RFA-4772 122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Mam Raj and others State of Haryana CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) laid to the decision dated Additional District Judge, 3. revenue estate of Government of 19.03.1987 (published on 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for links to Nagli Village 4772-1998 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: Mam Raj and others Versus State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 10.08.1998 Additional District Judge, Jagadhri-cum Briefly stating, 2.09 acres of land revenue estate of Village Nagli, was sought to be acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated 19.03.1987 (published on 24.03.1987 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for construction of ‘ links to Nagli Village’. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-4772-1998 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.01.2026 …….Appellants Versus ..….Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate Mr.Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been .1998 passed by the learned cum-Reference Court. acres of land, situated within the was sought to be acquired by the vide notifications dated 07.02.1987 and 24.03.1987), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for construction of ‘G.M.D. Road to Manglor which The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been passed by the learned , situated within the was sought to be acquired by the 02.1987 and , issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for G.M.D. Road to Manglor which The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-4772 LAC’) vide award of the acquired land @ Rs. statutory benefits under the Act. 4. landowners Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated the acquired land @ Rs. benefits under the Act. 5. Court, the present appeal landowners 6. through the paper submissions made on behalf of appellants/ landowners. 7. 07.02.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Act, market value has been assessed @ which is in line with the evidence led the appellants/ landowners themselves which 7K per acre was Rs.40,000/ for with respect to the market value determined by the learned 4772-1998 (O&M) [2] LAC’) vide award dated 25.04.1988 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.24,000/ statutory benefits under the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, th landowners preferred reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 10.08.1998 while determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.40,000/- per acre benefits under the Act. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeal was preferred at the instance of landowners. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone ough the paper-book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of appellants/ landowners. In the present case, with respect to the notification dated 07.02.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Act, market value has been assessed @ Rs.40,000/- per acre by the learned Reference Court which is in line with the evidence led the appellants/ landowners themselves in the form of sale instance Ex.P1 dated 2 which 7K-12M of land was sold for Rs.38,000/ cre was Rs.40,000/-. As such, no further enhancement is called for with respect to the market value determined by the learned assessed market value in respect 24,000/- per acre, besides all other Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court while determining the market value of per acre, besides all other statutory Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference preferred at the instance of appellants/ I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of appellants/ landowners. In the present case, with respect to the notification dated 07.02.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Act, market value has been per acre by the learned Reference Court which is in line with the evidence led the appellants/ landowners in the form of sale instance Ex.P1 dated 29.04.1987 vide M of land was sold for Rs.38,000/- and the base price . As such, no further enhancement is called for with respect to the market value determined by the learned assessed market value in respect other e appellants/ reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court while determining the market value of besides all other statutory Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference appellants/ I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone I am unable to find substance in the In the present case, with respect to the notification dated 07.02.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Act, market value has been per acre by the learned Reference Court which is in line with the evidence led the appellants/ landowners .04.1987 vide and the base price . As such, no further enhancement is called for with respect to the market value determined by the learned SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-4772 Reference Court. 8. be found in the submissions made on behalf of the respect to award of damages on the plea that the possession of the acquired land was taken somewhere in the year 1974 the process of acquisition was initiated much later vide notification dated 07.02.1987 issued under Section 4 9. lead by the appellants in the form of PW1 and PW2, no documentary evidence in the shape of any objections preferred at their instance under Section 5 A or Section 9 of the Act has be thereby raising any such plea circumstances, the appellants/ landowners cannot be held entitled for any damages as prayed for by them. 10. well reasone Court and thus, the present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. 11. disposed of. 27.01.2026 sanjay 4772-1998 (O&M) [3] Reference Court. Further, in the humble opinion of this Court, no merit can be found in the submissions made on behalf of the respect to award of damages on the plea that the possession of the acquired land was taken somewhere in the year 1974 the process of acquisition was initiated much later vide notification dated 07.02.1987 issued under Section 4 A perusal of the record shows that besides oral by the appellants in the form of PW1 and PW2, no documentary evidence in the shape of any objections preferred at their instance under Section 5 A or Section 9 of the Act has be thereby raising any such plea circumstances, the appellants/ landowners cannot be held entitled for any damages as prayed for by them. In view of the above, no interference is called for in the well reasoned award dated 10.08.1998 passed by learned Reference Court and thus, the present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27.01.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Further, in the humble opinion of this Court, no merit can be found in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants with respect to award of damages on the plea that the possession of the acquired land was taken somewhere in the year 1974-75, whereas the process of acquisition was initiated much later vide notification dated 07.02.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Act. A perusal of the record shows that besides oral evidence by the appellants in the form of PW1 and PW2, no documentary evidence in the shape of any objections preferred at their instance under Section 5 A or Section 9 of the Act has been placed on record thereby raising any such plea before the LAC. In such circumstances, the appellants/ landowners cannot be held entitled for In view of the above, no interference is called for in the d award dated 10.08.1998 passed by learned Reference Court and thus, the present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No Further, in the humble opinion of this Court, no merit can appellants with respect to award of damages on the plea that the possession of the 75, whereas the process of acquisition was initiated much later vide notification evidence by the appellants in the form of PW1 and PW2, no documentary evidence in the shape of any objections preferred at their instance en placed on record before the LAC. In such circumstances, the appellants/ landowners cannot be held entitled for In view of the above, no interference is called for in the d award dated 10.08.1998 passed by learned Reference Court and thus, the present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document