RFA-1674 119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA State of Punjab and anr. Hardev Singh and others CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CM-635- Singh is applicant brought on record as legal representative to pursue the present appeal. 1674-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA and other connected cases with XOBJRs. Date of Decision: State of Punjab and anr. Versus Hardev Singh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab for the appellants. Mr. V.K. Kataria, Advocate Mr. Mayank Vashishth, Advocate for Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate for the XOBJRs/ landowners --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) -CI-2025 in XOBJR-93-CI-2005 Application for impleading the LRs of respondent is allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. The applicants mentioned in para 3 of the application are brought on record as legal representative to pursue the present appeal. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. 2005 (O&M) & other connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-1674-2005 (O&M) and other connected cases with XOBJRs. Date of Decision: 15.01.2026 …….Appellants Versus ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Gunjan Mehta, Addl.A.G., Punjab Mr. V.K. Kataria, Advocate Mayank Vashishth, Advocate for Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate for the XOBJRs/ landowners. 2005 for impleading the LRs of respondent-Jagjit allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. The para 3 of the application are ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of respondent-Dalip Kaur, Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. Jagjit allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. The ordered to be Dalip Kaur, SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1674 CM-700- Kaur is applicant brought on record as legal representative to pursue the present appeal. MAIN APPEAL(S) Appeals 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 RFA No. 2. laid to the decision dated Additional District Judge, further enhancement of the compensation. 3. estate of Government of 06.10.1999, 1674-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases -CI-2025 in RFA-1691-2005 Application for impleading the LRs of respondent allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. The applicants mentioned in para 4 of the application are brought on record as legal representative e the present appeal. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. MAIN APPEAL(S): Vide this common order, a bunch of as well as 08 XOBJRs, 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 RFA No.1674-2005. By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 15.02.2005 Additional District Judge, Faridkot-cum further enhancement of the compensation. Briefly stating, some land, situated within the revenue estate of Jaito District Faridkot, was sought to be acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notifications dated 06.10.1999, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition 2005 (O&M) & other connected cases [2] for impleading the LRs of respondent-Dalip allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. The of the application are ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of respondent-Dalip Kaur, Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. Vide this common order, a bunch of 13 Regular First , 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 way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been 15.02.2005 passed by the learned cum-Reference Court, seeking further enhancement of the compensation. land, situated within the revenue was sought to be acquired by the vide notifications dated 16.09.1999 and issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Dalip allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. The ordered to be Dalip Kaur, Regular First , 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 way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been passed by the learned Reference Court, seeking land, situated within the revenue was sought to be acquired by the 16.09.1999 and issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1674 Act, 1894 construction of Chand Bhan Drain from R.D. 12050 to 12710 and 13660 to 15360 outfalling into Chand Bhan Diversion Drain in Teh. Jaitu. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 07.0 land @ Rs. the Act. 4. landowners filed which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated upholding LAC @ Rs compensation from the date of taking the possession till the date of payment and 5. Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of well as appellants/ landowners 6. the appellant wrong having granted interest @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of tak @ 15% per annum for the subsequent years till the date of payment 1674-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) respectively, for public purpose i.e. for construction of Chand Bhan Drain from R.D. 12050 to 12710 and 13660 to 15360 outfalling into Chand Bhan Diversion Drain in Teh. