RFA-1550 114 (59 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Rohtash State of 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 2. laid to the decision dated Additional District Judge, Reference Court’) 3. 550-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: Rohtash Versus State of Haryana and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH Present: Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate and Mr. Karanveer Ahuja, Advocate for the 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 the sake of brevity, facts are being taken By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 14.12.2004 Additional District Judge, Hisar-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-1550-2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.01.2026 …….Appellant Versus ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate and Mr. Karanveer Ahuja, Advocate Vide this common order, a bunch of 59 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 the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.1550-2005. way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been 14.12.2004 passed by the learned -Reference Court (for short ‘the 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 (for short ‘the land situated within the revenue SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.02 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1550 estate of Village by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated (published on 20.11.1997) 04.09.1998) Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for “construction of Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award market value in re acre for Nehri and Gair Mumkin land; Rs.95,000/ and Rs.80,000/ benefits under the Act. 4. landowners filed which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated acquired land kinds of land 5. Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners as well as respondent 6. the appellants/landowners submits that the learned Reference Court failed to take into account the sale deeds produced by the 550-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases estate of Village Siswal, Tehsil Adampur, by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated (published on 20.11.1997) and 04.09.1998), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for construction of Sidhmukh Nohar Feeder Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs. for Nehri and Gair Mumkin land; Rs.95,000/ and Rs.80,000/- per acre for Tal land benefits under the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the a landowners filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 14.12.2004 while determining the market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of kinds of land 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 appellants/ landowners as well as respondent Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellants/landowners submits that the learned Reference Court failed to take into account the sale deeds produced by the (O&M) & other connected cases [2] Siswal, Tehsil Adampur, District Hisar, was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated 07.11.1997 and 31.08.1998 (published on ections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for Sidhmukh Nohar Feeder”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award 14.05.1999 assessed spect of the acquired land @ Rs.1,00,000/- per for Nehri and Gair Mumkin land; Rs.95,000/- per acre for Chahi per acre for Tal land along with all other statutory 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 at the uniform rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for all 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 appellants/ landowners as well as respondent State. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellants/landowners submits that the learned Reference Court failed to take into account the sale deeds produced by the appellants , was acquired 07.11.1997 31.08.1998 (published on ections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for The Land Acquisition assessed per per acre for Chahi other statutory ppellants/ 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 for all Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellants/landowners submits that the learned Reference Court appellants SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.02 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1550 in the form of Exs.PW10, PW11 and PW12. though the aforementioned sale deeds were post market value was required to be re principles of that the learned Reference Court went wron any compensation on account of construction existing over the acquired land in the form of Kotha and also for tubewells installed therein. Ld. counsel further submits that suitable compensation was required to be awarded towards se acquisition impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was required to be modified. 7. respondent wrong having interfered with the award passed by the LAC while granting uniform market value @ Rs.1 lakh per acre in favour of the appellants/ landowners for different categories of land especially when there was no evidence available on record to support the same. He thus submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be set aside and that passed by LAC was to be restored. 8. through the paper 550-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases in the form of Exs.PW10, PW11 and PW12. though the aforementioned sale deeds were post market value was required to be re principles of doctrine of de-escalation. that the learned Reference Court went wron any compensation on account of construction existing over the acquired land in the form of Kotha and also for tubewells installed . Ld. counsel further submits that suitable compensation was required to be awarded towards severance of the land left out from acquisition. