RFA-2964 118 (2 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. Sukhdev Singh and others State of Haryana 2. State of Haryana Sukhdev Singh and others CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) First Appeals, are being decided as of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from 1999. 2. 2964-1999 (O&M) & other connected case cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** Date of Decision: RFA Sukhdev Singh and others Versus State of Haryana RFA State of Haryana Versus Sukhdev Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Saurabh Garg, Advocate and Ms. Ritika Garg, Advocate for appellants/ landowners. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. for the respondent-State -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Vide this common order, First Appeals, are being decided as both of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been 1999 (O&M) & other connected case [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.02.2026 RFA-2964-1999 (O&M) …..Appellants …….Respondent RFA-2816-1999 (O&M) …..Appellant …….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Saurabh Garg, Advocate and Ms. Ritika Garg, Advocate for appellants/ landowners. DAG, Haryana. Vide this common order, abovementioned two Regular both the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.2964 way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been Regular the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of 2964- way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.20 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2964 laid to the decision dat Additional District Judge, Reference Court’) 3. within the revenue estate of Kaithal, notifications dated 12.09.1995 (published on 31.10.1995) 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for public purpose, namely, Gulam Ali Road vide award acquired land @ Rs. other statutory benefits under the Act. 4. landowners filed which came to be disposed of by the learned Re decision dated was enhanced to statutory benefits under the Act along with 30% solatium and interest t landowners the amount of compensation from 01.01.1975 till 30.04.1982 and 2964-1999 (O&M) & other connected case laid to the decision dated 29.05.1999 Additional District Judge, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as Reference Court’). Briefly stating, 0.11 acres (17 marlas) of within the revenue estate of Village Faras Majra, Tehsil and District Kaithal, was acquired by the Government of notifications dated 17.01.1995 (published on 14.02.1995) and 12.09.1995 (published on 31.10.1995) 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for public purpose, namely, “for construction of Gulam Ali Road”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award 24.10.1997 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.1,25,120/- per acre for other statutory benefits under the Act. Aggrieved of the aforesaid award, the appellants/ landowners filed reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Re decision dated 29.05.1999 and the market value of the acquired land was enhanced to Rs.4,80,000/- per acre besides statutory benefits under the Act including 12% additional amount along with 30% solatium and interest t landowners were also held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of compensation from 01.01.1975 till 30.04.1982 and 1999 (O&M) & other connected case [2] 29.05.1999 passed by the learned hereinafter referred to as ‘the .11 acres (17 marlas) of land, situated Faras Majra, Tehsil and District was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide 17.01.1995 (published on 14.02.1995) and 12.09.1995 (published on 31.10.1995), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for for construction of Faras Majra to Kh The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) assessed market value in respect of the per acre for Nehri land, besides all other statutory benefits under the Act. the aforesaid award, the appellants/ reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide the market value of the acquired land per acre besides grant of all other including 12% additional amount along with 30% solatium and interest thereupon. The appellants/ entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of compensation from 01.01.1975 till 30.04.1982 and passed by the learned ‘the land, situated Faras Majra, Tehsil and District vide 17.01.1995 (published on 14.02.1995) and , issued under Sections 4 and espectively, for Faras Majra to Kheri The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) assessed market value in respect of the , besides all the aforesaid award, the appellants/ reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, ference Court vide the market value of the acquired land all other including 12% additional amount The appellants/ entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of compensation from 01.01.1975 till 30.04.1982 and SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.20 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2964 thereafter @ 15% per annum deposit/ payment. 5. 5. Reference Court, the present appeal instance of 6. through the paper behalf of the appellants/ landowners. 