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 07.09.2001 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.2,50,000 /- per acre, and all Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ landowners filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of t which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 15.02.2005 which partly allowed the claim upholding the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre, however, granting inte compensation from the date of taking the possession till the date of payment and all other statutory benefits under the Act. Aggrieved of the said decision of Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners/XOBJRs Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having granted interest @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking over of possession of the land i.e. 07.07.1964 and @ 15% per annum for the subsequent years till the date of payment 2005 (O&M) & other connected cases [3] respectively, for public purpose i.e. for construction of Chand Bhan Drain from R.D. 12050 to 12710 and 13660 to 15360 outfalling into Chand Bhan Diversion Drain in Teh. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award market value in respect of the acquired and all other statutory benefits under 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 which partly allowed the claim while the market value of the acquired land determined by the , however, granting interest on compensation from the date of taking the possession till the date of all other statutory benefits under the Act. decision of the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of State as /XOBJRs. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for State submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having granted interest @ 9% per annum for the first year from ing over of possession of the land i.e. 07.07.1964 and @ 15% per annum for the subsequent years till the date of payment respectively, for public purpose i.e. for construction of Chand Bhan Drain from R.D. 12050 to 12710 and 13660 to 15360 outfalling into Chand Bhan Diversion Drain in Teh. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award market value in respect of the acquired other statutory benefits under Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ he Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide while determined by the rest on compensation from the date of taking the possession till the date of the learned Reference ate as Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for State submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having granted interest @ 9% per annum for the first year from ing over of possession of the land i.e. 07.07.1964 and @ 15% per annum for the subsequent years till the date of payment SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1674 under the award. He points out that the interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and @ 15% for the subsequent payment out in terms of Act No.68 of 1984; which was made effective from 24.09.1984; whereas compensation, landowners were entitled for award of inte uniform rate of 6% per annum. He thus submits that the award passed by the learned Reference Court to the aforesaid extent was required to be modified. 7. XOBJRs submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having discarded the sale deeds Ex. A landowners merely on the ground that accordance with Court committed an illegality while ignoring the sale deeds by recording that the same pertained to small parcels. Learned counsel places reliance upon Section 51 decision through his LRs and others Vs. State of Haryana and ors. reported as 2024 (4) RCR (Civil) 758 deeds pertaining to smaller parcels of land that are of similar nature as that of land under acquisition need to be relied upon after applying suitable 1674-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases under the award. He points out that the interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and @ 15% for the subsequent payment was made applicable only by virtue of amendment carried out in terms of Act No.68 of 1984; which was made effective from 24.09.1984; whereas prior thereto, on account of delay in disbursal of compensation, landowners were entitled for award of inte uniform rate of 6% per annum. He thus submits that the award passed by the learned Reference Court to the aforesaid extent was required to be modified. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landowners/ XOBJRs submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having discarded the sale deeds Ex. A landowners merely on the ground that accordance with law. He also points out that the learned Reference Court committed an illegality while ignoring the sale deeds by recording that the same pertained to small parcels. Learned counsel places reliance upon Section 51-A of the Act and also rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in through his LRs and others Vs. State of Haryana and ors. reported as 2024 (4) RCR (Civil) 758 deeds pertaining to smaller parcels of land that are of similar nature t of land under acquisition need to be relied upon after applying deduction towards smallness of the area 2005 (O&M) & other connected cases [4] under the award. He points out that the interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and @ 15% for the subsequent years till the date of was made applicable only by virtue of amendment carried out in terms of Act No.68 of 1984; which was made effective from prior thereto, on account of delay in disbursal of compensation, landowners were entitled for award of interest at the uniform rate of 6% per annum. He thus submits that the award passed by the learned Reference Court to the aforesaid extent was On the other hand, learned counsel for the landowners/ XOBJRs submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having discarded the sale deeds Ex. A-22 to A-25 produced by the landowners merely on the ground that those were not proved in law. He also points out that the learned Reference Court committed an illegality while ignoring the sale deeds by recording that the same pertained to small parcels. Learned counsel A of the Act and also the latest rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Horrmal deceased through his LRs and others Vs. State of Haryana and ors. reported as 2024 (4) RCR (Civil) 758 to submit that even the sale deeds pertaining to smaller parcels of land that are of similar nature t of land under acquisition need to be relied upon after applying deduction towards smallness of the area. He thus submits under the award. He points out that the interest @ 9% per annum for years till the date of was made applicable only by virtue of amendment carried out in terms of Act No.68 of 1984; which was made effective from prior thereto, on account of delay in disbursal of rest at the uniform rate of 6% per annum. He thus submits that the award passed by the learned Reference Court to the aforesaid extent was On the other hand, learned counsel for the landowners/ XOBJRs submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong 25 produced by the were not proved in law. He also points out that the learned Reference Court committed an illegality while ignoring the sale deeds by recording that the same pertained to small parcels. Learned counsel latest Horrmal deceased through his LRs and others Vs. State of Haryana and ors., sale deeds pertaining to smaller parcels of land that are of similar nature t of land under acquisition need to be relied upon after applying . He thus submits SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1674 that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be modified by granting benefit of enhancement o compensation/ market value in favour of the landowners. submits that the possession of the respondents/landowners had been taken over Act by the appellant(s) and in such circumstanc to interest from the date of taking payment under Section Reference Court rightly awarded the interest in favour of the respondents/landowners and thus, no the decision of the learned Reference Court to this extent. 8. through the paper QUESTION OF RATE OF INTEREST 9. over by the appellant State from the landowners on 07.07.1964 for its utilization 12710 and 13660 to 15360 commenced vide notification dated 16.09.1999 is 4 and 6 of the Act followed by the award dated 07.09.2001 passed by the LAC, thereby awarding market value @ Rs.2.50 lakhs per acre. Admittedly, t appellants 1674-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be modified by granting benefit of enhancement o compensation/ market value in favour of the landowners. submits that the possession of the respondents/landowners had been over prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act by the appellant(s) and in such circumstanc to interest from the date of taking payment under Section 34 of the Act. Therefore, the learned Reference Court rightly awarded the interest in favour of the respondents/landowners and thus, no the decision of the learned Reference Court to this extent. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. QUESTION OF RATE OF INTEREST Admittedly, the possession of the subject land was over by the appellant State from the landowners on 07.07.1964 for its utilization for construction of Chand Bhan Drain from R.D. 12050 to 12710 and 13660 to 15360. However, the acquisition proceedings commenced vide notification dated 16.09.1999 is 4 and 6 of the Act followed by the award dated 07.09.2001 passed by the LAC, thereby awarding market value @ Rs.2.50 lakhs per acre. Admittedly, the acquisition proceedings were carried out by the appellants in view of the directions is 2005 (O&M) & other connected cases [5] that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be modified by granting benefit of enhancement o compensation/ market value in favour of the landowners. He further submits that the possession of the respondents/landowners had been prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act by the appellant(s) and in such circumstances, they were entitled to interest from the date of taking of possession till the date of of the Act. Therefore, the learned Reference Court rightly awarded the interest in favour of the respondents/landowners and thus, no interference was called for in the decision of the learned Reference Court to this extent. