1 104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RAM SINGH AND ORS. HARYANA STATE JAWAHAR SINGH AND HARYANA STATE CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. M.S. Randhawa, Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, Advocate Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. HARKESH MANUJA Vide this common order, aforementioned two appeals shall stand disposed of. For convenience, facts are drawn from RFA 1995. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated Judge, Narnaul the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as appellants-landowners partly allowed. 2. Briefly stating, land measuring revenue estate of village Hamidpur and 4.953 acres revenue estate of Vill Mahendergarh Hamidpur Bandh by the Irrigation Department 31.03.1992 and 30.11.1992 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award Nos.2 and 3 dated RFA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: AND ORS. Versus STATE JAWAHAR SINGH AND ANR. Versus STATE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. M.S. Randhawa, Advocate with Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, Advocate for the Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Vide this common order, aforementioned two appeals shall stand disposed of. For convenience, facts are drawn from RFA By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 05.09.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Narnaul, whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as landowners, seeking enhancement of compensation was Briefly stating, land measuring revenue estate of village Hamidpur and 4.953 acres revenue estate of Village Bhankhari, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh was acquired for the public purpose for Hamidpur Bandh by the Irrigation Department 31.03.1992 and 30.11.1992 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively t. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award dated 24.12.1993 assessing the market value at the rate of RFA-2356-1995 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-2356-1995 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 27, 2026 ....Appellants ........Respondent RFA-808-1996 (O&M) ....Appellants ........Respondent HARKESH MANUJA with for the appellant(s). Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Vide this common order, aforementioned two appeals shall stand disposed of. For convenience, facts are drawn from RFA-2356- 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 the , seeking enhancement of compensation was Briefly stating, land measuring 15.81 acres situated within revenue estate of village Hamidpur and 4.953 acres, situated within the Bhankhari, Tehsil Narnaul, District was acquired for the public purpose for construction of Hamidpur Bandh by the Irrigation Department vide notifications dated issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively t. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award assessing the market value at the rate of (O&M) January 27, 2026 (O&M) Vide this common order, aforementioned two appeals shall - 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 Act’) by the , seeking enhancement of compensation was 15.81 acres situated within , situated within the Bhankhari, Tehsil Narnaul, District construction of vide notifications dated issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively t. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award assessing the market value at the rate of TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.01.30 19:47 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 RFA-2356-1995 (O&M) Rs.60,000/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs.40,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs.35,000/- per acre for Bhud Land along with other statutory benefits. 3. 3. The appellants-landowners, feeling dissatisfied with the award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act pleading that the price of land was not less than Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs.80,000/- per acre for Barani land. Moreover, it was pleaded that the appellants-landowners suffered loss due to bifurcation of their remaining land as a result of construction of the Bandh and carving out of the earth from the acquired land which was not taken into consideration while granting the compensation by the LAC. 4. Upon notice, the same was contested by the respondents- State while pleading that the award passed by the LAC was just and adequate and further, the factum of digging of the earth on acquired land was denied. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Reference Court on 14.03.1995:- “1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of publication of notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhancement of compensation, if so, at what rate and to what amount?OPP 3. Relief.” 6. After considering the evidence, the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide award dated 05.09.1995 enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.60,000/- per acre (for entire acquired land). 7. Aggrieved of the aforesaid award dated 05.09.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, the appellants- landowners filed the present appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I am unable to find substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellants-landowners to the effect that the learned Reference Court went wrong while discarding the sale instance TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.01.30 19:47 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 RFA-2356-1995 (O&M) Ex.P-A dated 07.09.1993 vide which 1 kanal 11 marlas of land was sold for Rs.1,22,500/- and base price per acre was Rs.6,32,000/-. 9. A perusal of the record shows that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 31.03.1992 as such, in the absence of there being any evidence available on record to reflect the comparative location of the land under acquisition and the land forming part of sale instance Ex.P-A, there is no illegality or perversity on the part of learned Reference Court for having not relied upon the sale instance (Ex.P-A) dated 07.09.1993 which was post notification under Section 4 of the Act. Even the remaining sale instances produced by the appellants- landowners in the form of Mark-A to Mark-E were rightly discarded as the same were neither proved on record nor even the certified copies of such sale instances were produced in the evidence. 10. However, at this stage there is some substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellants-landowners with respect to bifurcation of the land owned by them as an effect of present acquisition proceedings. As per the record, the acquisition proceedings have been carried out for public purpose namely construction of Hamidpur Bandh by Irrigation Department. A perusal of record shows that as per the site plan produced on record as Ex.R-1, the land owned by the appellants- landowners has been divided into two parts. In such circumstances, the appellants/landowners are bound to suffer loss towards cultivation of land besides causing them inconvenience towards connectivity of the parcels left on either side of the Minor. Moreover, severance also causes reduction in value of remaining land due to alteration in access, useability, irregularity of shape and loss of agricultural viability etc., thus, it would be appropriate to award damages against severance of land in favour of the landowners @25% of the market value as assessed by this Court. The appellants- landowners shall also be entitled for all other statutory benefits and interest under the Act including interest on solatium as well. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed of. 12. Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.01.30 19:47 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 RFA-2356-1995 (O&M) 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. 13. 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 19:47 I agree to specified portions of this document