RFA-3922 131 (6 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Shiv Kumar State of Haryana and another CORAM: Present: HARKESH 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, further enhancement of the compensation. 3922-2006 (O&M) & other connected cases 131 (6 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: 27.01.2026 Shiv Kumar Versus State of Haryana and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate Mr. G.S. Bidhan, Advocate for the appellants/landowners Mr.Abhinash Jain, DAG Haryana Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and Ms. Surbhi Rana, Advocate for respondent No.2-HAFED. -.- 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 25.07.2006 Additional District Judge, Sonepat-cum further enhancement of the compensation. 2006 (O&M) & other connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-3922-2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.01.2026 …….Appellant Versus ..….Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Ashish Gupta, Advocate and Mr. G.S. Bidhan, Advocate /landowners. Abhinash Jain, DAG Haryana. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and Ms. Surbhi Rana, Advocate HAFED. Vide this common order, a bunch of 6 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.3922-2006. way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been 25.07.2006 passed by the learned cum-Reference Court, seeking further enhancement of the compensation. 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, seeking SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3922 3. revenue estate of Village was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated 05.04.2001 and 04.01.2002 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose, namely, Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award assessed market value in respect of the acquired land Rs.3,50,000 Act. 4. landowner which came to be disposed of by the learned Re decision dated acquired land @ Rs. market value other statutory benefits under the Act. 5. Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellant 6. for the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) submit that previou 06.12.1989, some land forming part of the revenue estate of Village 3922-2006 (O&M) & other connected cases Briefly stating, 36K-11M of land revenue estate of Village Khandrai, Tehsil Gannaur, District Sonepat was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated 05.04.2001 and 04.01.2002, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the nd Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public , namely, for “construction of Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award assessed market value in respect of the acquired land 3,50,000/- per acre, besides all other statutory benefits under the Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant landowner(s) filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Re decision dated 25.07.2006 while determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.6,45,500/- per acre market value and additional amount @ 12% per annum besides 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(s)/ landowner(s). Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsels for the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) submit that previou 06.12.1989, some land forming part of the revenue estate of Village 2006 (O&M) & other connected cases [2] 11M of land, situated within the Khandrai, Tehsil Gannaur, District Sonepat was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated , issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the nd Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public of Godown of HAFED”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award 20.08.2002 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land other statutory benefits under the Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant( 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; solatium @ 30% on the and additional amount @ 12% per annum besides 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 Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsels for the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) submit that previously on 06.12.1989, some land forming part of the revenue estate of Village , situated within the Khandrai, Tehsil Gannaur, District Sonepat, was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated , issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the nd Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public The Land 20.08.2002 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ other statutory benefits under the (s)/ reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, ference Court vide while determining the market value of the ; solatium @ 30% on the and additional amount @ 12% per annum besides 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 counsels sly on 06.12.1989, some land forming part of the revenue estate of Village SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3922 Gohana located at a distance of around 14 acres from the subject land, was acquired, by Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board for setting up of ‘ vide its decision dated 20.01.2016 passed in titled as assessed the market value @ Rs.264/ subsequently enhanced by the Hon’ble A sq. yards vide its decision dated 08.11.2017 in Civil Appeal No.18616 Government of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector and ors. He thus submits that the learned Reference Court to re-assess the market value in the present case by applying suitable appreciation @ 12% per annum for the time gap from 06.12.1989 to 05.04.2001 i.e. the two notifications under Section 4 of the Act. Alternatively, learned counsel also poi deduction or cut was required to be applied while assessing the market value by taking into account the sale instances Ex.P9 to Ex.P13 as the land parcels forming part of such sale instances were located around 2 to 3 acres away road; whereas the acquired land was situated exactly on the said road. Learned counsel further points out that