RFA-976 109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA State of Haryana and anr. Smt. Santa CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) laid to the decision dated Additional District Judge, 2. Balola, Tehsil and the Government of (published on 26.05.1987) and 20.05.1988 (published on 24.05.1988), Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') ‘construction Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) 976-2001 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: State of Haryana and anr. Versus Smt. Santa CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Rajinder Chokar, Advocate for the respondent/landowner. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present appeal challenge has been laid to the decision dated 10.01.2001 Additional District Judge, Gurugaon, for short the ‘ Briefly stating, 0.35 acres of Tehsil and District Gurugram, was sought to be acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notif (published on 26.05.1987) and 20.05.1988 (published on 24.05.1988), issued under Sections 4 Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), respectively, construction of Gurgaon-Faridbad road to Balola Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-976-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.01.2026 …….Appellants Versus ..….Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Rajinder Chokar, Advocate for the respondent/landowner. way of filing the present appeal challenge has been 10.01.2001 passed by the learned Gurugaon, for short the ‘Reference Court’ 0.35 acres of land, situated in Village , was sought to be acquired by vide notifications dated 05.05.1987 (published on 26.05.1987) and 20.05.1988 (published on 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition , respectively, for public purpose i.e. for Faridbad road to Balola’. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated way of filing the present appeal challenge has been passed by the learned Reference Court’. in Village , was sought to be acquired by 05.05.1987 (published on 26.05.1987) and 20.05.1988 (published on of the Land Acquisition i.e. for The Land vide award dated SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-976 22.05.1990 Rs.18,080 for all other kind of land, alongwith Act. 3. landowner filed which came to be disposed of by t decision dated acquired land solatium @ 30% 4. Court, the present appeal w State. 5. through the paper 6. market value in the case in hand has been made by relying upon an earlier award dated 04.02.1989 Reference Court pertaining to the same revenue estate and relating to previous acquisition by applying 12% appreciation per annum the time gap between the two notifications i.e. 22.11.1984 to 05.05.1987. 7. 976-2001 (O&M) [2] 22.05.1990 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ 18,080/- per acre for Bhood land, whereas Rs. for all other kind of land, alongwith other statutory benefits under the Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the landowner filed reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 10.01.2001, while determining acquired land at a uniform rate of Rs. solatium @ 30% besides all other statutory benefits under the Act. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeal was preferred at the instance of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. A perusal of the record shows that re market value in the case in hand has been made by relying upon an earlier award dated 04.02.1989 (Ex.P1) Reference Court pertaining to the same revenue estate and relating to previous acquisition by applying 12% appreciation per annum the time gap between the two notifications i.e. 22.11.1984 to 05.05.1987. Taking into consideration the fact that the acquired land assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ , whereas Rs. 25,120/- per acre other statutory benefits under the Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the respondent reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, he learned Reference Court vide 10.01.2001, while determining the market value of the Rs. 54,962.05 per acre as well as besides all other statutory benefits under the Act. the Award passed by the learned Reference preferred at the instance of appellant I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone A perusal of the record shows that re-assessment of market value in the case in hand has been made by relying upon an (Ex.P1) passed by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the same revenue estate and relating to previous acquisition by applying 12% appreciation per annum the time gap between the two notifications i.e. 22.11.1984 to Taking into consideration the fact that the acquired land assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ per acre other statutory benefits under the respondent/ reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, he learned Reference Court vide the market value of the as well as the Award passed by the learned Reference appellant I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone assessment of market value in the case in hand has been made by relying upon an passed by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the same revenue estate and relating for the time gap between the two notifications i.e. 22.11.1984 to Taking into consideration the fact that the acquired land SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-976 pertaining to revenue estate of Village Balola, Gurugram, formed part of the National Capital interference is called for with the 12% appreciation applied by the learned Reference Court for the purpose of determination of market value @ Rs. question. 8. reasoned award passed by the learned Reference Court. 9. dismissed. 10. disposed of. 21.01.2026 sanjay 976-2001 (O&M) [3] pertaining to revenue estate of Village Balola, Gurugram, formed part of the National Capital interference is called for with the 12% appreciation applied by the learned Reference Court for the purpose of determination of market value @ Rs. 54,962.05/- per acre in respect of the acquired land in question. In view thereof, no interference is called for in the well reasoned award passed by the learned Reference Court. The present appeal being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 1.01.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? pertaining to revenue estate of Village Balola, Tehsil and District Gurugram, formed part of the National Capital Region, as such no interference is called for with the 12% appreciation applied by the learned Reference Court for the purpose of determination of market per acre in respect of the acquired land in nterference is called for in the well reasoned award passed by the learned Reference Court. The present appeal being devoid of merits is, therefore, Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No District as such no interference is called for with the 12% appreciation applied by the learned Reference Court for the purpose of determination of market per acre in respect of the acquired land in nterference is called for in the well- The present appeal being devoid of merits is, therefore, Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document