RFA-3809 113 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Mohinder Pal and Haryana State through Secretary, PWD(B&R), Deptt. Chandigarh. CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) laid to the Additional District Judge Reference Court’) 2. estate of by the Government of (published on 16.9.1975) and 22.12.1976 (published on 04.01.1977) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public p of link road from national Highway No.1 (G.T. Road) to Village Nurpur 3809-1998 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: 09.02.2026 Mohinder Pal and anr. Versus Haryana State through Secretary, PWD(B&R), Deptt. Chandigarh. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. H.S. Kasan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 30.07.1998 Additional District Judge, Panipat-cum Reference Court’). Briefly stating, some land estate of Village Pasina Khurd, the then District Karnal by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated (published on 16.9.1975) and 22.12.1976 (published on 04.01.1977) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public p of link road from national Highway No.1 (G.T. Road) to Village Nurpur IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-3809-1998 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.02.2026 …….Appellant Versus Haryana State through Secretary, PWD(B&R), Deptt. Chandigarh. ..….Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. H.S. Kasan, Advocate Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been 30.07.1998 passed by the learned cum-Reference Court (for short ‘the some land, situated within the revenue Village Pasina Khurd, the then District Karnal was acquired vide notifications dated 04.09.1975 (published on 16.9.1975) and 22.12.1976 (published on 04.01.1977) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. “for the construction of link road from national Highway No.1 (G.T. Road) to Village Nurpur …….Appellants Haryana State through Secretary, PWD(B&R), Deptt. Chandigarh. way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been rned Reference Court (for short ‘the , situated within the revenue was acquired 04.09.1975 (published on 16.9.1975) and 22.12.1976 (published on 04.01.1977), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for for the construction of link road from national Highway No.1 (G.T. Road) to Village Nurpur SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.13 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3809 Gujran”. award 24.10.1985 land @ Rs. including solatium @ 30% as well as compulsory acquisition charges @ 12% per annum. 3. landowner which came to be came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated value of the acquired land @ Rs. statutory benefits 4. Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellant(s)/ landowner(s). 5. through the paper 6. value @ Rs.5264/ upon LAC case No.87 of 1996, which now stands modified vide order dated 09.02.2026 passed in cases, titl PWD(B&R), Deptt. Chandigarh @ Rs.6000/ solatium @ 30% as well as compulsory acquisition charges @ 12% 3809-1998 (O&M) [2] Gujran”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide 24.10.1985 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.5,000/- per acre, besides all including solatium @ 30% as well as compulsory acquisition charges @ 12% per annum. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant landowner(s) filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of th which came to be came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 30.07.1998 value of the acquired land @ Rs.5264/ statutory benefits including solatium @ 30%, Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellant(s)/ landowner(s). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. The Reference Court while granting benefit value @ Rs.5264/- per acre, in favour of the appellants herein, relied upon LAC case No.87 of 1996, which now stands modified vide order dated 09.02.2026 passed in RFA-1146 , titled as “Kamla Devi Vs. Haryana State PWD(B&R), Deptt. Chandigarh”, whereby enhance @ Rs.6000/- per acre besides all other statutory benefits solatium @ 30% as well as compulsory acquisition charges @ 12% The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide assessed market value in respect of the acquired per acre, besides all other statutory benefits including solatium @ 30% as well as compulsory acquisition charges Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant( reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be came to be disposed of by the learned Reference 30.07.1998 while determining the market 5264/- per acre besides all other including solatium @ 30%, under the Act. ggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone ference Court while granting benefit of market per acre, in favour of the appellants herein, relied upon LAC case No.87 of 1996, which now stands modified vide order 1146-1997 and other connected Kamla Devi Vs. Haryana State through Secretary, ”, whereby enhanced market value besides all other statutory benefits including solatium @ 30% as well as compulsory acquisition charges @ 12% The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide assessed market value in respect of the acquired other statutory benefits including solatium @ 30% as well as compulsory acquisition charges (s)/ e Act, which came to be came to be disposed of by the learned Reference while determining the market besides all other ggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone of market per acre, in favour of the appellants herein, relied upon LAC case No.87 of 1996, which now stands modified vide order and other connected through Secretary, d market value including solatium @ 30% as well as compulsory acquisition charges @ 12% SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.13 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3809 per annum, favour of appellant(s) therein, as such, the present appeal is partly allowed and the award dated 30.07.1998 is partly modified in the same terms as in 7. unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) 8. landowners area allowed in the aforesaid terms 9. disposed of. 09.02.2026 sanjay 3809-1998 (O&M) [3] per annum, under the Act (amended upto date) has been granted in favour of appellant(s) therein, as such, the present appeal is partly allowed and the award dated 30.07.1998 is partly modified in the same terms as in Kamla Devi’s case (supra). Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the appellant(s)/ landowners area allowed in the aforesaid terms Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 09.02.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? (amended upto date) has been granted in favour of appellant(s) therein, as such, the present appeal is partly allowed and the award dated 30.07.1998 is partly modified in the case (supra). the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving before the learned Executing Court. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the appellant(s)/ landowners area allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No (amended upto date) has been granted in favour of appellant(s) therein, as such, the present appeal is partly allowed and the award dated 30.07.1998 is partly modified in the the landowner(s) has/have objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving Accordingly, the appeals filed by the appellant(s)/ Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.13 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document