RFA-3810 112(2 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. Amar Chand The State of Haryana and another 2. Dev Kiran @ Jai Singh The State of Haryana and another CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) details of which are given in the decided as involving common facts and question of law facts are being taken from 2. laid to the decision dated 3810-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases (2 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** Date of Decision: RFA Amar Chand Versus The State of Haryana and another RFA Dev Kiran @ Jai Singh Versus The State of Haryana and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Aman Priye Jain, Advocate for the appellant (s)/ landowner Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Vide this common order, details of which are given in the head note decided as both have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law facts are being taken from RFA No.3810 By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 27.03.1998 (O&M) & other connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.02.2026 RFA-3810-1998 (O&M) …..Appellant …..Respondents RFA-3811-1998 (O&M) …….Appellant …..Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Advocate landowner(s). Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Vide this common order, two Regular First Appeals, head note of this judgment, are being have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, 3810-1998. way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been 27.03.1998 passed by the learned Regular First Appeals, of this judgment, are being have arisen out of common acquisition/Award . For the sake of brevity, way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been rned SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3810 Additional District Judge, Reference Court’) 3. revenue estate of was acquired by the Government of 22.05.1979 (published on 19.09.1979) Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose ‘for the construction of Delhi Mathura Road to High Lev River Yamuna near Village Rahipur’ (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award respect of the acquired land and @ Rs.11,200/ benefits under the Act. 4. landowner which were 5. the present appeals were preferred at the instance of landowner(s) 6. submits that the learned Reference Court sale instance Ex.P1 dated 12.02.1981 vide which 2K 3810-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases Additional District Judge, Faridabad ( Reference Court’). Briefly stating, 20.82 acres of land revenue estate of Village Chandhat, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad was acquired by the Government of Haryana .1979 (published on 29.05.1979 19.09.1979), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose for the construction of Delhi Mathura Road to High Lev River Yamuna near Village Rahipur’. (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award 27.02.1980 respect of the acquired land @ Rs.12,000/ and @ Rs.11,200/- per acre Barani land benefits under the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant landowner(s) filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, were dismissed vide decision dated 27.03.1998 Aggrieved of the decision of the present appeals were preferred at the instance of landowner(s). Learned counsel for the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) submits that the learned Reference Court sale instance Ex.P1 dated 12.02.1981 vide which 2K (O&M) & other connected cases [2] Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 20.82 acres of land, situated within the Chandhat, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad Haryana vide notifications dated 29.05.1979) and 18.09.1979 (published on , issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose, namely, for the construction of Delhi Mathura Road to High Level Bridge over The Land Acquisition Collector 27.02.1980 assessed market value in @ Rs.12,000/- per acre for Chahi land per acre Barani land, along with all other statutory Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant(s) reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, dismissed vide decision dated 27.03.1998. decision of the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellant(s)/ Learned counsel for the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) submits that the learned Reference Court erred having discarded the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 12.02.1981 vide which 2K-1M of land hereinafter referred to as ‘the , situated within the Chandhat, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad, dated 18.09.1979 (published on , issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition , namely, el Bridge over The Land Acquisition Collector assessed market value in per acre for Chahi land other statutory (s)/ reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, the learned Reference Court, (s)/ Learned counsel for the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) ed the 1M of land SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3810 within the same revenue estate of Village Chandhat, the then Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad Rs.1,09,260/ period post applying the principle of de date of under Section 4 of the Act required to be award passed by the learned Reference Court was modified. 7. of the re perversity with the reasoning recorded by the learned Reference Court while which pertained to the period Act and even the comparative location of the land parcel therein a-viz the acquired land was appellant(s)/ landowner(s). He thus submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Cou appreciation of interference and as such the appeal(s) in hand are liable to be dismissed. 8. 