RFA-2829-2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107 RFA-2829-2002 Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 State of Haryana and another …Appellants Versus Municipal Corporation, Sonipat and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Jagdish Manchanda (Senior Advocate) Additional Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Vipul Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Akash Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Abhinash Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. The appellant-State through instant appeal is seeking setting aside of award dated 08.04.2002 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Sonipat (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘Reference Court’) has enhanced the amount of compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’). 2. The State Government issued notification dated 06.05.1992 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) for acquisition of 19.89 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of Sonipat with an intent to develop the area as residential and commercial hub under Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. The said notification was followed by notification dated 05.05.1993 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act. 3. The Collector, vide award dated 17.11.1994, in terms of provisions of 1894 Act, determined compensation payable to Gram MOHIT KUMAR 2026.07.10 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RFA-2829-2002 -2- Panchayat. Market value of the acquired land was determined as ₹1,00,000/- per acre. Gram Panchayat was held entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits. Feeling dis-satisfied from aforesaid award, Gram Panchayat preferred petition before the Collector which was referred to Court under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. 4. The Gram Panchayat as well as the State, in support of their contentions, led their evidence. The State attempted to justify market value determined by Collector, however, Gram Panchayat vehemently pleaded that value of their land has been assessed on lower side. 5. The Reference Court, appreciating evidence led by both sides, by impugned award adjudicated the reference petition. The Reference Court has assessed market value of the acquired land @ ₹100/- per sq yard. In this way, the Reference Court has enhanced market value from ₹1,00,000/- per acre (determined by Collector) to ₹100/- per sq.yd. 6. On the oral request of learned Senior counsel for the appellant, respondent No.1-Gram Panchayat, Shahajhanpur is hereby substituted by Municipal Corporation, Sonipat. Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments. 7. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 8. From the perusal of record, it appears that land was acquired pursuant to notification dated 06.05.1992 followed by notification dated 05.05.1993. The Collector passed award on 17.11.1994 whereby market value was assessed ₹1,00,000/- per acre. The Reference Court has assessed market value of acquired land as ₹100 per sq.yd. MOHIT KUMAR 2026.07.10 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RFA-2829-2002 -3- 9. Learned Reference Court has considered award dated 02.06.1999 whereby compensation of ₹100 per sq. yd. was granted in LAC Case No.259 of 1997. The land acquired under the said award was found near to the land in question. It was further found that acquired land is nearer to inhabited area of Sector 15. Considering the location and previous award, Reference Court assessed market value of the acquired land as ₹100/- per sq.yd. The appellant has not led any evidence contrary to the evidence relied upon by the Reference Court. It is apt to notice that land belonged to Gram Panchayat, Shahjahanpur and at present it vests in Municipal Corporation, Sonipat which though autonomous body is an instrumentality of State Government. The amount awarded, in no manner, can be called as exorbitant especially in view of previous awards and location of the acquired land. 10. In the backdrop, this Court does not find any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 09.07.2026 Mohit Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHIT KUMAR 2026.07.10 09:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.