IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 211 Chet Ram and State of Haryana and CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present :- Mr. Radhe Shyam Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Abhinash Jain, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The appellants through instant appeals are seeking modification of award dated 19.07.2001 whereby learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (hereinafter called as ‘Reference Court’) has not awarded claimed amount of compensation. 2. The State Governm under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) to acquire 4.79 acres land situated within the revenue estate of Village Bhirdana Tehsil & District Fatehabad with intent to construct Ayalki ShekhupurSottar Road. The said notification was followed by notification dated 11.06.1998 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act. Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’) passed an award which was further referred to learned 1894 Act. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** Date of decision: July 14, 2026 Chet Ram and Others Versus State of Haryana and Another CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Mr. Radhe Shyam Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Abhinash Jain, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) The appellants through instant appeals are seeking modification of award dated 19.07.2001 whereby learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (hereinafter called as ‘Reference Court’) has not awarded claimed amount of compensation. The State Government issued notification dated 27.02.1998 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) to acquire 4.79 acres land situated within the revenue estate of Village Bhirdana Tehsil & District Fatehabad with intent to construct Ayalki ShekhupurSottar Road. The said notification was followed by notification dated 11.06.1998 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act. Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’) passed an award which was further referred to learned District Judge under section 18 of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-1974-2002 (O&M) Date of decision: July 14, 2026 ...... Appellants ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Mr. Radhe Shyam Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Abhinash Jain, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. The appellants through instant appeals are seeking modification of award dated 19.07.2001 whereby learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (hereinafter called as ‘Reference Court’) has not ent issued notification dated 27.02.1998 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) to acquire 4.79 acres land situated within the revenue estate of Village Bhirdana Tehsil & District Fatehabad with intent to construct Ayalki to ShekhupurSottar Road. The said notification was followed by notification dated 11.06.1998 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act. Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’) passed an award qua acquired property District Judge under section 18 of ARCHANA ARORA 2026.07.15 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Reference Court has miserably failed to appreciate sale deed Ex. P 24.01.1994. As per said sale deed, value of land was Rs.3,60,000/ acre. Reference Court could impose cut, however could not ignore aforesaid sale deed especially when it related to same village. 4. Per contra 3) related to a small portion of land and there was construction ove said land. 5. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 6. On perusal of record, it is evident that sale deed dated 24.01.1994 (Ex.P however, Reference Court rejected said evidence on the ground related to a small portion of land. The appellant’s land acquired was 5 Kanal 15 Marlas and total land acquired was 4.79 acres. 7. Considering the size of land of Ex.P any, cut could be imposed, however said evidence could totality. This Court keeping in mind judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court inLal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769; ChimanlalHargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona 1998 (3) SCC 751; Trishala Jain & another v. State another (2011) 6 SCC 47 value disclosed in sale deed dated 24.01.1994 (Ex.P disclosed in sale deed dated 24.01.1994 (Ex.P After imposing a cut o Rs.1,80,000/-. The evidence led by State cannot be relied upon when sale Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Reference Court has miserably failed to appreciate sale deed Ex. P 24.01.1994. As per said sale deed, value of land was Rs.3,60,000/ ference Court could impose cut, however could not ignore aforesaid sale deed especially when it related to same village. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that sale deed (Ex.P 3) related to a small portion of land and there was construction ove Heard the arguments and perused the record. On perusal of record, it is evident that sale deed dated 24.01.1994 (Ex.P-3) with respect to Village Bhirdana was available, however, Reference Court rejected said evidence on the ground related to a small portion of land. The appellant’s land acquired was 5 Kanal 15 Marlas and total land acquired was 4.79 acres. Considering the size of land of Ex.P any, cut could be imposed, however said evidence could totality. This Court keeping in mind judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769; ChimanlalHargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona 1998 (3) SCC 751; Trishala Jain & another v. State another (2011) 6 SCC 47 finds it appropriate to impose cut of 50% qua the value disclosed in sale deed dated 24.01.1994 (Ex.P disclosed in sale deed dated 24.01.1994 (Ex.P After imposing a cut of 50%, the market price of land in question comes to . The evidence led by State cannot be relied upon when sale Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Reference Court has miserably failed to appreciate sale deed Ex. P-3 dated 24.01.1994. As per said sale deed, value of land was Rs.3,60,000/- per ference Court could impose cut, however could not ignore aforesaid sale deed especially when it related to same village. , learned State counsel submits that sale deed (Ex.P- 3) related to a small portion of land and there was construction over the Heard the arguments and perused the record. On perusal of record, it is evident that sale deed dated 3) with respect to Village Bhirdana was available, however, Reference Court rejected said evidence on the ground that it related to a small portion of land. The appellant’s land acquired was 5 Kanal 15 Marlas and total land acquired was 4.79 acres. Considering the size of land of Ex.P-3 and construction, if any, cut could be imposed, however said evidence could not be ignored in totality. This Court keeping in mind judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769; ChimanlalHargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona 1998 (3) SCC 751; Trishala Jain & another v. State of Uttaranchal & finds it appropriate to impose cut of 50% qua the value disclosed in sale deed dated 24.01.1994 (Ex.P-3). The value disclosed in sale deed dated 24.01.1994 (Ex.P-3) is Rs.3,60,000/- per acre. f 50%, the market price of land in question comes to . The evidence led by State cannot be relied upon when sale ARCHANA ARORA 2026.07.15 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document deed disclosing higher value, coupled with the fact that there is no dispute about genuineness of sale deed Ex.P 8. The market value assessed by Collector is enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- statutory benefits including interest as provided under Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 9. Allowed in above 10. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. July 14, 2026 archana Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes Whether Reportable: deed disclosing higher value, coupled with the fact that there is no dispute about genuineness of sale deed Ex.P-3, is available. The market value assessed by Collector is enhanced from to Rs.1,80,000/- per acre. The appellant shall be entitled to statutory benefits including interest as provided under Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Allowed in above terms. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes Whether Reportable: Yes/ deed disclosing higher value, coupled with the fact that there is no dispute 3, is available. The market value assessed by Collector is enhanced from per acre. The appellant shall be entitled to statutory benefits including interest as provided under Section 28 of Land Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/No Yes/No ARCHANA ARORA 2026.07.15 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document