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was required to be modified. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having interfered with the award passed by the LAC while granting uniform market value @ Rs.1 lakh per acre in favour of the appellants/ landowners for different categories of land especially here was no evidence available on record to support the same. He thus submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be set aside and that passed by LAC was to be restored. I have heard learned counsel for the parti through the paper-book. (O&M) & other connected cases [3] in the form of Exs.PW10, PW11 and PW12. He further submits that though the aforementioned sale deeds were post-notification, yet the market value was required to be re-assessed while applying the escalation. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having failed to award any compensation on account of construction existing over the acquired land in the form of Kotha and also for tubewells installed . Ld. counsel further submits that suitable compensation was verance of the land left out from . In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having interfered with the award passed by the LAC while granting uniform market value @ Rs.1 lakh per acre in favour of the appellants/ landowners for different categories of land especially here was no evidence available on record to support the same. He thus submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be set aside and that passed by LAC I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone ubmits that notification, yet the assessed while applying the also submits g having failed to award any compensation on account of construction existing over the acquired land in the form of Kotha and also for tubewells installed . Ld. counsel further submits that suitable compensation was verance of the land left out from . In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having interfered with the award passed by the LAC while granting uniform market value @ Rs.1 lakh per acre in favour of the appellants/ landowners for different categories of land especially here was no evidence available on record to support the same. He thus submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be set aside and that passed by LAC es and gone SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.02 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1550 9. of the sale deeds produced landowners, which are extracted hereunder Exhibits of sale deed Ex.PW3 Ex.PW4 Ex.PW5 Ex.PW6 Ex.PW7 Ex.PW8 Ex.PW9 Ex.PW10 Ex.PW11 Ex.PW12 present case under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 20.11.1997; whereas the sale deeds which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants/ landowners during the course of his arguments are Exs.PW10, PW11 and PW12. As per the records and also from the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court, it can be discerned that the sale deeds Exs.PW11 and PW12 pertained 550-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to take note of the sale deeds produced as evidence landowners, which are extracted hereunder Exhibits of sale deed No. and date of execution Area in kanal and marla 295/ 20.05.1993 16K-00M 296/ 20.05.1993 14K-08M 1472/ 16.12.1992 1K-6K 1473/ 16.12.1992 3K-16M 1474/ 16.12.1992 2K-9M 1475/ 16.12.1992 27K-6M 316/ 21.05.1993 0K-4M Ex.PW10 2609/ 11.01.2002 71K-8M Ex.PW11 875/ 19.08.2003 9K-10M Ex.PW12 171/ 11.05.1999 3K-15M A perusal of the record shows that the notification in the present case under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 20.11.1997; whereas the sale deeds which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants/ landowners during the course of his rguments are Exs.PW10, PW11 and PW12. As per the records and also from the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court, it can be discerned that the sale deeds Exs.PW11 and PW12 pertained (O&M) & other connected cases [4] Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to take note as evidence by the appellants/ landowners, which are extracted hereunder in the tabulated form:- Area in Sale consideration (Rs.) Rate per acre 00M 80,000 40,000 08M 70,000 39,000 5,000 32,000 14,500 32,000 9,500 32,000 1,50,000 45,000 6,000 40,000 35,70,000 4,00,000 5,64,062 4,80,000 1,00,000 2,13,000 A perusal of the record shows that the notification in the present case under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 20.11.1997; whereas the sale deeds which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants/ landowners during the course of his rguments are Exs.PW10, PW11 and PW12. As per the records and also from the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court, it can be discerned that the sale deeds Exs.PW11 and PW12 pertained Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to take note by the appellants/ Rate per 4,00,000 4,80,000 2,13,000 A perusal of the record shows that the notification in the present case under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 20.11.1997; whereas the sale deeds which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants/ landowners during the course of his rguments are Exs.PW10, PW11 and PW12. As per the records and also from the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court, it can be discerned that the sale deeds Exs.PW11 and PW12 pertained SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.02 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1550 to two different revenue estates of Village Siswal. evidence has been brought forming part of the two revenue estate having similar locational and potential advantage instance ExsPW11 10. and PW12 pertained to post Ex.PW10 dated 11.01.2002 notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand. I the appellants/ landowners parcels forming part of sale instance Ex.PW10/A dated 11.01.2002 was located within close vicinity of the acquired land or was having similar potential or locational advantage. On positive finding of fact recorded by the learned Reference Court that the land parcel forming part of sale instance Ex.PW10/A was located far away from the acquired land. 11. escalation while taking into account the sale deed Ex.PW10/A dated 11.01.2002 especially when 07 sale deeds i.e. Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW9/A of the same revenue estate i.e. Village Siswal which pertain prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, were available on record, but did no support their claim towards enhancement of market 550-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases to two different revenue estates of Village Siswal. evidence has been brought on record to establish that forming part of the two revenue estate having similar locational and potential advantage instance ExsPW11/A and PW12/A can Needless to point out that the sale instances Exs. PW11 and PW12 pertained to post-notification Ex.PW10 dated 11.01.2002 was also relate notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand. I the appellants/ landowners did not parcels forming part of sale instance Ex.PW10/A dated 11.01.2002 was located within close vicinity of the acquired land or was having similar potential or locational advantage. On positive finding of fact recorded by the learned Reference Court that the land parcel forming part of sale instance Ex.PW10/A was located far away from the acquired land. In such circumstances, the principles of escalation was not to be applied in favour of appellants/ landowners while taking into account the sale deed Ex.PW10/A dated 11.01.2002 especially when 07 sale deeds i.e. Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW9/A of the same revenue estate i.e. Village Siswal which pertain prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, were available on , but did no support their claim towards enhancement of market (O&M) & other connected cases [5] to two different revenue estates of Village Siswal. However, no on record to establish that parcels of land forming part of the two revenue estates i.e. Siswal and Adampur were having similar locational and potential advantage, thus the sale can not to be relied upon. Needless to point out that the sale instances Exs. PW11 notification. Similarly, sale instance also related to the period post notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand. In addition, not prove on record that the land parcels forming part of sale instance Ex.PW10/A dated 11.01.2002 was located within close vicinity of the acquired land or was having similar potential or locational advantage. On the contrary, there is a positive finding of fact recorded by the learned Reference Court that the land parcel forming part of sale instance Ex.PW10/A was located the principles of doctrine of de be applied in favour of appellants/ landowners while taking into account the sale deed Ex.PW10/A dated 11.01.2002 especially when 07 sale deeds i.e. Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW9/A of the same revenue estate i.e. Village Siswal which pertained to the period prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, were available on , but did no support their claim towards enhancement of market However, no land were the sale Needless to point out that the sale instances Exs. PW11 sale instance period post- n addition, on record that the land parcels forming part of sale instance Ex.PW10/A dated 11.01.2002 was located within close vicinity of the acquired land or was having the contrary, there is a positive finding of fact recorded by the learned Reference Court that the land parcel forming part of sale instance Ex.PW10/A was located de- be applied in favour of appellants/ landowners while taking into account the sale deed Ex.PW10/A dated 11.01.2002 especially when 07 sale deeds i.e. Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW9/A of the ed to the period prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, were available on , but did no support their claim towards enhancement of market SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.02 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1550 value in any manner the appellants/ landowners for t Exs.PW10/A to Ex.PW12/A, being notification, the purpose of re 12. no illegality of perversity can be found with the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court uniform rate in favour of the landowners especially when the entire acquired land was having source of modes and there was nothing produced on record by the respondents to establish any kind of locational or potential distinction about any parcel of the acquired land which was merely a chunk of around 30 acres only State to the effect that the learned Reference Court went wrong having granted market value at the uniform rate for th nature of land, does not find any merit with this Court. 13. Reference Court went wrong having failed to award suitable compensation to the landowners against the construction of structure and tubewells over the acquired land having relied upon Section 5 of the Haryana Canal and The mere fact that the State Government in terms of Section 5 of the 550-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases value in any manner. Therefore, the the appellants/ landowners for taking into account sale deeds Exs.PW10/A to Ex.PW12/A, being notification, under Section 4 of the Act, the purpose of re-assessment of the market value. Further, as per perusal of no illegality of perversity can be found with the findings recorded by learned Reference Court while uniform rate in favour of the landowners especially when the entire acquired land was having source of irrigation and there was nothing produced on record by the respondents to establish any kind of locational or potential distinction about any parcel of the