RFA-894-1995 and connected matters -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104 (6 cases) RFA-894-1995 Date of Decision: 15.07.2026 Sarabjit Singh (deceased) through LRs and another …Appellants Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents With Sr. No. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s) 2. RFA-1187-1995 State of Punjab and another Sarabjit Singh and another 3. RFA-2061-1995 State of Punjab and another Joginder Singh Saini 4. XOBJR-50-CI-1996 in RFA-2061-1995 State of Punjab Joginder Singh 5. RFA-1639-2000 Tejinder Singh Bajwa (Deceased) through LRs State of Punjab and another 6. RFA-1640-2000 Pal Singh Bajwa and another State of Punjab and another CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate and Mr. Yadvinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the appellants in RFA-894-1995 and respondents in RFA-1187-1995 Mr. Karan S. Gill, Advocate for the appellants (in RFA-1639-2000 & RFA-1640-2000) Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab (representing appellant in RFA-1187-1995 & RFA-2061-1995) *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals & cross-objection, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from RFA No.894 of 1995. MOHIT KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RFA-894-1995 and connected matters -2- 2. The appellants through instant appeal are seeking setting aside of award dated 10.01.1995 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter called as ‘Reference Court’) has not awarded compensation as claimed by them. 3. The State Government issued notification dated 11.01.1989 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) for acquisition of land in District Hoshiarpur. The said notification was followed by notification dated 25.07.1990 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act. 4. The Collector, vide Award dated 18.11.1992, in terms of provisions of 1894 Act, determined compensation payable to landowners. Feeling dis-satisfied from aforesaid award, landowners preferred petition before the Collector which were referred to Court under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. 5. The landowners as well as State, in support of their contentions, led their evidence. The State attempted to justify market value determined by Collector, however, landowners vehemently pleaded that value of their land has been assessed on lower side. 6. The Reference Court, while appreciating evidence led by both sides, by impugned award assessed market value of acquired land as ₹74,400/- per acre in respect of Chahi land. The landowners as well as State are in appeal before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants relied upon Exhibit A-7, A-8 and A-9 to prove that value of adjoining abadi land was more than ₹1,000/- per marla. The Reference Court could impose cut, MOHIT KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RFA-894-1995 and connected matters -3- however, value could not be determined on the basis of average or on the basis of far away land. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that as per Exhibit R-6, value of Chahi land was not more than ₹50,000/- per acre, thus, Reference Court has rightly determined value of land in question @ ₹74,400/- per acre. 9. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 10. From the perusal of impugned award, it is evident that Reference Court has not returned findings qua evidence led by both sides in the form of sale deeds whereas Court has relied upon rate determined by Collector which was average. The Collector had determined average of Chahi land ₹73,257/- per acre and average of abadi ₹3,77,986/- per acre. The Reference Court has not considered location of the acquired land. From the perusal of site plan as well as statement of Sub-Divisional Engineer who appeared as State witness, it is evident that land of the appellants was close to abadi. It may not be as close as admitted by Sub-Divisional Engineer, however, as per site plan, it could not be declared as a far away location. The Reference Court has noticed that land was adjoining the municipal limits. In such circumstances, sale transactions of adjoining land were required to be considered when sale transactions of the land in question were not available. 11. For determining market value of a tract of land, based on sale consideration of a small piece of land, cut is imposed on account of any of two or both reasons i.e. cost of development and market value of small piece of land vis-à-vis a tract of land. Value of a developed plot includes cost of roads, electricity, water, sewage, drainage, common facilities area etc. It is a MOHIT KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RFA-894-1995 and connected matters -4- matter of knowledge that ordinarily a small piece of land fetches more value than a big contiguous piece. Thus, value of a big chunk of land cannot be determined on the basis of sale consideration of a small piece of land. 1894 Act has laid down parameters to determine market value of the land and courts/authorities are required to apply their mind and determine market value as accurate as possible. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh (2010) 11 SCC 581; Haryana State Agricultural Market Board v. Krishan Kumar (2011) 15 SCC 297; Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769; Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona 1998 (3) SCC 751; Trishala Jain & another v. State of Uttaranchal & another (2011) 6 SCC 47; Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board v. K.S. Gangadharappa, (2009) 11 SCC 164 has held that deduction on account of development charges has to be considered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. The purpose of acquisition is also a relevant factor for applying cut. The Court has permitted deduction for development cost ranging from 20% to 75% of price of small flats. 13. A conspectus of judicial precedents and statutory provisions reveals that following factors should be kept in mind while determining value of acquired land: i. Collector rate of land of the acquired land should be considered but not mechanically applied. ii. Collector rate or sale consideration of acquired land should be preferred than any other land irrespective of location. MOHIT KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RFA-894-1995 and connected matters -5- iii. If sale consideration of acquired land is not available, sale consideration of nearest land possessing advantages should be considered. The principle should be lesser the distance more the preference. iv. Capitalization methods by putting its potential value having close to the developed or developing colonies nearest to road etc. v. Sale consideration of a big chunk of land should be preferred than smaller piece of land. vi. In case sale consideration of only small piece of land is available, an appropriate cut should be imposed. vii. In case sale consideration of developed plot is available, appropriate deduction towards cost of development should be made. viii. Market value specified for the purpose of registration of sale deeds or agreements to sale in the area where the acquired land is situated i.e. for the leavy of stamp duty. 14. In the obtained facts & circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to determine value of acquired land @ 60% of value disclosed in Exhibit A-7 and A-8. It is apt to notice that learned counsel for the appellants have conceded that market value may be determined @ 60% of sale consideration disclosed in Exhibit A-7 and A-8. In Exhibit A-7 and Exhibit A-8, sale consideration @ ₹1,000/- per marla has been disclosed. The market value of acquired land applying cut of 40% comes to ₹96,000/- per acre. MOHIT KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RFA-894-1995 and connected matters -6- 15. In the backdrop, appeals of landowners are allowed in above terms and appeals of State as well as cross-objection stand dismissed. The landowners shall be entitled to statutory benefits on enhanced amount as granted by learned Reference Court. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 15.07.2026 Mohit Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHIT KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.