RFA-123 113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Banwari Lal State of Haryana CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) laid to the Court-cum Court’). 2. revenue estate of Sonepat, notifications dated Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for respectively, for public purpose, namely, 123-2000 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: Banwari Lal Versus State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Ankit Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Pawan Kumar Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nischal Manchanda, Advocate for the respondent. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the Award dated 08.10.1999 passed by the learned cum-Additional District Judge, Sonepat, (for short ‘the Referenc Briefly stating, 1.625 acres of land revenue estate of Village Butana Kundu, Tehsil Gohana District Sonepat, was acquired by the Government of notifications dated 12.09.1995 and 19.02.1996 Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for espectively, for public purpose, namely, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-123-2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.02.2026 …….Appellant Versus ..….Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Ankit Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Pawan Kumar Hooda, Advocate Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nischal Manchanda, Advocate way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been passed by the learned Reference Sonepat, (for short ‘the Referenc 1.625 acres of land, situated within the Village Butana Kundu, Tehsil Gohana District was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide 12.09.1995 and 19.02.1996, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ espectively, for public purpose, namely, “for construction of 33 K.V. way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been Reference Sonepat, (for short ‘the Referenc , situated within the Village Butana Kundu, Tehsil Gohana District vide , issued under short ‘the Act’ construction of 33 K.V. SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.09 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-123 Sub-station, Butana Kundu, Hadbast No.21 Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat short ‘the LAC’) vide award respect of the acquired land @ Rs. 30% solatium and 12% additional amount besides benefits under the Act. 3. landowner filed which came to be the learned Reference Court 4. Court, the present appeal landowner. 5. through the paper 6. landowner produced 30.12.1996 instance Ex.P2 dated 30.12.1996 under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, therefore, be relied upon. sale instance Ex.P1 dated 15.06.1993 has been discarded the reason that PW3 Devi Singh, Lambardar, his cross 123-2000 (O&M) [2] station, Butana Kundu, Hadbast No.21 Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award 23.10.1996 respect of the acquired land @ Rs. 30% solatium and 12% additional amount besides benefits under the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant/ landowner filed reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be dismissed vide award dated the learned Reference Court. Aggrieved of the aforesaid decision o Court, the present appeal was preferred at the instance of appellant/ landowner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant/ landowner produced on record two sale deed 30.12.1996 in the form of Exhibits P1 and P2, respectively instance Ex.P2 dated 30.12.1996 pertained to period under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, therefore, be relied upon. On further examination of record, it is evident that the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 15.06.1993 has been discarded the reason that PW3 Devi Singh, Lambardar, his cross-examination deposed that the land parc station, Butana Kundu, Hadbast No.21 in Village Butana Kundu, The Land Acquisition Collector (for 0.1996 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre along with 30% solatium and 12% additional amount besides all other statutory Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant/ reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, dismissed vide award dated 08.10.1999 passed by aforesaid decision of learned Reference preferred at the instance of appellant/ I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone A perusal of the record shows that the appellant/ on record two sale deeds dated 15.06.1993 and in the form of Exhibits P1 and P2, respectively. The sale pertained to period post-notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, therefore, need not to On further examination of record, it is evident that the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 15.06.1993 has been discarded merely for the reason that PW3 Devi Singh, Lambardar, Village Butana Kundu that the land parcel measuring 16 in Village Butana Kundu, The Land Acquisition Collector (for assessed market value in along with other statutory Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant/ reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, passed by learned Reference preferred at the instance of appellant/ I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone A perusal of the record shows that the appellant/ 15.06.1993 and . The sale notification need not to On further examination of record, it is evident that the merely for Village Butana Kundu in el measuring 16 SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.09 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-123 marlas vide one Randhir Singh the said purchase was made under compulsion, it taken as of the acquired land. 6.1. Reference Court relied upon the deposition made by PW3 Devi Singh, Lambardar, in a selective manner its entirety Lamberdar make his own piece of land accessible, however, in continuity, he also deposed the fo 7. by not considering the its totality Singh, Lambardar was denied with respect to any excess price been paid by Randhir Singh to the vendor, the burden was upon the respondents to prove vendee exaggerated price paid under the sale instance Ex.P1 to the vendor who himself 123-2000 (O&M) [3] vide sale instance Ex.P1 dated 15.06.1993 was purchased by one Randhir Singh solely to secure access to his own land and since