3810-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases within the same revenue estate of Village Chandhat, the then Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad was sold for Rs.28,000/ Rs.1,09,260/- per acre; only for the reason that post-notification under Section 4 of the Act applying the principle of de-escalation for the time gap between the date of aforementioned sale instance and the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the market value of the acquired land was required to be enhanced in favour of appellants/ landowners award passed by the learned Reference Court was modified. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-State submits that there is no illegality or perversity with the reasoning recorded by the learned Reference Court while discarding the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 12.02.1981 pertained to the period post-notification and even the comparative location of the land parcel therein the acquired land was not established on record by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s). He thus submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Cou appreciation of evidence and material available on record, calls for no interference and as such the appeal(s) in hand are liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone (O&M) & other connected cases [3] within the same revenue estate of Village Chandhat, the then Tehsil was sold for Rs.28,000/- with base price of for the reason that the same pertained to under Section 4 of the Act. He submits that by escalation for the time gap between the sale instance and the date of notification , the market value of the acquired land was enhanced in favour of appellants/ landowners and the award passed by the learned Reference Court was thus liable to be On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf submits that there is no illegality or perversity with the reasoning recorded by the learned Reference the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 12.02.1981 notification under Section 4 of the and even the comparative location of the land parcel therein viz established on record by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s). He thus submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court being based upon proper evidence and material available on record, calls for no interference and as such the appeal(s) in hand are liable to be I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone within the same revenue estate of Village Chandhat, the then Tehsil with base price of pertained to . He submits that by escalation for the time gap between the sale instance and the date of notification , the market value of the acquired land was the liable to be On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf submits that there is no illegality or perversity with the reasoning recorded by the learned Reference the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 12.02.1981 under Section 4 of the viz- established on record by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s). He thus submits that the impugned award rt being based upon proper evidence and material available on record, calls for no interference and as such the appeal(s) in hand are liable to be I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3810 through the paper behalf of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s). 9. Section 4 of the Act in the case with respect to acquisition of land sit of Village public purpose, namely, ‘ to High Level Bridge over River Yamuna near Village Rahipur’ not been disputed parcel was the post- the appellant(s)/ landowner(s), 2K revenue estate of Village Chandhat was sold for Rs.28,000/ base price of Rs.1,09,260/ other sale to the period prior to notification under Section 4 learned Reference Court Hon’ble Apex Court in Vs. State of Haryana and ors. 715, could have assessed the market value of the placing reliance upon the post 12.02.1981 (Ex.P1) time gap between the date of 3810-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s). A perusal of the record shows that the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case(s) in hand was issued on 29.05.1979 with respect to acquisition of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Chandhat, the then Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad, for public purpose, namely, ‘for the construction of Delhi Mathura Road to High Level Bridge over River Yamuna near Village Rahipur’ not been disputed by the respondents parcel was located in the close vicinity of Delhi -notification sale deed dated 12.02.1981 (Ex.P1) produced by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s), 2K-1M of land falling in the same venue estate of Village Chandhat was sold for Rs.28,000/ base price of Rs.1,09,260/- per acre. other sale transaction produced by either of the parties that pertained to the period prior to notification under Section 4 learned Reference Court while relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Kishan (since deceased) through LRs Vs. State of Haryana and ors., reported as could have assessed the market value of the placing reliance upon the post-notification sale deed dated 12.02.1981 (Ex.P1) by applying the principle of de ap between the date of aforementioned (O&M) & other connected cases [4] I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s). A perusal of the record shows that the notification under in hand was issued on 29.05.1979 uated within the revenue estate Chandhat, the then Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad, for for the construction of Delhi Mathura Road to High Level Bridge over River Yamuna near Village Rahipur’. It has by the respondents-State that the acquired land in the close vicinity of Delhi-Mathura road. As per sale deed dated 12.02.1981 (Ex.P1) produced by 1M of land falling in the same venue estate of Village Chandhat was sold for Rs.28,000/- with per acre. However, in the absence of any either of the parties that pertained to the period prior to notification under Section 4 of the Act, the while relying upon the law laid down by the Ram Kishan (since deceased) through LRs reported as 2025 SCC online SC could