1 118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SADA RAM AND ORS HARYANA STATE AND ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Shivam Singh Chauha Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. HARKESH MANUJA By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated Judge, Jagadhari of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to the appellants-landowners dismissed. 2. Briefly stating, land measuring revenue estate of Village the public purpose fo Basti vide notifications dated 22.04.1986 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award dat 23.03.1987 assessing the market value at the rate of Rs. acre for chahi land and Rs.80,000/ with other statutory benefits. 3. The appellants award, sought refere IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: SADA RAM AND ORS Versus HARYANA STATE AND ANR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Shivam Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 10.02.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Jagadhari, whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to landowners, seeking enhancement of compensation was Briefly stating, land measuring 1.20 acres revenue estate of Village Jathlana, District Jagadhari the public purpose for construction of link road from Jathlana to Harijan vide notifications dated 18.12.1984 (published on 15.01.1985) issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award dat assessing the market value at the rate of Rs. land and Rs.80,000/- per acre for with other statutory benefits. The appellants-landowners, feeling dissatisfied with the award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act pleading that RFA-3496-1998 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-3496-1998 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 27, 2026 ......Appellants ......Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the passed by the learned Additional District , whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by , seeking enhancement of compensation was 1.20 acres, situated within the Jathlana, District Jagadhari was acquired for construction of link road from Jathlana to Harijan (published on 15.01.1985) and issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award dated assessing the market value at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per per acre for gair mumkin land along , feeling dissatisfied with the nce under Section 18 of the Act pleading that the (O&M) (O&M) January 27, 2026 By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the passed by the learned Additional District , whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 ‘the Act’) by , seeking enhancement of compensation was , situated within the was acquired for construction of link road from Jathlana to Harijan and issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. The ed per along , feeling dissatisfied with the the TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.01.30 11:30 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 RFA-3496-1998 (O&M) price of land was not less than Rs.80,000/- per Kanal as the land was situated near abadi deh of village Jathlana. Moreover, it was pleaded that the land was fit for commercial purpose and rice sheller was in existence near the land. 4. Upon notice, the same was contested by the respondents- State and it was contended that there was no abadi or commercial establishment existing near the acquired land and on the contrary, construction of link road greatly benefitted the landowners, thus, the award passed by the LAC was fair and adequate. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Reference Court on 09.06.1997:- “1. What was the market value of the acquired of land in question on the date of publication of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP 2. Relief.” 6. Upon framing of issues, the petitioners examined Sunder Lal as PW1, Budh Ram as PW2 and Lal Singh Datana as PW3 and tendered some documents in evidence. On the other hand, respondents examined Balbir Raj Kanungo PWD (B&R) and tendered sale deeds Ex.R-1 to R-4 in evidence. 7. After considering the evidence, the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhari, vide award dated 10.02.1998 upheld the compensation granted by LAC and dismissed the reference petition. 8. Aggrieved of the aforesaid award dated 10.02.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhari, the appellants- landowners filed the present appeal. TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.01.30 11:30 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 RFA-3496-1998 (O&M) 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants-landowners. 10. A perusal of record shows that vide sale deed Ex.P-2 dated 01.10.1983, 1 kanal of land forming part of same revenue estate of Village Jathlana, District Kurukshetra was sold for Rs.45,000/- and the base price thereof was Rs.3,60,000/- per acre, however, the same was not taken into consideration by the learned Reference Court and was wrongly discarded. In the given facts, the sale deed Ex.P2 thus needs to be taken into account as the best available sale exampler. Taking into consideration the fact that total acquired land was 1.2 acres whereas, land forming part of sale instance Ex.P-2 measures 1 kanal; an appropriate cut @ 60% needs to be applied towards smallness of land forming part of village Jathlana, District Kurukshetra. 11. Further, the fact that since the total land measuring 1.20 acres was acquired for public purpose of construction of road from Jathlana to Harijan Basti, the State did not suffer any loss of land or expense towards providing of additional infrastructural amenities like parks, roads, green belts or community building etc, no cut towards development cost needs to be applied. In such circumstances, the market value of land under acquisition comes to Rs.1,44,000/- (3,60,000 – 3,60,000 X 60%). Furthermore, the acquisition in hand is only for an area measuring 1.20 acres for the purpose of construction of road, as such, it would be appropriate to award uniform market value @Rs.1,44,000/- per acre along with all other statutory benefits. TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.01.30 11:30 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 RFA-3496-1998 (O&M) 12. At this stage, it may be noticed here that there was no illegality or perversity with the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court having discarded the sale instances produced by respondents as all those sale instances were of period after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 13. Besides it, the landowners-appellants shall also be entitled for all the statutory benefits and interest, especially the interest on solatium. 14. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present appeal is partly allowed with the aforesaid modification. 15. Wherever 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 appropriate applications before the learned Executing Court. 16. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27.01.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.01.30 11:30 I agree to specified portions of this document