7. was issued on 17.01.1995 (published on 14.02.1995), pertaining to the land of purpose of widening of road. The market value was determined by the learned Reference Court by placing reliance upon the sale instance Ex.P sold for Rs.2 perusal of the record shows that the sale instance Ex.PB dated 11.03.1993 pertain Majra, District Kaithal as that of the land under acquisition in the case(s) in hand and no material respondent land parcels. Further, the sale instance Ex.PB dated 11.03.1993 pertained of the Act i.e. 17.01.1995 and 2964-1999 (O&M) & other connected case thereafter @ 15% per annum w.e.f. 01.05.1982 deposit/ payment. Still dissatisfied with the decision of Reference Court, the present appeal( instance of landowners as well as State I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants/ landowners. In the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 17.01.1995 (published on 14.02.1995), pertaining to the land of the revenue estate of Village Faras Ma purpose of widening of road. The market value was determined by the learned Reference Court by placing reliance upon the sale instance Ex.PB dated 11.03.1993, vide which sold for Rs.21,000/- with base price of Rs.4,80,000/ perusal of the record shows that the sale instance Ex.PB dated 11.03.1993 pertained to the same revenue estate of Village Faras Majra, District Kaithal as that of the land under acquisition in the in hand and no material was produced respondent- State to establish any difference in the nature of the two land parcels. Further, the sale instance Ex.PB dated 11.03.1993 ed to the period prior to the date of notification under Se of the Act i.e. 17.01.1995 and wa also in close proximity in time. In 1999 (O&M) & other connected case [3] w.e.f. 01.05.1982 upto the date of Still dissatisfied with the decision of the learned (s) came to be preferred at the State. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone substance in the submissions made on In the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 17.01.1995 (published on 14.02.1995), pertaining to revenue estate of Village Faras Majra, for public purpose of widening of road. The market value was determined by the learned Reference Court by placing reliance upon the sale dated 11.03.1993, vide which 07 marlas of land was with base price of Rs.4,80,000/- per acre. perusal of the record shows that the sale instance Ex.PB dated to the same revenue estate of Village Faras Majra, District Kaithal as that of the land under acquisition in the was produced on record by the to establish any difference in the nature of the two land parcels. Further, the sale instance Ex.PB dated 11.03.1993 prior to the date of notification under Section 4 also in close proximity in time. In upto the date of the learned preferred at the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone substance in the submissions made on In the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 17.01.1995 (published on 14.02.1995), pertaining to for public purpose of widening of road. The market value was determined by the learned Reference Court by placing reliance upon the sale s of land was per acre. A perusal of the record shows that the sale instance Ex.PB dated to the same revenue estate of Village Faras Majra, District Kaithal as that of the land under acquisition in the on record by the to establish any difference in the nature of the two land parcels. Further, the sale instance Ex.PB dated 11.03.1993 ction 4 also in close proximity in time. In SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.20 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2964 such circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity placed by the learned Reference Court upon the said sale instance for determining the market value of the land u Ex.PB is dated 11.03.1993 whereas the acquisition in the present case (s) commenced vide notification dated 17.01.1995 gap of around 22 months between the sale deed date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, an appreciation @ 12% per annum needs to be awarded in favour of the appellants/ of record that the acquired land Village Faras Majra to Village Kheri Gulam Ali on one side and abuts various houses and had locational and potential advantage attached to it. 8. dated 11.03.1993 pertain under acquisition is of 17 marlas only, in such circumstances, the sale instance Ex.PB cannot be considered a sale deed pertaining to small parcel of land and thus, no parcel is warranted 9. which the land has been acquired in the present case(s) is construction of Faras Majra to Kheri Gulam Ali Road 2964-1999 (O&M) & other connected case such circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity placed by the learned Reference Court upon the said sale instance for determining the market value of the land u However, taking into account the fact that the sale deed Ex.PB is dated 11.03.1993 whereas the acquisition in the present case (s) commenced vide notification dated 17.01.1995 gap of around 22 months between the sale deed date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, an appreciation @ 12% per annum needs to be awarded in favour of the appellants/landowners especially when it is evident from the of record that the acquired land is near Village Faras Majra to Village Kheri Gulam Ali on one side and abuts various houses and baras situated in Village Faras Majra had locational and potential advantage attached to it. In the present case(s), since the dated 11.03.1993 pertains to 07 marlas of land while the total land under acquisition is of 17 marlas only, in such circumstances, the sale instance Ex.PB cannot be considered a sale deed pertaining to small parcel of land and thus, no deduction towards smalln parcel is warranted. Further, considering the fact that which the land has been acquired in the present case(s) is construction of Faras Majra to Kheri Gulam Ali Road 1999 (O&M) & other connected case [4] such circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity on the reliance placed by the learned Reference Court upon the said sale instance for determining the market value of the land under acquisition. However, taking into account the fact that the sale deed Ex.PB is dated 11.03.1993 whereas the acquisition in the present case (s) commenced vide notification dated 17.01.1995; for the time gap of around 22 months between the sale deed (Ex.PB) and the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, an appreciation @ 12% per annum needs to be awarded in favour of the landowners especially when it is evident from the perusal is near to the road leading from Village Faras Majra to Village Kheri Gulam Ali on one side and also situated in Village Faras Majra; thus had locational and potential advantage attached to it. In the present case(s), since the sale instance Ex.PB to 07 marlas of land while the total land under acquisition is