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone QUESTION OF RATE OF INTEREST Admittedly, the possession of the subject land was taken over by the appellant State from the landowners on 07.07.1964 for its for construction of Chand Bhan Drain from R.D. 12050 to However, the acquisition proceedings commenced vide notification dated 16.09.1999 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act followed by the award dated 07.09.2001 passed by the LAC, thereby awarding market value @ Rs.2.50 lakhs per acre. he acquisition proceedings were carried out by the in view of the directions issued by this Court in CWP that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be modified by granting benefit of enhancement of He further submits that the possession of the respondents/landowners had been prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the es, they were entitled possession till the date of of the Act. Therefore, the learned Reference Court rightly awarded the interest in favour of the interference was called for in I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone taken over by the appellant State from the landowners on 07.07.1964 for its for construction of Chand Bhan Drain from R.D. 12050 to However, the acquisition proceedings sued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act followed by the award dated 07.09.2001 passed by the LAC, thereby awarding market value @ Rs.2.50 lakhs per acre. he acquisition proceedings were carried out by the CWP SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1674 No.7472- to deal with the submission raised on behalf of the appellant as regards rate of interest, it may be relevant to take comparative notice of Sections 34 of the 1894 A of 1994:- Section 34 of the Act (un-amended) 34. Payment of interest When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited. 1674-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases -1996 by one of the landowners, namely, Budh Singh. So as to deal with the submission raised on behalf of the appellant as regards rate of interest, it may be relevant to take comparative notice of Sections 34 of the 1894 Act and that of the Amendment Act No. 68 - Section 34 of the Act of 1894 Act amended) Section of 1984 34. Payment of interest When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited. 34. Payment of interest When the amount of such compe deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine per centum of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expir on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.” 2005 (O&M) & other connected cases [6] 1996 by one of the landowners, namely, Budh Singh. So as to deal with the submission raised on behalf of the appellant as regards rate of interest, it may be relevant to take comparative notice ct and that of the Amendment Act No. 68 Section 34 of Amended Act No.68 of 1984 34. Payment of interest When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited: Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.” 1996 by one of the landowners, namely, Budh Singh. So as to deal with the submission raised on behalf of the appellant as regards rate of interest, it may be relevant to take comparative notice ct and that of the Amendment Act No. 68 34 of Amended Act No.68 When the amount of such nsation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of y of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1674 to the landowners on account of delayed disbursal of compensation under the unamended 1894 Act annum which by carrying out amendment through Act No. 68 of 1984 made effective from 24.09.1984 was increased to 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date on which possession was taken and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the payment was made. 10. interest payable to the landowners from the date of taking over of possession fro date of payment of compensation under the award, drawing analogy and inference from Section 34 of the Act, as interest was required to take note of the fact that the interest payable in terms of the ori un-amended Section 34 was 6% which came to be increased to 9% for the first year w.e.f. 24.09.1984 and thereafter 15% for the subsequent period i.e. till the date of payment. In such circumstances, Award passed by the learned Reference Court to be modified to the extent that the respondent/ landowners shall be entitled for damages in the form of interest @ 6% of the compensation amount w.e.f. 07.07.1964 till 23.09.1984 subsequent period 1984 i.e. @ 9% for the first year i.e. upto 23.09.1985 and thereafter 1674-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases A perusal of the aforesaid shows that the interest payable landowners on account of delayed disbursal of compensation under the unamended 1894 Act was at the uniform rate of 6% per