provide for I adopt the valuation and would provide for I adopt the valuation and would provide for e as per the 23% increase on the valuation made as per the 23% increase on the valuation mad application of Dr. Nijjar's formula....” application of Dr. Nijjar's formula.... 6. This Court, even in the case of Union of India & Anr. versus This Court, even in the case of This Court, even in the case of Union of India & Anr. versus [2004(4) RCR (Civil) 5] and Jang Bahadur Singh versus State Pritam Singh [2004(4) RCR (Civil) 5] and Jang Bahadur Singh versus State [2004(4) RCR (Civil) 5] and Jang Bahadur Singh versus State [2004(4) RCR (Civil) 5] and Jang Bahadur Singh versus State of Punjab & Ors. [RFA-1648-1999 decided on of Punjab & Ors. [RFA similar 1999 decided on 04.07.2024], under similar facts and circumstances, upheld the increase based on difference of the facts and circumstances, upheld the increase based on difference of the facts and circumstances, upheld the increase based on difference of the facts and circumstances, upheld the increase based on difference of the wholesale price index. wholesale price index. 7. , the increase of price index between May In the present case, the increase of price index between May , the increase of price index between May In the present 1985 to July 1988 comes to 29.14%. Applying the same proportionate 1985 to July 1988 comes to 29.14%. Applying the same proportionate 1985 to July 1988 comes to 29.14%. Applying the same proportionate 1985 to July 1988 comes to 29.14%. Applying the same proportionate tion of the fruit bearing trees, the compensation has to increase to the valuation of the fruit bearing trees, the compensation has to tion of the fruit bearing trees, the compensation has to increase to the valua be increased by Rs.1,35,126.91/-. be increased by Rs.1,35,126.91 8. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned award dated 18.9.1995 passed by the Reference Court is impugned award dated 18.9.1995 passed by the Reference Court is impugned award dated 18.9.1995 passed by the Reference Court is impugned award dated 18.9.1995 passed by the Reference Court is is held entitled to the increase in the modified. The landowner-respondent is held entitled to the increase in the is held entitled to the increase in the modified. The landowner compensation for the fruit bearing trees based on the appreciation of price compensation for the fruit bearing trees based on the appreciation of price compensation for the fruit bearing trees based on the appreciation of price compensation for the fruit bearing trees based on the appreciation of price the landowner- index between May 1985 to July 1988. Consequently, the landowner index between May 1985 to July 1988. index between May 1985 to July 1988. over and respondent shall be entitled for an increase of Rs.1,35,126.91/- over and respondent shall be entitled for an increase of Rs.1,35,126.91 respondent shall be entitled for an increase of Rs.1,35,126.91 bove the amount assessed by the Reference Court vide its award dated above the amount assessed by the Reference Court vide its award dated bove the amount assessed by the Reference Court vide its award dated bove the amount assessed by the Reference Court vide its award dated SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.10 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1996 with RFA No.36-1996 with CI-2010 XOBJR-156-CI 18.9.1995 towards compensation for the fruit bearing trees besides all other 18.9.1995 towards compensation for the fruit bearing trees besides all other 18.9.1995 towards compensation for the fruit bearing trees besides all other 18.9.1995 towards compensation for the fruit bearing trees besides all other provided under the 1894 Act. statutory benefits and interest as provided under the 1894 Act. statutory benefits and interest 9. is hereby dismissed, The appeal filed at the instance of State is hereby dismissed, The appeal filed at the instance of State The appeal filed at the instance of State whereas the X-OBJR OBJR filed at the instance of respondent are allo filed at the instance of respondent are allowed. 31.10.2025 sanjay (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Whether Reportable? Yes/No Yes/No SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.10 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document