acquired land which was merely a chunk of around 30 acres only. Thus, the submissions made on behalf of the respondent State to the effect that the learned Reference Court went wrong having granted market value at the uniform rate for th nature of land, does not find any merit with this Court. Moreover, it may be noticed here that the learned Reference Court went wrong having failed to award suitable compensation to the landowners against the construction of structure and tubewells over the acquired land having relied upon Section 5 of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 ere fact that the State Government in terms of Section 5 of the (O&M) & other connected cases [6] Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of aking into account sale deeds Exs.PW10/A to Ex.PW12/A, being related to the period post under Section 4 of the Act, were rightly not accepted for assessment of the market value. perusal of the material available on record no illegality of perversity can be found with the findings recorded by while granting market value at the uniform rate in favour of the landowners especially when the entire irrigation albeit through different and there was nothing produced on record by the respondents to establish any kind of locational or potential distinction about any parcel of the acquired land which was merely a chunk of around 30 the submissions made on behalf of the respondent State to the effect that the learned Reference Court went wrong having granted market value at the uniform rate for the different nature of land, does not find any merit with this Court. may be noticed here that the learned Reference Court went wrong having failed to award suitable compensation to the landowners against the construction of structure and tubewells over the acquired land having relied upon Section 5 of , 1974 (for short ‘the 1974 Act’) ere fact that the State Government in terms of Section 5 of the submissions made on behalf of aking into account sale deeds post- accepted for vailable on record no illegality of perversity can be found with the findings recorded by market value at the uniform rate in favour of the landowners especially when the entire through different and there was nothing produced on record by the respondents to establish any kind of locational or potential distinction about any parcel of the acquired land which was merely a chunk of around 30 the submissions made on behalf of the respondent State to the effect that the learned Reference Court went wrong different may be noticed here that the learned Reference Court went wrong having failed to award suitable compensation to the landowners against the construction of structure and tubewells over the acquired land having relied upon Section 5 of (for short ‘the 1974 Act’). ere fact that the State Government in terms of Section 5 of the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.02 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1550 aforesaid Act read with Rule 3 of 1976, (for short ‘the 1976 Rules’) tubewell or even direct the owner to remove it, was not sufficient to decline the relief in favour of the appellants/ landowners especially when no proceedings in terms of Rule 3 of the of the 1974 Act 14. grant of market value against landowners proved valuation report witness PW 10 not impeached by the respondent examination or even through brining on record any material evidence in rebuttal to it. acquired land was never produced on record to counter the existence of structures or tubewells and also the Ex.P32 to Ex.P39 in order to establish th were existing over the acquired land findings recorded by the learned Reference Court with respect to the rejection of claim raised by the landowners against structures and tuebwells this belated stage, rather than remanding the matter for the purpose 550-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases aforesaid Act read with Rule 3 of Haryana Canal and Drainage Rules, , (for short ‘the 1976 Rules’), could prohibit installation of well or even direct the owner to remove it, was not sufficient to decline the relief in favour of the appellants/ landowners especially material was produced by the respondents to show that any proceedings in terms of Rule 3 of the 1974 Act were ever initiated against them. A perusal of record further grant of market value against structure and Tubewells, the appellants/ landowners proved valuation reports witness PW 10-Ajay Kumar and the credibility of said deposition not impeached by the respondent examination or even through brining on record any material evidence in rebuttal to it. On the contrary, the measurement acquired land prepared by the LAC in terms of Section 8 of the Act never produced on record to counter the existence of structures or tubewells and also the 32 to Ex.P39 in order to establish th were existing over the acquired land findings recorded by the learned Reference Court with respect to the rejection of claim raised by the landowners against structures and s are set aside. However, in order to balance the equities at this belated stage, rather than remanding the matter for the purpose (O&M) & other connected cases [7] Haryana Canal and Drainage Rules, , could prohibit installation of well or even direct the owner to remove it, was not sufficient to decline the relief in favour of the appellants/ landowners especially material was produced by the respondents to show that any proceedings in terms of Rule 3 of the 1976 Rules read with Section 5 were ever initiated against them. further shows that for the purposes of tructure and Tubewells, the appellants/ Ex.P32 to Ex.P39 through their Ajay Kumar and the credibility of said deposition was not impeached by the respondent-State either in his cross examination or even through brining on record any material evidence On the contrary, the measurement report of the by the LAC in terms of Section 8 of the Act