annum which by carrying out amendment through Act No. 68 of 1984 made effective from 24.09.1984 was increased to 9% per annum for eriod of one year from the date on which possession was taken and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the payment was made. Thus, the learned Reference Court having awarded interest payable to the landowners from the date of taking over of possession from them by the appellant date of payment of compensation under the award, drawing analogy and inference from Section 34 of the Act, as interest was required to take note of the fact that the interest payable in terms of the ori amended Section 34 was 6% which came to be increased to 9% for the first year w.e.f. 24.09.1984 and thereafter 15% for the subsequent period i.e. till the date of payment. In such circumstances, Award passed by the learned Reference Court modified to the extent that the respondent/ landowners shall be entitled for damages in the form of interest @ 6% of the compensation amount w.e.f. 07.07.1964 till 23.09.1984 subsequent period it shall be in terms of amendment Act No.68 of 1984 i.e. @ 9% for the first year i.e. upto 23.09.1985 and thereafter 2005 (O&M) & other connected cases [7] A perusal of the aforesaid shows that the interest payable landowners on account of delayed disbursal of compensation was at the uniform rate of 6% per annum which by carrying out amendment through Act No. 68 of 1984 made effective from 24.09.1984 was increased to 9% per annum for eriod of one year from the date on which possession was taken and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the payment was made. Thus, the learned Reference Court having awarded interest payable to the landowners from the date of taking over of m them by the appellant –State on 07.07.1964 till the date of payment of compensation under the award, drawing analogy and inference from Section 34 of the Act, as interest was required to take note of the fact that the interest payable in terms of the original amended Section 34 was 6% which came to be increased to 9% for the first year w.e.f. 24.09.1984 and thereafter 15% for the subsequent period i.e. till the date of payment. In such circumstances, Award passed by the learned Reference Court needs modified to the extent that the respondent/ landowners shall be entitled for damages in the form of interest @ 6% of the compensation amount w.e.f. 07.07.1964 till 23.09.1984 and for the it shall be in terms of amendment Act No.68 of 1984 i.e. @ 9% for the first year i.e. upto 23.09.1985 and thereafter A perusal of the aforesaid shows that the interest payable landowners on account of delayed disbursal of compensation was at the uniform rate of 6% per annum which by carrying out amendment through Act No. 68 of 1984; made effective from 24.09.1984 was increased to 9% per annum for eriod of one year from the date on which possession was taken Thus, the learned Reference Court having awarded interest payable to the landowners from the date of taking over of State on 07.07.1964 till the date of payment of compensation under the award, drawing analogy and inference from Section 34 of the Act, as interest was required to ginal amended Section 34 was 6% which came to be increased to 9% for the first year w.e.f. 24.09.1984 and thereafter 15% for the subsequent period i.e. till the date of payment. In such needs modified to the extent that the respondent/ landowners shall be entitled for damages in the form of interest @ 6% of the and for the it shall be in terms of amendment Act No.68 of 1984 i.e. @ 9% for the first year i.e. upto 23.09.1985 and thereafter SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1674 @ 15% till the actual disbursement of payment under the Award. same is o QUESTION OF QUANTUM OF MARKET VALUE 11. value, it may be relevant to take notice of the sale instance produced by the appellant(s) as well as the respondents, the details in the tabulated form are reproduced hereunder: XOBJRS Exhibit sale deeds Ex.A-22 Ex.A-23 Ex.A-24 Ex.A-25 APPELLANT Exhibit sale deeds Ex.R-5 1674-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases @ 15% till the actual disbursement of payment under the Award. same is ordered accordingly. QUESTION OF QUANTUM OF MARKET VALUE For the purpose of adjudication on the quantum o value, it may be relevant to take notice of the sale instance produced by the appellant(s) as well as the respondents, the details in the tabulated form are reproduced hereunder: XOBJRS-LANDOWNERS: Date of Execution Area Sale Consideration 08.06.2001 16K 50,000/ 09.05.1995 02 K 1,19,000/ 30.04.1994 11 K 56,000/ 19.12.1995 01 K 70,000/ APPELLANT-STATE Date of Execution Area Sale Consideration 06.08.1999 06K 1,16,500/ 2005 (O&M) & other connected cases [8] @ 15% till the actual disbursement of payment under the Award. The QUESTION OF QUANTUM OF MARKET VALUE For the purpose of adjudication on the quantum of market value, it may be relevant to take notice of the sale instance produced by the appellant(s) as well as the respondents, the details in the tabulated form are reproduced hereunder:- Consideration