of 17 marlas only, in such circumstances, the sale instance Ex.PB cannot be considered a sale deed pertaining to deduction towards smallness of land the fact that the public purpose for which the land has been acquired in the present case(s) is construction of Faras Majra to Kheri Gulam Ali Road, the respondent n the reliance placed by the learned Reference Court upon the said sale instance However, taking into account the fact that the sale deed Ex.PB is dated 11.03.1993 whereas the acquisition in the present for the time (Ex.PB) and the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, an appreciation @ 12% per annum needs to be awarded in favour of the perusal the road leading from also thus sale instance Ex.PB to 07 marlas of land while the total land under acquisition is of 17 marlas only, in such circumstances, the sale instance Ex.PB cannot be considered a sale deed pertaining to ess of land the public purpose for which the land has been acquired in the present case(s) is for the respondent- SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.20 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2964 State did not suffer any loss towards optimum utilization of the area acquired and also did not incur expenditure towards providing of additional infrastructural amenities, hence, no cut towards development cost needs to be imposed. 10. respondent award of interest @ 6% per annum from 01.01.1974 to 30.04.19 and thereafter @ 15% per annum w.e.f. 01.05.1982 till the date of actual release of amoun especially when PWD(B&R), Kaithala the acquired land was the year 1974 no illegality or perversity can be found with the reasoning recorded by the learned Reference Court the appellants/ landowners. 11. date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case(s) thus comes to Rs.5,85,600/ for 22 months) along with all other statutory benefits and interest as provided und as well. 12. 2964-1999 (O&M) & other connected case State did not suffer any loss towards optimum utilization of the area acquired and also did not incur expenditure towards providing of additional infrastructural amenities, hence, no cut towards development cost needs to be imposed. Insofar as the contention respondent-State that the appellants/ landowners were not entitled for award of interest @ 6% per annum from 01.01.1974 to 30.04.19 and thereafter @ 15% per annum w.e.f. 01.05.1982 till the date of actual release of amount, this Court finds no merit in the especially when respondent’s own witness PWD(B&R), Kaithala-RW1 went on to admit the acquired land was taken over from the appellants/ landowners in the year 1974 itself for the purpose of construction of road. no illegality or perversity can be found with the reasoning recorded by the learned Reference Court for having awarded interest in favour of the appellants/ landowners. Accordingly, market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case(s) thus comes to Rs.5,85,600/- per acre (Rs.4,80,000 +12% per annum for 22 months) along with all other statutory benefits and interest as provided under the Act including the solatium and interest thereupon Consequently, the appeal filed by the 1999 (O&M) & other connected case [5] State did not suffer any loss towards optimum utilization of the area acquired and also did not incur expenditure towards providing of additional infrastructural amenities, hence, no cut towards development cost needs to be imposed. ntention raised on behalf of the State that the appellants/ landowners were not entitled for award of interest @ 6% per annum from 01.01.1974 to 30.04.19 and thereafter @ 15% per annum w.e.f. 01.05.1982 till the date of this Court finds no merit in the said plea witness Mr. P.K. Aggarwal, SDO, went on to admit that the possession of over from the appellants/ landowners in for the purpose of construction of road. Therefore, no illegality or perversity can be found with the reasoning recorded by having awarded interest in favour of value of the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case(s) per acre (Rs.4,80,000 +12% per annum for 22 months) along with all other statutory benefits and interest as er the Act including the solatium and interest thereupon Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant(s)/ State did not suffer any loss towards optimum utilization of the area acquired and also did not incur expenditure towards providing of additional infrastructural amenities, hence, no cut towards raised on behalf of the State that the appellants/ landowners were not entitled for award of interest @ 6% per annum from 01.01.1974 to 30.04.1982 and thereafter @ 15% per annum w.e.f. 01.05.1982 till the date of plea Mr. P.K. Aggarwal, SDO, that the possession of over from the appellants/ landowners in Therefore, no illegality or perversity can be found with the reasoning recorded by having awarded interest in favour of value of the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case(s) per acre (Rs.4,80,000 +12% per annum for 22 months) along with all other statutory benefits and interest as er the Act including the solatium and interest thereupon appellant(s)/ SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.20 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2964 landowners instance of 13. 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) b 14. disposed of. 16.02.2026 sanjay 2964-1999 (O&M) & other connected case landowners is allowed, whereas the appeal preferred at the instance of respondent State is hereby 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 appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? 1999 (O&M) & other connected case [6] , whereas the appeal preferred at the is hereby dismissed. 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 efore the learned Executing Court. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No , whereas the appeal preferred at the 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) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.20 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document