the said purchase was made under compulsion, it taken as bona fide sale transaction reflect of the acquired land. However, in the humble opinion of this Court, the learned Reference Court relied upon the deposition made by PW3 Devi Singh, Lambardar, in a selective manner its entirety. Though in his cross-examination PW3 Lamberdar has stated that Randhir purchased 16 marlas of land to make his own piece of land accessible, however, in continuity, he also deposed the following:- “It is wrong to suggest that because of the need, Randhir had paid price for in excess of the price prevalent in the area.” In such circumstances, the learned Reference Court by not considering the deposition of PW3 its totality. Once the suggestion put by Singh, Lambardar was denied with respect to any excess price been paid by Randhir Singh to the vendor, the burden was upon the respondents to prove it further either by vendee as a witness or by putting exaggerated price paid under the sale instance Ex.P1 to the vendor who himself appeared as PW1 (Banwari Lal). Ex.P1 dated 15.06.1993 was purchased by solely to secure access to his own land and since the said purchase was made under compulsion, it was not to be sale transaction reflecting the actual market value However, in the humble opinion of this Court, the learned Reference Court relied upon the deposition made by PW3 Devi Singh, Lambardar, in a selective manner rather than considering it in examination PW3-Devi Singh, purchased 16 marlas of land to make his own piece of land accessible, however, in continuity, he “It is wrong to suggest that because of the immense need, Randhir had paid price for in excess of the price prevalent in the area.” In such circumstances, the learned Reference Court erred deposition of PW3-Devi Singh, Lambardar Once the suggestion put by respondents to PW3 Devi Singh, Lambardar was denied with respect to any excess price been paid by Randhir Singh to the vendor, the burden was upon the either by examining Randhir Singh by putting such suggestion about any exaggerated price paid under the sale instance Ex.P1 to the vendor appeared as PW1 (Banwari Lal). Ex.P1 dated 15.06.1993 was purchased by solely to secure access to his own land and since was not to be market value However, in the humble opinion of this Court, the learned Reference Court relied upon the deposition made by PW3 Devi rather than considering it in Devi Singh, purchased 16 marlas of land to make his own piece of land accessible, however, in continuity, he immense need, Randhir had paid price for in excess of the price erred Devi Singh, Lambardar in respondents to PW3 Devi Singh, Lambardar was denied with respect to any excess price been paid by Randhir Singh to the vendor, the burden was upon the Randhir Singh- suggestion about any exaggerated price paid under the sale instance Ex.P1 to the vendor SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.09 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-123 8. reliance upon isolated portions of the deposition Lamberdar, any presumption to the effect that the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 15.06.1993 was a Randhir Singh prevalent in the area 9. forming part of Ex.P1 was located at a distance of around 8 kms from the acquired land, however, in view of the fact that as per the evidence, the acquired land was close to abadi of Village Butana Kundu and also abutting the main road, the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 15.06.1993 Butana Kundu was required to be taken into consideration suitable that the acquired land against the land parcel forming part of (Ex.P1). between the date of sale transaction Ex.P1 upto the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand an appreciation @ 8% per annum period. 10. in the form of Ex.R2 (dated19.09.1994 123-2000 (O&M) [4] In the absence of any such evidence by reliance upon isolated portions of the deposition Lamberdar, the learned Reference Court was not required to draw any presumption to the effect that the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 15.06.1993 was a compulsory sale transaction at the hands of Randhir Singh, who thus, paid price in excess prevalent in the area at that point of time Although, it has come on record that the land parcel forming part of Ex.P1 was located at a distance of around 8 kms from the acquired land, however, in view of the fact that as per the evidence, the acquired land was close to abadi of Village Butana Kundu and also abutting the main road, the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 15.06.1993 pertaining to the same revenue estate of Village Butana Kundu was required to be taken into consideration suitable sale exemplar. However, comparative the acquired land had better locati against the land parcel forming part of . Further, there exists a time gap of around 2 years 3 months between the date of sale transaction Ex.P1 upto the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand an appreciation @ 8% per annum As far as the three sale deed in the form of Ex.R2 (dated19.09.1994 any such evidence by merely placing reliance upon isolated portions of the deposition of PW3-Devi Singh, learned Reference Court was not required to draw any presumption to the effect that the sale instance Ex.P1 dated sale transaction at the hands of paid price in excess to the rate that was at that point of time. Although, it has come on record that the land parcel forming part of Ex.P1 was located at a distance of around 8 kms from the acquired land, however, in view of the fact that as per the evidence, the acquired land was close to abadi of Village Butana Kundu and also abutting the main road, the sale instance Ex.P1 pertaining to the same revenue estate of Village Butana Kundu was required to be taken into consideration as the best comparative evaluation indicates better location and potential advantage as against the land parcel forming part of sale deed dated 15.06.1993 a time gap of around 2 years 3 months between the date of sale transaction Ex.P1 upto the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand and thus, an appreciation @ 8% per annum needs to be applied for such hree sale deeds produced by responden in the form of Ex.R2 (dated19.09.1994), Ex.R3 (dated 27.04.1995 placing Devi Singh, learned Reference Court was not required