have assessed the market value of the acquired land after notification sale deed dated by applying the principle of de-escalation for the aforementioned sale deed till the date I find substance in the submissions made on A perusal of the record shows that the notification under in hand was issued on 29.05.1979 uated within the revenue estate Chandhat, the then Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad, for for the construction of Delhi Mathura Road It has that the acquired land per sale deed dated 12.02.1981 (Ex.P1) produced by 1M of land falling in the same with any either of the parties that pertained of the Act, the while relying upon the law laid down by the Ram Kishan (since deceased) through LRs 2025 SCC online SC and after notification sale deed dated escalation for the sale deed till the date SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3810 of notification under Section 4 of t exemplar pertained to the same revenue estate and the market value sought to be determined in the case in hand estate and not with respect to any town or City. Relevant and 26 of hereunder: 3810-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases of notification under Section 4 of the Act, especially when the sale exemplar pertained to the same revenue estate and the market value sought to be determined in the case in hand estate and not with respect to any town or City. Relevant and 26 of Ram Kishan (since deceased) hereunder:- “25. In Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another finding that lands which were acquired by a later notification in 1988 were adjacent to the lands acquired in the case in question in 1981, this Court applied the principle of de relevant parts of the hereunder:- “77. Further, the land which has been covered under notification in 1988 is also adjacent to the residential sites which were formed. The landowners in that case produced the sale deeds of the years 1986 and 1988 respectively, which was 2 ye respectively to the notification issued in the year 1988 and some of which were two to three years earlier. Taking the said relevant facts into consideration, the High Court of Karnataka redetermined the compensation at Rs. 7.5 per square feet of land bearing Survey No. 389 covered in award passed in MFA No. 3796 of 2005 and Cross giving deduction towards the developmental (O&M) & other connected cases [5] he Act, especially when the sale exemplar pertained to the same revenue estate and the market value sought to be determined in the case in hand pertained to a revenue estate and not with respect to any town or City. Relevant para Nos.25 Ram Kishan (since deceased) case (supra) are extracted Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, (2015) 10 SCC 469, finding that lands which were acquired by a later notification in 1988 were adjacent to the lands acquired in the case in question in 1981, this Court applied the principle of de-escalation. The relevant parts of the judgment are set o Further, the land which has been covered under notification in 1988 is also adjacent to the residential sites which were formed. The landowners in that case produced the sale deeds of the years 1986 and 1988 respectively, which was 2 years and 2 months earlier respectively to the notification issued in the year 1988 and some of which were two to three years earlier. Taking the said relevant facts into consideration, the High Court of Karnataka redetermined the compensation at Rs. 7.5 per square feet of land bearing Survey No. 389 covered in award passed in MFA No. 3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No. 213 of 2005 after giving deduction towards the developmental he Act, especially when the sale exemplar pertained to the same revenue estate and the market value revenue para Nos.25 are extracted Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Others v. State of , (2015) 10 SCC 469, finding that lands which were acquired by a later notification in 1988 were adjacent to the lands acquired in the case in question in 1981, this escalation. The judgment are set out Further, the land which has been covered under notification in 1988 is also adjacent to the residential sites which were formed. The landowners in that case produced the sale deeds of the years 1986 and 1988 respectively, ars and 2 months earlier respectively to the notification issued in the year 1988 and some of which were two to three years earlier. Taking the said relevant facts into consideration, the High Court of Karnataka redetermined the compensation at Rs. 7.5 per square feet of land bearing Survey No. 389 covered in award passed in MFA No. 3796 of Objection No. 213 of 2005 after giving deduction towards the developmental SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3810 3810-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases charges, de-escalation and conversion charges. The same method should be applie on hand. 78. Further, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the relevant fact that though the final notification for the land covered in MFA No. 3796 of 2005 and Cross 2005 was in the year 1988, it was f development and the said land was also leased in favour of the allottee Company by KIADB to be used for the industrial development. The land along with the other lands covered in the 1981 notification was also acquired by the State Government for the purpose of the industrial development and allotted to the Company for the development of the industrial estate. Therefore, apart from the fact that there was a gap of 7 years in which the lands of the appellants were notified for acquisition to th MFA No. 3796 of 2005 and Cross 213 of 2005, it is an admitted fact that there is similarity in the nature of the land and the purpose for which they were acquired. 