RFA-2317 109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Vishnu Dutt and others State of Haryana CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) laid to the decision dated Additional District Judge, Reference Court’) 2. the revenue estate of Village Haryana under Section ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose and utilization thereof as residential, commercial and industri for Sector 15 in Gurgaon” ‘the LAC’) vide award 2317-1994 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: 23.03.2026 Vishnu Dutt and others Versus State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present appeal challenge has been laid to the decision dated 09.05.1994 Additional District Judge, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’). Briefly stating, land measuring 56.33 acres the revenue estate of Village Silokhra, Haryana vide notifications dated 17.11.1982 and 10.12.1984 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose and utilization thereof as residential, commercial and industri for Sector 15 in Gurgaon”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award No.13 dated 21.09.1986 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-2317-1994 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.03.2026 …….Appellants Versus ..….Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. way of filing the present appeal challenge has been 09.05.1994 passed by the learned Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘the measuring 56.33 acres situated within Silokhra, was acquired by the State 17.11.1982 and 10.12.1984, issued of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose, namely, “for development and utilization thereof as residential, commercial and industrial area The Land Acquisition Collector (for short No.13 dated 21.09.1986 assessed the market way of filing the present appeal challenge has been passed by the learned Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘the situated within State of , issued for short development al area The Land Acquisition Collector (for short market MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-2317 value of the acquired land @ Rs. Rs.40,000/ benefits under the Act. award No.1 was awarded as compensation for structure, tubewells and trees existing thereon. 3. landowners filed which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 21.04.1988 passed by the L 4. the present appeal w appellant 5. through the paper 6. acquisition, two kothas, a haudi, and a well existed on the acquired land owned by the appellants/landowners awarded a sum of Rs. 7,218.06 for the said construction however, they claimed compensat while submitting inadequate. 2317-1994 (O&M) [2] value of the acquired land @ Rs.60,000/ 40,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin land along with benefits under the Act. This was followed by the supplementary award No.1-A, dated 21.04.1988 whereby total sum of Rs.78,615.51/ was awarded as compensation for structure, tubewells and trees existing thereon. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ landowners filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 09.05.1994 while upholding Award No.1 21.04.1988 passed by the LAC. Aggrieved of the decision of the present appeal was preferred at the appellants/landowners. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. A perusal of the record acquisition, two kothas, a haudi, and a well existed on the acquired land owned by the appellants/landowners awarded a sum of Rs. 7,218.06 for the said construction however, they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,000/ while submitting that amount awarded inadequate. To substantiate their claim, the ] 60,000/- per acre for Chahi and land along with all other statutory This was followed by the supplementary A, dated 21.04.1988 whereby total sum of Rs.78,615.51/ was awarded as compensation for structure, tubewells and trees e aforesaid award, the appellants/ reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide 09.05.1994 while upholding Award No.1-A dated decision of the learned Reference Court, preferred at the instance of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone A perusal of the record shows that, at the time of acquisition, two kothas, a haudi, and a well existed on the acquired land owned by the appellants/landowners. The landowners were awarded a sum of Rs. 7,218.06 for the said construction by the LAC ion to the tune of Rs. 60,000/ amount awarded by the LAC was grossly To substantiate their claim, the appellants/landowners and @ other statutory This was followed by the supplementary A, dated 21.04.1988 whereby total sum of Rs.78,615.51/- was awarded as compensation for structure, tubewells and trees e aforesaid award, the appellants/ reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide A dated the learned Reference Court, instance of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone shows that, at the time of acquisition, two kothas, a haudi, and a well existed on the acquired The landowners were by the LAC, ion to the tune of Rs. 60,000/-, was grossly appellants/landowners MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-2317 examined PW report Ex. P1 dated 25.05.1990, v 47,565/-. 6.1. initiated vide notification dated 17.11.1982 under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 10.12.1984 under Section 6 thereof, while the award u Consequently, the report dated 25.05.1990, being much subsequent to the award 7. acquisition, an assessment report construction on the acquired land was made by the Sub Divisional Engineer, HUDA, Sub Division No.7, Gurugram. A perusal of the report shows that while making the assessment, a depreciation of 15% was applied, and thereafter, after construction, the depreciat 8. keeping in mind the objectives of the 1894 Act, to award just and fair compensation to the landowners, that the appellants are amount of 50% over and above structures the Act. 2317-1994 (O&M) [3] examined PW-2, Sh. H.S. Yadav, a registered valuer, who proved report Ex. P1 dated 25.05.1990, valuing the construction at Rs. . Admittedly, the acquisition in the case in hand was initiated vide notification dated 17.11.1982 under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 10.12.1984 under Section 6 thereof, while the award under Section 11 was passed on 21.09.1986. Consequently, the report dated 25.05.1990, being much subsequent to the award was no to be relied upon in toto. However, it is evident from the record that at the time of acquisition, an assessment report (Ex. construction on the acquired land was made by the Sub Divisional Engineer, HUDA, Sub Division No.7, Gurugram. A perusal of the report shows that while making the assessment, a depreciation of 15% was applied, and thereafter, after construction, the depreciation cost was assessed at Rs. 9,424.11/ In such circumstances, for balancing the equities and keeping in mind the objectives of the 1894 Act, to award just and fair compensation to the landowners, this Court is of that the appellants are held entitled to Rs. 9,424.11 with an additional amount of 50% over and above the same towards structures. They shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits under ] 2, Sh. H.S. Yadav, a registered valuer, who proved aluing the construction at Rs. Admittedly, the acquisition in the case in hand was initiated vide notification dated 17.11.1982 under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 10.12.1984 under Section 6 thereof, nder Section 11 was passed on 21.09.1986. Consequently, the report dated 25.05.1990, being much subsequent was no to be relied upon in toto. However, it is evident from the record that at the time of (Ex. R-2) with respect to the construction on the acquired land was made by the Sub Divisional Engineer, HUDA, Sub Division No.7, Gurugram. A perusal of the report shows that while making the assessment, a depreciation of 15% was applied, and thereafter, after considering the age of the cost was assessed at Rs. 9,424.11/-. , for balancing the equities and keeping in mind the objectives of the 1894 Act, to award just and fair this Court is of the considered view entitled to Rs. 9,424.11 with an additional the same towards market value of the . They shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits under 2, Sh. H.S. Yadav, a registered valuer, who proved aluing the construction at Rs. Admittedly, the acquisition in the case in hand was initiated vide notification dated 17.11.1982 under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 10.12.1984 under Section 6 thereof, nder Section 11 was passed on 21.09.1986. Consequently, the report dated 25.05.1990, being much subsequent However, it is evident from the record that at the time of with respect to the construction on the acquired land was made by the Sub Divisional Engineer, HUDA, Sub Division No.7, Gurugram. A perusal of the report shows that while making the assessment, a depreciation of considering the age of the . , for balancing the equities and keeping in mind the objectives of the 1894 Act, to award just and fair considered view entitled to Rs. 9,424.11 with an additional of the . They shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits under MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-2317 9. 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. 10. disposed of. 23.03.2026 sanjay 2317-1994 (O&M) [4] 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 propriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 23.03.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? ] Further, 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 propriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No Further, wherever, 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 Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt