RFA-200 114 (7 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA State of Haryana Mohar Singh and ors. CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all 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 2. laid to the decision dated Additional District Judge, ‘the Reference Court’) 3. 200-2001 (O&M) & other connected cases 114 (7 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: 30.01.2026 State of Haryana Versus Mohar Singh and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Atul Yadav, Advocate Ms.Sunita Shekhawat, Advocate for the respondent(s)/landowners. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Vide this common order, a bunch of Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For ke of brevity, facts are being taken from By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 03.11.2000 Additional District Judge, Gurgaon-cum Reference Court’). Briefly stating, some land, situated within the revenue (O&M) & other connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-200-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.01.2026 …….Appellant Versus ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Ms.Sunita Shekhawat, Advocate for the respondent(s)/landowners. Vide this common order, a bunch of 7 Regular First Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For ke of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.200-2001. way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been 03.11.2000 passed by the learned cum-Reference Court (for short land, situated within the revenue Regular First Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been passed by the learned Reference Court (for short land, situated within the revenue SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.02 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-200 estate of acquired by the Government of 26.07.1994 (published on 09.08.1994) and 21 15.08.1995) Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. construction of road from Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award 06.03.1997 Rs.98,000/ Mumkin land, besides all 4. landowners filed which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated acquired land @ Rs. benefits under the Act. 5. Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellant 6. through the paper made on behalf appellant 7. 200-2001 (O&M) & other connected cases estate of Villla Mau, Tehsil Pataudi District Gurgaon acquired by the Government of Haryana 1994 (published on 09.08.1994) and 21 1995), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. construction of road from Mau to Malpura in Gurgaon District”. Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award 06.03.1997 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ 98,000/- per acre for Chahi and Rs.1,04,000/ Mumkin land, besides all other statutory benefits under t Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ landowners filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 03.11.2000 while determining the market acquired land @ Rs.4,75,000 /- per acre besides all other statutory benefits under the Act. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellant-State I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I do not find substance in the submissions made on behalf appellant-State. While referring to the sale instance ExR1 dated (O&M) & other connected cases [2] Villla Mau, Tehsil Pataudi District Gurgaon was sought to be Haryana vide notifications dated 1994 (published on 09.08.1994) and 21.07.1995 (published on , issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. “ au to Malpura in Gurgaon District”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ per acre for Chahi and Rs.1,04,000/- per acre for Gair other statutory benefits under the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide while determining the market value of the per acre besides all other statutory Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of d learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I do not find substance in the submissions While referring to the sale instance ExR1 dated was sought to be vide notifications dated .07.1995 (published on , issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition “for The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ per acre for Gair Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide value of the per acre besides all other statutory Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of d learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I do not find substance in the submissions While referring to the sale instance ExR1 dated SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.02 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-200 17.08.1993, vide which 44K lakhs with base price of Rs.75,017/ appellant already awarded and Rs.1.04 lakhs per acre for gair mumkin la therefore, no further enhancement as ordered by the learned Reference Court therefore, the aside the impugned award passed by the learned 8. of this Court, the learned Reference Court committed no illegality or perversity while ignoring the sale instance Ex.R1. Firstly, it has come on record that vide sale transaction land was got transferred as the same was already in possession of one lessee, namely, Prithi Singh, son of Chander Singh and thus was not free from encumbrances. Further, even the the LAC vide its award d respondent(s)/landowner(s) acre derived from the sale instance Ex.R1, thus in the absence of the vendor or vendee, been produced as witnesses before the learned Reference Court landowner(s) to counter instance Ex.R1 could not have been treated to be 200-2001 (O&M) & other connected cases 17.08.1993, vide which 44K-3M of land was sold for a sum of Rs lakhs with base price of Rs.75,017/- per acre appellant-State submitted that the responde awarded market value @ Rs.98,000/ and Rs.1.04 lakhs per acre for gair mumkin la therefore, no further enhancement as ordered by the learned Reference Court was liable to be granted in their favour and therefore, the present appeals were liable to be allowed while setting aside the impugned award passed by the learned Having gone through the records, of this Court, the learned Reference Court committed no illegality or perversity while ignoring the sale instance Ex.R1. Firstly, it has come on record that vide sale transaction Ex.R1 only the ownership of the land was got transferred as the same was already in possession of one lessee, namely, Prithi Singh, son of Chander Singh and thus was not free from encumbrances. Further, even the LAC vide its award dated 06.03.1997 in favour of the respondent(s)/landowner(s) was much more than the base price per acre derived from the sale instance Ex.R1, thus in the absence of the vendor or vendee, been produced as witnesses before the learned Reference Court so as to afford an opportunity to the respondent(s)/ landowner(s) to counter them about the sale price therein instance Ex.R1 could not have been treated to be (O&M) & other connected cases [3] 3M of land was sold for a sum of Rs.4.14 per acre, learned counsel for the State submitted that the respondent(s)/landowner(s) were market value @ Rs.98,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs.1.04 lakhs per acre for gair mumkin land by the LAC and therefore, no further enhancement as ordered by the learned be granted in their favour and appeals were liable to be allowed while setting aside the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court. Having gone through the records, in the humble opinion of this Court, the learned Reference Court committed no illegality or perversity while ignoring the sale instance Ex.R1. Firstly, it has come Ex.R1 only the ownership of the land was got transferred as the same was already in possession of one lessee, namely, Prithi Singh, son of Chander Singh and thus was not free from encumbrances. Further, even the assessment made by ated 06.03.1997 in favour of the much more than the base price per acre derived from the sale instance Ex.R1, thus in the absence of the vendor or vendee, been produced as witnesses before the learned an opportunity to the respondent(s)/ about the sale price therein, the sale instance Ex.R1 could not have been treated to be reflecting the .4.14 , learned counsel for the t(s)/landowner(s) were per acre for Chahi land nd by the LAC and therefore, no further enhancement as ordered by the learned be granted in their favour and appeals were liable to be allowed while setting Reference Court. in the humble opinion of this Court, the learned Reference Court committed no illegality or perversity while ignoring the sale instance Ex.R1. Firstly, it has come Ex.R1 only the ownership of the land was got transferred as the same was already in possession of one lessee, namely, Prithi Singh, son of Chander Singh and thus was assessment made by ated 06.03.1997 in favour of the much more than the base price per acre derived from the sale instance Ex.R1, thus in the absence of the vendor or vendee, been produced as witnesses before the learned an opportunity to the respondent(s)/ he sale reflecting the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.02 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-200 representative market price of the land. As such no illegality or perversity co Reference Court for having discarded Ex.R1 dated 17.08 9. deed Ex.P1 dated 18 of the sa with base price of Rs.4,66,666/ the learned Reference Court for the purpose of re enhancement of market value in favour of landowner(s), there being no doubt raised about its genuineness by the appellant. 10. the appeals filed by the appellant dismissed while upholding the award dated 03.11.2 learned Reference Court. 11. disposed of. 30.01.2026 sanjay Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 200-2001 (O&M) & other connected cases representative market price of the land. As such no illegality or perversity could be found with the reasoning recorded by the learned Reference Court for having discarded Ex.R1 dated 17.08 On the other hand, the land parcel forming part of the sale deed Ex.P1 dated 18.07.1992 vide which 1K of the same revenue estate of Village with base price of Rs.4,66,666/- per acre the learned Reference Court for the purpose of re enhancement of market value in favour of landowner(s), there being no doubt raised about its genuineness by the appellant. In view of the aforesaid discussion, finding no merits in the appeals filed by the appellant dismissed while upholding the award dated 03.11.2 learned Reference Court. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 30.01.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Sr. No. Case No. 1. RFA-201-2001 (O&M) 2. RFA-202-2001 (O&M) 3. RFA-203-2001 (O&M) (O&M) & other connected cases [4] representative market price of the land. As such no illegality or uld be found with the reasoning recorded by the learned Reference Court for having discarded Ex.R1 dated 17.08.1993. On the other hand, the land parcel forming part of the sale 1992 vide which 1K-4M of land forming part me revenue estate of Village Mau was sold for Rs.70,000/ per acre was rightly relied upon by the learned Reference Court for the purpose of re-assessment/ enhancement of market value in favour of the respondent(s)/ landowner(s), there being no doubt raised about its genuineness by In view of the aforesaid discussion, finding no merits in the appeals filed by the appellant-State, the same are hereby dismissed while upholding the award dated 03.11.2000 passed by the Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No (O&M) 2001 (O&M) 2001 (O&M) representative market price of the land. As such no illegality or uld be found with the reasoning recorded by the learned On the other hand, the land parcel forming part of the sale 4M of land forming part was sold for Rs.70,000/- was rightly relied upon by assessment/ the respondent(s)/ landowner(s), there being no doubt raised about its genuineness by In view of the aforesaid discussion, finding no merits in State, the same are hereby 000 passed by the Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.02 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-200 4. 5. 6. 30.01.2026 sanjay 200-2001 (O&M) & other connected cases 4. RFA-204-2001 (O&M) 5. RFA-205-2001 (O&M) 6. RFA-206-2001 (O&M) 30.01.2026 (O&M) & other connected cases [5] 2001 (O&M) 2001 (O&M) 2001 (O&M) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.02 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document