Village 50,000/- 6,25,000/- per acre Patti Saido Jaito 1,19,000/- 7,60,000/- per acre Patti Saido Jaito 56,000/- 7,80,000/- per acre Patti Saido Jaito 70,000/- 5,60,000/- per acre Patti Saido Jaito Sale Consideration Village 1,16,500/- 1,55,330/- per acre The f market value, it may be relevant to take notice of the sale instances produced by the appellant(s) as well as the respondents, the details Village Village SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1674 Ex.R-6 Ex.A-7 Ex.A-8 acre in terms of the sale instances produced by the appellant(s) in the form of sale deeds Ex.R lakhs to Rs.1.55 lakhs per acre which is even less than the rate fixed by the Price Fixation Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot, thus, such sale deeds cannot be treated to be bona f assessment of market value of the acquired land cannot be relied upon. 12. copies of the sale instances Exs.A22 to A25 on record in terms of Section 51A of the Act such sale instances were required to be taken into account as valid piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of market value. The said sale instances were wrongly discarded by the learned Reference formed part of the same revenue estate of Village Jaito of which the acquired land belonged to. terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 1674-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases 16.07.1999 02K 37,500/ 03.06.1999 02K-18M 55,000/ 06.07.1999 24K- 7M 4,57,000/ A perusal of the above shows that the market value per acre in terms of the sale instances produced by the appellant(s) form of sale deeds Ex.R-5 to R lakhs to Rs.1.55 lakhs per acre which is even less than the rate fixed by the Price Fixation Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot, thus, such sale deeds cannot be treated to bona fide and genuine sale transactions for the purpose of assessment of market value of the acquired land cannot be relied upon. Further, the respondents/ landowners produced certified copies of the sale instances Exs.A22 to A25 on record in terms of Section 51A of the Act such sale instances were required to be taken into account as valid piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of market value. The said sale instances were wrongly discarded by the learned Reference part of the same revenue estate of Village Jaito of which the acquired land belonged to. It is also pertinent to note here that in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2005 (O&M) & other connected cases [9] 37,500/- 1,50,000/- per acre 55,000/- 1,51,725/- per acre 4,57,000/- 1,53,290/- per acre shows that the market value per acre in terms of the sale instances produced by the appellant(s)-State 5 to R-8 ranges between Rs.1.50 lakhs to Rs.1.55 lakhs per acre which is even less than the rate fixed by the Price Fixation Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot, thus, such sale deeds cannot be treated to and genuine sale transactions for the purpose of assessment of market value of the acquired land and therefore, Further, the respondents/ landowners produced certified copies of the sale instances Exs.A22 to A25 on record and therefore in terms of Section 51A of the Act such sale instances were required to be taken into account as valid piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of market value. The said sale instances were wrongly discarded by the learned Reference Court especially when those part of the same revenue estate of Village Jaito of which the It is also pertinent to note here that in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Horrmal’s shows that the market value per State 8 ranges between Rs.1.50 lakhs to Rs.1.55 lakhs per acre which is even less than the rate fixed by the Price Fixation Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot, thus, such sale deeds cannot be treated to and genuine sale transactions for the purpose of therefore, Further, the respondents/ landowners produced certified and therefore in terms of Section 51A of the Act such sale instances were required to be taken into account as valid piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of market value. The said sale instances were wrongly those part of the same revenue estate of Village Jaito of which the It is also pertinent to note here that in Horrmal’s SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1674 case (supra), the sale landowners i.e. sale deeds Exs.A parcels ranging from 1K to 16K the purposes of determination of market value by applying appropriate cut towards sma under acquisition. Moreover, appellant(s) failed to produce on record any material evidence so as to question and bona deeds need to be of the market value of the acquired land. 13. the respondents/ landowners show that the sale instance Ex.A24 dated 30.04. consideration of Rs.56,000/ Rs.7,80,000/ and Ex.A the sale price of sale instance Ex.A relied upon for determination of compensation in wake of the well settled principles of law laid down by addition, appreciation @ 12% per annum (simple) for the time gap between the date of 1674-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases case (supra), the sale instances produced by the landowners i.e. sale deeds Exs.A-22 to A parcels ranging from 1K to 16K was to the purposes of determination of market value by applying appropriate cut towards smallness of land under acquisition. Moreover, appellant(s) failed to produce on record any material evidence so as to question bona fide of the sale deeds Ex.A deeds need to be safely relied upon for the purpose of determination of the market value of the acquired land. A perusal of the aforementioned sale deeds produced by the respondents/ landowners show that the sale instance Ex.A24 dated 30.04.1997 relates to 11 Kanals of land against sale consideration of Rs.56,000/- with base price per acre @ 7,80,000/-. The remaining sale instances i. and Ex.A-25, however, fetched lower sale consideration, as against sale price of sale instance Ex.A-24 dated 30.04.1997. Therefore, sale instance Ex.A-24 fetching the highest sale price needs to be relied upon for determination of compensation in wake of the well settled principles of law laid down by the respondent landowners need to be awarded an appreciation @ 12% per annum (simple) for the time gap between date of sale instance Ex.A24 i.e. 30.04.1997 till the date of 2005 (O&M) & other connected cases [10] instances produced by the respondents/ 22 to A-25 pertained to land was to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determination of market value by applying llness of land in comparison to the land under acquisition. Moreover, appellant(s) failed to produce on record any material evidence so as to question or doubt the genuineness of the sale deeds Ex.A-22 to A-25 and thus, said sale safely relied upon for the purpose of determination of the market value of the acquired land. A perusal of the aforementioned sale deeds produced by the respondents/ landowners show that the sale instance Ex.A24 1997 relates to 11 Kanals of land against sale ith base price per acre @ . The remaining sale instances i.e. Ex.A-22, Ex.A- lower sale consideration, as against 24 dated 30.04.1997. Therefore, 24 fetching the highest sale price needs to be relied upon for determination of compensation in wake of the well settled principles of law laid down by Horrmal’s case (supra). In the respondent landowners need to be awarded an appreciation @ 12% per annum (simple) for the time gap between 24 i.e. 30.04.1997 till the date of respondents/ to land be taken into consideration for the purposes of determination of market value by applying to the land under acquisition. Moreover, appellant(s) failed to produce on record the genuineness said sale safely relied upon for the purpose of determination A perusal of the aforementioned sale deeds produced by the respondents/ landowners show that the sale instance Ex.A24 1997 relates to 11 Kanals of land against sale ith base price per acre @ -23 lower sale consideration, as against 24 dated 30.04.1997. Therefore, 24 fetching the highest sale price needs to be relied upon for determination of compensation in wake of the well- case (supra). In the respondent landowners need to be awarded an appreciation @ 12% per annum (simple) for the time gap between 24 i.e. 30.04.1997 till the date of SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1674 notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand i.e. 16.09.19 in the present case relates to 81 K 3M of land; whereas the sale exemplar Ex.A24 dated 30.04.1997 pertains to 11 kanals of land, as such, it would be appropriate to apply a cut of 50% towards smallness of area involved in the sale exemplar. present case, though the sale deed Ex. Saido Jaito yet location of the been brought on record by the respondents additional cut of 10% needs to be applied so as to take an equitable view. 14. while placing reliance upon the base price exemplar Ex. under acquisition as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand comes to Rs. Calculation: Rs. 7,80,000/ cut) + 10% (additional cut) = Rs. 10,10,100/ Thus, the respondents/landowners are awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,10,100/ 1674-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand i.e. 16.09.1999. However, taking into account the fact that the acquisition in the present case relates to 81 K 3M of land; whereas the sale exemplar Ex.A24 dated 30.04.1997 pertains to 11 kanals of land, as such, it would be appropriate to apply a cut of 50% towards mallness of area involved in the sale exemplar. present case, though the sale deed Ex. Saido Jaito yet no evidence to show the location of the land forming part of Ex. been brought on record by the respondents additional cut of 10% needs to be applied so as to take an equitable Accordingly, in the wake of discussion made hereinabove, while placing reliance upon the base price exemplar Ex.A24 dated 30.04.1997, 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. 