to draw any presumption to the effect that the sale instance Ex.P1 dated sale transaction at the hands of o the rate that was Although, it has come on record that the land parcel forming part of Ex.P1 was located at a distance of around 8 kms from the acquired land, however, in view of the fact that as per the evidence, the acquired land was close to abadi of Village Butana Kundu and also abutting the main road, the sale instance Ex.P1 pertaining to the same revenue estate of Village he best evaluation indicates n and potential advantage as sale deed dated 15.06.1993 a time gap of around 2 years 3 months between the date of sale transaction Ex.P1 upto the date of and thus, applied for such produced by respondents 27.04.1995); SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.09 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-123 and Ex.R4 derived therefrom ranges between Rs.65,000/ acre which is far as awarded by the LAC. Thus, the said sale deeds cannot be taken into account acquired land in the present case 11. Ex.P1 dated 15.06.1993 total acquired land in the case in hand is 1.65 acres, an appropriate cut of 50% needs to be applied over the base price per acre derived from the of its area. present case is Kundu, Hadbast No.21 in Village Butana Kundu, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat”, cut is warranted in the case in hand as the respondents were neither to provide a there was any loss of land towards its utilization. 12. while placing reliance upon the base price derived from the sale exemplar dated under acquisition as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand comes to Rs. Rs.5,00,000/ 123-2000 (O&M) [5] and Ex.R4 (dated 05.05.1995) are concerned, derived therefrom ranges between Rs.65,000/ acre which is far lesser (almost 2/3rd) as awarded by the LAC. Thus, the said sale deeds cannot be taken into account for the purpose of determination of market value acquired land in the present case. Further, taking into account Ex.P1 dated 15.06.1993 pertained to 16 marlas of land, whereas the total acquired land in the case in hand is 1.65 acres, an appropriate cut of 50% needs to be applied over the base price per acre derived from the sale exemplar dated 15.06.1993 ( area. However, since the purpose of acquisition of land in the present case is “for construction of 33 K.V. Sub Kundu, Hadbast No.21 in Village Butana Kundu, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat”, therefore, no deduction on account of development s warranted in the case in hand as the respondents were neither to provide any additional infrastructural amenities to the area; nor there was any loss of land towards its utilization. Accordingly, in the wake of discussion made hereinabove, while placing reliance upon the base price derived from the sale exemplar dated 15.06.1993 (Ex.P1), the market value of the land under acquisition as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand comes to Rs. Rs.5,00,000/- + 8% appreciation per annum 05.05.1995) are concerned, the base price per acre derived therefrom ranges between Rs.65,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per ) than that of the price per acre as awarded by the LAC. Thus, the said sale deeds cannot be taken the purpose of determination of market value of the aking into account the fact that the sale instance to 16 marlas of land, whereas the total acquired land in the case in hand is 1.65 acres, an appropriate cut of 50% needs to be applied over the base price per acre derived dated 15.06.1993 (Ex.P1) towards smallness However, since the purpose of acquisition of land in the construction of 33 K.V. Sub-station, Butana Kundu, Hadbast No.21 in Village Butana Kundu, Tehsil Gohana, therefore, no deduction on account of development s warranted in the case in hand as the respondents were neither ny additional infrastructural amenities to the area; nor there was any loss of land towards its utilization. Accordingly, in the wake of discussion made hereinabove, while placing reliance upon the base price derived from the sale , the market value of the land under acquisition as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand comes to Rs.2,95,000/- per acre i.e. annum (i.e. 18% for 2 years and the base price per acre per of the price per acre as awarded by the LAC. Thus, the said sale deeds cannot be taken of the the fact that the sale instance to 16 marlas of land, whereas the total acquired land in the case in hand is 1.65 acres, an appropriate cut of 50% needs to be applied over the base price per acre derived towards smallness However, since the purpose of acquisition of land in the station, Butana Kundu, Hadbast No.21 in Village Butana Kundu, Tehsil Gohana, therefore, no deduction on account of development s warranted in the case in hand as the respondents were neither ny additional infrastructural amenities to the area; nor Accordingly, in the wake of discussion made hereinabove, while placing reliance upon the base price derived from the sale , the market value of the land under acquisition as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the per acre i.e. for 2 years and SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.09 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-123 3 months area involved in the sale exemplar and interest including interest on solatium. 13. unfortunately expired in the 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. allowed. 15. disposed of. 06.02.2026 sanjay 123-2000 (O&M) [6] 3 months) minus 50% deduction thereupon area involved in the sale exemplar), along with all statutory benefits and interest including interest on solatium. 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. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? deduction thereupon (toward smallness of the , along with all statutory benefits and interest including interest on solatium. Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have 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. e appeal filed by the appellant is partly Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No toward smallness of the , along with all statutory benefits 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 is partly Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.09 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document