80. As per the survey conducted by the State Government, it is available in the land and the Company is extracting the same to be used as raw material for the manufacture of cement in its factory. Therefore, though the land in the present case is a short distance away from the la MFA No. 3796 of 2005 and Cross 213 of 2005, both have been acquired for the (O&M) & other connected cases [6] escalation and conversion charges. The same method should be applied in the case Further, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the relevant fact that though the final notification for the land covered in MFA No. 3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No. 213 of 2005 was in the year 1988, it was for industrial development and the said land was also leased in favour of the allottee Company by KIADB to be used for the industrial development. The land along with the other lands covered in the 1981 notification was also acquired by the State for the purpose of the industrial development and allotted to the Company for the development of the industrial estate. Therefore, apart from the fact that there was a gap of 7 years in which the lands of the appellants were notified for acquisition to the land covered in MFA No. 3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No. 213 of 2005, it is an admitted fact that there is similarity in the nature of the land and the purpose for which they were acquired. As per the survey conducted by the State is an undisputed fact that mineral is available in the land and the Company is extracting the same to be used as raw material for the manufacture of cement in its factory. Therefore, though the land in the present case is a short distance away from the lands covered in MFA No. 3796 of 2005 and Cross-Objection No. 213 of 2005, both have been acquired for the escalation and conversion charges. d in the case Further, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the relevant fact that though the final notification for the land covered in MFA No. Objection No. 213 of or industrial development and the said land was also leased in favour of the allottee Company by KIADB to be used for the industrial development. The land along with the other lands covered in the 1981 notification was also acquired by the State for the purpose of the industrial development and allotted to the Company for the development of the industrial estate. Therefore, apart from the fact that there was a gap of 7 years in which the lands of the appellants were e land covered in Objection No. 213 of 2005, it is an admitted fact that there is similarity in the nature of the land and the As per the survey conducted by the State is an undisputed fact that mineral is available in the land and the Company is extracting the same to be used as raw material for the manufacture of cement in its factory. Therefore, though the land in the present case is nds covered in Objection No. 213 of 2005, both have been acquired for the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3810 3810-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases purpose of industrial development and sought to be used for the same purpose by the Company. The land of the appellants herein along with other lands that was acquired vide notification in 1981 has been allotted in favour of the Company for the purpose of extracting the mineral of limestone which is the raw material used for the purpose of manufacturing the cement used for the commercial purpose. Therefo the appellants is acquired for the non potentiality and the same is used for commercial purpose. Therefore, determining deductions towards de-escalation at 5% per year for 7 years and 10% towards waiting and other incidental charges would justify the redetermination of the market value of the land of the appellants. 26. Moreover, in Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs and Others v. Land Acquisition Officer and Another, (2012) 1 SCC 390 recognising the Principle of D Para 37, 40 and 42 as under: 37. Even though escalation of market price of land is a question of fact, which should ordinarily be proved through cogent evidence yet, keeping in mind ground realities, and taking judicial notice thereof, we are of the view that land prices are on the rise throughout the country. The outskirts of Gulbarga Town are certainly not an exception to the rule. The exemplar sale deed dated 30 12- 1983 was executed exactly 1 year 7 months and 17 days after the pu preliminary Notification on 13 (O&M) & other connected cases [7] purpose of industrial development and sought to be used for the same purpose by the Company. The land of the appellants herein along with hat was acquired vide notification in 1981 has been allotted in favour of the Company for the purpose of extracting the mineral of limestone which is the raw material used for the purpose of manufacturing the cement used for the commercial purpose. Therefore, the land of the appellants is acquired for the non-agricultural potentiality and the same is used for commercial purpose. Therefore, determining deductions escalation at 5% per year for 7 years and 10% towards waiting and other incidental arges would justify the redetermination of the market value of the land of the appellants.” Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs and Others v. Land Acquisition Officer and Another, (2012) 1 SCC 390, this Court, while recognising the Principle of De-escalation held in Para 37, 40 and 42 as under:- Even though escalation of market price of land is a question of fact, which should ordinarily be proved through cogent evidence yet, keeping in mind ground realities, and taking judicial notice f, we are of the view that land prices are on the rise throughout the country. The outskirts of Gulbarga Town are certainly not an exception to the rule. The exemplar sale deed dated 30 1983 was executed exactly 1 year 7 months and 17 days after the publication of the preliminary Notification on 13-5-1982. Keeping in purpose of industrial development and sought to be used for the same purpose by the Company. The land of the appellants herein along with hat was acquired vide notification in 1981 has been allotted in favour of the Company for the purpose