never produced on record to counter the factual aspect about existence of structures or tubewells and also the valuation reports 32 to Ex.P39 in order to establish that no tubewells or structure were existing over the acquired land. In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court with respect to the rejection of claim raised by the landowners against structures and owever, in order to balance the equities at this belated stage, rather than remanding the matter for the purpose Haryana Canal and Drainage Rules, , could prohibit installation of well or even direct the owner to remove it, was not sufficient to decline the relief in favour of the appellants/ landowners especially material was produced by the respondents to show that any with Section 5 shows that for the purposes of tructure and Tubewells, the appellants/ ough their was either in his cross- examination or even through brining on record any material evidence of the by the LAC in terms of Section 8 of the Act factual aspect about valuation reports at no tubewells or structure . In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court with respect to the rejection of claim raised by the landowners against structures and owever, in order to balance the equities at this belated stage, rather than remanding the matter for the purpose SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.02 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1550 of fresh findings by the learned Reference Court to the aforesaid context, the landowners are held entitled for award of compensation against t land upto Ex.P32 to Ex.P39 in addition to other statutory benefits besides interest on solatium 15. appellants/ landowners are disposed of in the above terms, whereas the appeals preferred at the instance of State are hereby dismissed. 16. disposed of. 21.01.20 sanjay Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 550-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases of fresh findings by the learned Reference Court to the aforesaid context, the landowners are held entitled for award of compensation against the super-structure and tubewells existing over the acquired land upto 50% of the amount assessed under the valuation reports Ex.P32 to Ex.P39 in addition to other statutory benefits besides interest on solatium thereupon, under the Act. In view of the aforesaid, the appeals filed by the appellants/ landowners are disposed of in the above terms, whereas the appeals preferred at the instance of State are hereby dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .01.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Sr. No. Case No. 1. RFA-1307-2005 (O&M) 2. RFA-1308-2005 (O&M) 3. RFA-1309-2005 (O&M) 4. RFA-1311-2005 (O& 5. RFA-1312-2005 (O&M) 6. RFA-1313-2005 (O&M) 7. RFA-1314-2005 (O&M) 8. RFA-1315-2005 (O&M) 9. RFA-1316-2005 (O&M) 10. RFA-1317-2005 (O&M) 11. RFA-1318-2005 (O&M) 12. RFA-1319-2005 (O&M) 13. RFA-1320-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & other connected cases [8] of fresh findings by the learned Reference Court to the aforesaid context, the landowners are held entitled for award of compensation structure and tubewells existing over the acquired 50% of the amount assessed under the valuation reports Ex.P32 to Ex.P39 in addition to other statutory benefits besides , under the Act. aforesaid, the appeals filed by the appellants/ landowners are disposed of in the above terms, whereas the appeals preferred at the instance of State are hereby dismissed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No (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) of fresh findings by the learned Reference Court to the aforesaid context, the landowners are held entitled for award of compensation structure and tubewells existing over the acquired 50% of the amount assessed under the valuation reports Ex.P32 to Ex.P39 in addition to other statutory benefits besides aforesaid, the appeals filed by the appellants/ landowners are disposed of in the above terms, whereas the appeals preferred at the instance of State are hereby dismissed. 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-1550 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 550-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases 14. RFA-1321-2005 (O&M) 15. RFA-1323-2005 (O&M) 16. RFA-1324-2005 (O&M) 17. RFA-1325-2005 (O&M) 18. RFA-1326-2005 (O&M) 19. RFA-1327-2005 (O&M) 20. RFA-1328-2005 (O&M) 21. RFA-1329-2005 (O&M) 22. RFA-1330-2005 (O&M) 23. RFA-1331-2005 (O&M) 24. RFA-1332-2005 (O&M) 25. RFA-1333-2005 (O&M) 26. RFA-1334-2005 (O&M) 27. RFA-1336-2005 (O&M) 28. RFA-1337-2005 (O&M) 29. RFA-1339-2005 (O&M) 30. RFA-1340-2005 (O&M) 31 RFA-1538-2005 (O&M) 32. RFA-1539-2005 (O&M) 33. RFA-1540-2005 (O&M) 34. RFA-1541-2005 (O&M) 35. RFA-1542-2005 (O&M) 36. RFA-1543-2005 (O&M) 37. RFA-1544-2005 (O&M) 38. RFA-1545-2005 (O&M) 39. RFA-1546-2005 (O&M) 40. RFA-1547-2005 (O&M) 41. RFA-1548-2005 (O&M) 42. RFA-1549-2005 (O&M) 43. RFA-1550-2005 (O&M) 44. RFA-1551-2005 (O&M) 45. RFA-1552-2005 (O&M) 46. RFA-1553-2005 (O&M) 47. RFA-1554-2005 (O&M) 48. RFA-1555-2005 (O&M) 49. RFA-1614-2005 (O&M) 50. RFA-1615-2005 (O&M) 51. RFA-1617-2005 (O&M) 52. RFA-1618-2005 (O&M) 53. RFA-1920-2005 (O&M) 54. RFA-1921-2005 (O&M) 55. RFA-1922-2005 (O&M) 56. RFA-1923-2005 (O&M) 57. RFA-1924-2005 (O&M) (O&M) & other connected cases [9] 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) 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) 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) 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.02 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1550 58. 59. 21.01.2026 sanjay 550-2005 (O&M) & other connected cases 58. RFA-2444-2005 (O&M) 59. RFA-2578-2005 (O&M) .01.2026 (O&M) & other connected cases [10] 2005 (O&M) 2005 (O&M) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.02 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document