10,10,100/ Calculation: Rs. 7,80,000/- + 12% (simple appreciation) cut) + 10% (additional cut) = Rs. 10,10,100/ Thus, the respondents/landowners are awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,10,100/- per acre besides 2005 (O&M) & other connected cases [11] notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand i.e. upto 99. However, taking into account the fact that the acquisition in the present case relates to 81 K 3M of land; whereas the sale exemplar Ex.A24 dated 30.04.1997 pertains to 11 kanals of land, as such, it would be appropriate to apply a cut of 50% towards mallness of area involved in the sale exemplar. Moreover, in the present case, though the sale deed Ex.A24 relates to Village Patti no evidence to show the comparative geographical land forming part of Ex.A24 and the acquired land has been brought on record by the respondents-landowners, as such, additional cut of 10% needs to be applied so as to take an equitable 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 Rs. 10,10,100/- per acre. simple appreciation) - 50% (smallness of land cut) + 10% (additional cut) = Rs. 10,10,100/- per acre. Thus, the respondents/landowners are awarded compensation to the besides damages in the form of upto 99. However, taking into account the fact that the acquisition in the present case relates to 81 K 3M of land; whereas the sale exemplar Ex.A24 dated 30.04.1997 pertains to 11 kanals of land, as such, it would be appropriate to apply a cut of 50% towards Moreover, in the 24 relates to Village Patti comparative geographical d land has as such, an additional cut of 10% needs to be applied so as to take an equitable Accordingly, in the wake of discussion made hereinabove, derived from the sale , the market value of the land under acquisition as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the 50% (smallness of land Thus, the respondents/landowners are awarded compensation to the damages in the form of SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1674 interest @ 6% of the comp 23.09.1984 No.68 of 1984 i.e. @ 9% for the first year i.e. upto 23.09.1985 and beyond that Award along with on solatium. 15. unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. 16. partly allowed by modifying the award to the extent of grant of from 9 % per annum to 6% per annum the instance of respondents/ landowners are partly allowed 17. disposed of. 15.01.2026 sanjay Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 1674-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases interest @ 6% of the compensation amount w.e.f. 07.07.1964 till 23.09.1984 and thereafter it shall be in terms of amendment Act No.68 of 1984 i.e. @ 9% for the first year i.e. upto 23.09.1985 and beyond that @ 15% till the actual disbursement of payment under the along with all statutory benefits and 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 liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the appellant State are partly allowed by modifying the award to the extent of grant of from 9 % per annum to 6% per annum the instance of respondents/ landowners are partly allowed Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .01.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Sr. No. Case No. 1. RFA-1675-2005 (O&M) 2. RFA-1676-2005 (O&M) 3. RFA-1677-2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) & other connected cases [12] ensation amount w.e.f. 07.07.1964 till thereafter it shall be in terms of amendment Act No.68 of 1984 i.e. @ 9% for the first year i.e. upto 23.09.1985 and @ 15% till the actual disbursement of payment under the all statutory benefits and interest, including interest Further, wherever, 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 appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the appellant State are partly allowed by modifying the award to the extent of grant of interest from 9 % per annum to 6% per annum; whereas the XOBJRs filed at the instance of respondents/ landowners are partly allowed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) ensation amount w.e.f. 07.07.1964 till thereafter it shall be in terms of amendment Act No.68 of 1984 i.e. @ 9% for the first year i.e. upto 23.09.1985 and @ 15% till the actual disbursement of payment under the including interest Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have objection(s) after filing be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving Accordingly, the appeals filed by the appellant State are interest XOBJRs filed at Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1674 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 15.01.2026 sanjay 1674-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases 4. XOBJR-65-CI-2005 5. RFA-1678-2005 (O&M) 6. XOBJR-64-CI-2005 7. RFA-1679-2005 (O&M) 8. XOBJR-93-CI-2005 (O&M) 9. RFA-1680-2005 (O&M) 10. XOBJR-71-CI-2005 (O&M) 11. RFA-1681-2005 (O&M) 12. XOBJR-66-CI-2005 (O&M) 13. RFA-1682-2005 (O&M) 14. XOBJR-70-CI-2005 (O&M) 15. RFA-1683-2005 (O&M) 16. XOBJR-67-CI-2005 (O&M) 17. RFA-1684-2005 (O&M) 18. XOBJR-68-CI-2005 (O&M) 19. RFA-1691-2005 (O&M) 20. RFA-2308-2005 (O&M) .01.2026 2005 (O&M) & other connected cases [13] 2005 2005 (O&M) 2005 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.23 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document