of extracting the mineral of limestone which is the raw material used for the purpose of manufacturing the cement used for re, the land of agricultural potentiality and the same is used for commercial purpose. Therefore, determining deductions escalation at 5% per year for 7 years and 10% towards waiting and other incidental arges would justify the redetermination of the Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs and Others v. Land Acquisition Officer and , this Court, while escalation held in Even though escalation of market price of land is a question of fact, which should ordinarily be proved through cogent evidence yet, keeping in mind ground realities, and taking judicial notice f, we are of the view that land prices are on the rise throughout the country. The outskirts of Gulbarga Town are certainly not an exception to the rule. The exemplar sale deed dated 30- 1983 was executed exactly 1 year 7 months blication of the 1982. Keeping in SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3810 3810-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases mind the judgments referred to hereinabove, we are of the view, that no fault can be found with the determination rendered by the High Court in making a deduction of 10% under the head of "de-escalation", specially when the period in question exceeded one year (as for annual deductions), by 7 months and 17 days. 40. Based on the aforesaid deductions, the High Court calculated the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 67,954 per acre. In the above, the market value of the acquired land for disbursement of compensation to the land losers was fixed by the High Court at Rs. 65,000 per acre. A perusal of the judgment rendered by the High Court reveals that in allowing final compensation at the rate of Rs. 65,000 per acre to the land-losers, the High Court had placed reliance on market value fixed by the High Court itself in an earlier case. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention, that the High Court had awarded Rs. 65,000 per payable to the landlosers, in an earlier process of litigation pertaining to acquisition of land, out of the same notification (under which the appellants' land was acquired). The aforesaid determination was rendered in respect of the land acquired from the revenue estate of Badepur Village. 42. The conclusions drawn by us hereinabove apply equally to Civil Appeals Nos. 8899 In this behalf it would also be pertinent to mention, that the conclusions drawn by us (O&M) & other connected cases [8] mind the judgments referred to hereinabove, we are of the view, that no fault can be found with the determination rendered by the High Court in making a deduction of 10% under the head of escalation", specially when the period in question exceeded one year (as for annual deductions), by 7 months and 17 days. Based on the aforesaid deductions, the High Court calculated the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 67,954 per acre. In spite of the above, the market value of the acquired land for disbursement of compensation to the land losers was fixed by the High Court at Rs. 65,000 per acre. A perusal of the judgment rendered by the High Court reveals that in allowing final on at the rate of Rs. 65,000 per acre losers, the High Court had placed reliance on market value fixed by the High Court itself in an earlier case. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention, that the High Court had awarded Rs. 65,000 per acre as compensation payable to the landlosers, in an earlier process of litigation pertaining to acquisition of land, out of the same notification (under which the appellants' land was acquired). The aforesaid determination was rendered in respect of the land acquired from the revenue estate of Badepur Village. The conclusions drawn by us hereinabove apply equally to Civil Appeals Nos. 8899-901 of 2011. In this behalf it would also be pertinent to mention, that the conclusions drawn by us mind the judgments referred to hereinabove, we are of the view, that no fault can be found with the determination rendered by the High Court in making a deduction of 10% under the head of escalation", specially when the period in question exceeded one year (as for annual Based on the aforesaid deductions, the High Court calculated the market value of the spite of the above, the market value of the acquired land for disbursement of compensation to the land- losers was fixed by the High Court at Rs. 65,000 per acre. A perusal of the judgment rendered by the High Court reveals that in allowing final on at the rate of Rs. 65,000 per acre losers, the High Court had placed reliance on market value fixed by the High Court itself in an earlier case. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention, that the High Court had acre as compensation payable to the landlosers, in an earlier process of litigation pertaining to acquisition of land, out of the same notification (under which the appellants' land was acquired). The aforesaid determination was rendered in respect of the land acquired from the revenue estate of The conclusions drawn by us hereinabove apply 901 of 2011. In this behalf it would also be pertinent to mention, that the conclusions drawn by us SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3810 9.1 applying the doctrine of de the gap of 02 years between the date of sale instance Ex.P1 dated 12.02.1981 till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case(s) in hand i.e. 29.05.1979 would be j 10. exemplar Ex.P1 dated 12.02.1981 relates to a small parcel of land measuring 2K acres, an appropriate cut of be applied thereupon. Since the purpose of acquisition of land in the present case is ‘ Level Bridge over River Yamuna near Village Rahipur’ 3810-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases pertain to acquisition of land falling in the revenue estate of Village Badepur. Insofar as the instant set of appeals are concerned, they pertain to land acquired from the revenue estate of Village Rajapur. The High Court, while making a reference to the land acquir Rajapur, noticed that Village Rajapur had a lower market value as it was farther from the nerve centre of Gulbarga Town as compared to Village Badepur. As such, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it affirm the compensation determined by the High Court at Rs. 65,000 per acre, even for the land acquired from the revenue estate of Village Rajapur.” As such in the given facts and circumstances, applying the doctrine of de-escalation the gap of 02 years between the date of sale instance Ex.P1 dated 12.02.1981 till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the in hand i.e. 29.05.1979 would be j Furthermore, taking into account the fact that the sale exemplar Ex.P1 dated 12.02.1981 relates to a small parcel of land measuring 2K-1M viz-a-viz land under acquisition measuring 20.82 an appropriate cut of 30% towards sma be applied thereupon. Since the purpose of acquisition of land in the present case is ‘for the construction of Delhi Mathura Road to High Level Bridge over River Yamuna near Village Rahipur’ (O&M) & other connected cases [9] acquisition of land falling in the revenue estate of Village Badepur. Insofar as the instant set of appeals are concerned, they pertain to land acquired from the revenue estate of Village Rajapur. The High Court, while making a reference to the land acquired from Village Rajapur, noticed that Village Rajapur had a lower market value as it was farther from the nerve centre of Gulbarga Town as compared to Village Badepur. As such, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and appropriate to affirm the compensation determined by the High Court at Rs. 65,000 per acre, even for the land acquired from the revenue estate of Village As such in the given facts and circumstances, upon escalation deduction @ 15% per year for the gap of 02 years between the date of sale instance Ex.P1 dated 12.02.1981 till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the in hand i.e. 29.05.1979 would be just and reasonable. taking into account the fact that the sale exemplar Ex.P1 dated 12.02.1981 relates to a small parcel of land viz land under acquisition measuring 20.82 0% towards smallness of area, needs to be applied thereupon. Since the purpose of acquisition of land in the for the construction of Delhi Mathura Road to High Level Bridge over River Yamuna near Village Rahipur’, therefore, no acquisition of land falling in the revenue estate of Village Badepur. Insofar as the instant set of appeals are concerned, they pertain to land acquired from the revenue estate of Village Rajapur. The High Court, while making ed from Village Rajapur, noticed that Village Rajapur had a lower market value as it was farther from the nerve centre of Gulbarga Town as compared to Village Badepur. As such, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the would be just and appropriate to affirm the compensation determined by the High Court at Rs. 65,000 per acre, even for the land acquired from the revenue estate of Village upon per year for the gap of 02 years between the date of sale instance Ex.P1 dated 12.02.1981 till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the taking into account the fact that the sale exemplar Ex.P1 dated 12.02.1981 relates to a small parcel of land viz land under acquisition measuring 20.82 llness of area, needs to be applied thereupon. Since the purpose of acquisition of land in the for the construction of Delhi Mathura Road to High therefore, no SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3810 deduction on account of respondent of the areas acquired and did not incur expenditure towards providing of additional infrastructural amenities 11. as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act thus comes to Rs.53,537 two years) minus ( Ex.P1)) along with all other Act. 12. the appellant 13. unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cros 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. 14. disposed of. 18.02.2026 sanjay 3810-1998 (O&M) & other connected cases deduction on account of development cut is warranted as the respondent-State did not suffer any loss towards optimum utilization of the areas acquired and did not incur expenditure towards providing of additional infrastructural amenities. Applying the aforesaid, market valu as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act thus comes to 53,537/- per acre (Rs.1,09,260 minus ( two years) minus (-) 30% (deduction towards smallness of area of ) along with all other statutory benefits as provided under the With the aforesaid modification, appellant(s)/ landowner(s) are partly allowed Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cros 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. Pending misc. application(s), disposed of. .2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? (O&M) & other connected cases [10] development cut is warranted as the State did not suffer any loss towards optimum utilization of the areas acquired and did not incur expenditure towards providing Applying the aforesaid, market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act thus comes to per acre (Rs.1,09,260 minus (-) 30% (for difference of 0% (deduction towards smallness of area of statutory benefits as provided under the With the aforesaid modification, both the appeals filed by partly allowed. 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 appropriate 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 development cut is warranted as the State did not suffer any loss towards optimum utilization of the areas acquired and did not incur expenditure towards providing e of the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act thus comes to % (for difference of 0% (deduction towards smallness of area of statutory benefits as provided under the filed by 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 if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document