as per the sale instance Annexure A yards, the market value was Rs.4 3922-2006 (O&M) & other connected cases Gohana located at a distance of around 14 acres from the subject land, was acquired, by Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board for setting up of ‘Grain Market, Gohana vide its decision dated 20.01.2016 passed in Vijay Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and other assessed the market value @ Rs.264/ subsequently enhanced by the Hon’ble A sq. yards vide its decision dated 08.11.2017 in Civil Appeal No.18616-2017 titled as Sanjeev Kumar and another Vs. Government of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector and . He thus submits that the learned Reference Court assess the market value in the present case by applying suitable appreciation @ 12% per annum for the time gap from 06.12.1989 to 05.04.2001 i.e. the two notifications under Section 4 of the Act. Alternatively, learned counsel also poi deduction or cut was required to be applied while assessing the market value by taking into account the sale instances Ex.P9 to Ex.P13 as the land parcels forming part of such sale instances were located around 2 to 3 acres away-inside from road; whereas the acquired land was situated exactly on the said road. Learned counsel further points out that as per the sale instance Annexure A-2 dated 01.03.2001, relating to land measuring 53.45 sq. yards, the market value was Rs.4 2006 (O&M) & other connected cases [3] Gohana located at a distance of around 14 acres from the subject land, was acquired, by Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Grain Market, Gohana’, regarding which this Court vide its decision dated 20.01.2016 passed in RFA No.3331-2002, Vijay Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and other assessed the market value @ Rs.264/- per sq. yards which was subsequently enhanced by the Hon’ble Apex Court to Rs.300/- per sq. yards vide its decision dated 08.11.2017 in Civil Appeal v Kumar and another Vs. Government of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector and . He thus submits that the learned Reference Court was required assess the market value in the present case by applying suitable appreciation @ 12% per annum for the time gap from 06.12.1989 to 05.04.2001 i.e. the two notifications under Section 4 of the Act. Alternatively, learned counsel also points out that no deduction or cut was required to be applied while assessing the market value by taking into account the sale instances Ex.P9 to Ex.P13 as the land parcels forming part of such sale instances were inside from the Gohana-Sonepat road; whereas the acquired land was situated exactly on the said road. Learned counsel further points out that as per the sale instance 2 dated 01.03.2001, relating to land measuring 53.45 sq. yards, the market value was Rs.450/- per sq. yards and land Gohana located at a distance of around 14 acres from the subject land, was acquired, by Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board ’, regarding which this Court 2002, Vijay Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and others, per sq. yards which was per sq. yards vide its decision dated 08.11.2017 in Civil Appeal v Kumar and another Vs. Government of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector and was required assess the market value in the present case by applying suitable appreciation @ 12% per annum for the time gap from 06.12.1989 to 05.04.2001 i.e. the two notifications under Section 4 of nts out that no deduction or cut was required to be applied while assessing the market value by taking into account the sale instances Ex.P9 to Ex.P13 as the land parcels forming part of such sale instances were Sonepat road; whereas the acquired land was situated exactly on the said road. Learned counsel further points out that as per the sale instance 2 dated 01.03.2001, relating to land measuring 53.45 sq. per sq. yards and land SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3922 comprised therein was at a distance of 3 to 4 acres from the present acquired land. He also points out that from the sale deed Ex.P2 dated 23.05.2001, which also pertained to the revenue estate of Village Khandrai, the market pr thus in view of the aforesaid submissions and the evidence available on record, the assessment made by the learned Reference Court was required to be re Learned counsel a Court in Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer INSC 977 Bembla Project Division Yavatmal INSC 844 and paragraphs 18 and 19 of reproduced hereunder: 3922-2006 (O&M) & other connected cases comprised therein was at a distance of 3 to 4 acres from the present acquired land. He also points out that from the sale deed Ex.P2 dated 23.05.2001, which also pertained to the revenue estate of Village Khandrai, the market price was around Rs.677/ thus in view of the aforesaid submissions and the evidence available on record, the assessment made by the learned Reference Court was required to be re-determined by granting further enhancement. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in R. Manohara Murthy and others Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer INSC 977 and Manik Panjabrao Kalmegh Vs. Executive Engineer Bembla Project Division Yavatmal INSC 844. Paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 of and paragraphs 18 and 19 of Manik Panjabrao Kalmegh reproduced hereunder:- R. Manohara Murthy’s “3.5 While re-determining the compensation, the High Court found that in LAC No.7 of 1996 in which the preliminary notification had been issued on 3rd March 1994, the market value had been determined at the rate of Rs.30,000/ per acre. 3.6 Applying the said amount as the base price and granting 10 per cent i.e. 1994 to 2006, the compensation was redetermined at the rate of Rs.66,000/ acre.” 2006 (O&M) & other connected cases [4] comprised therein was at a distance of 3 to 4 acres from the present acquired land. He also points out that from the sale deed Ex.P2 dated 23.05.2001, which also pertained to the revenue estate of Village ice was around Rs.677/- per sq. yards and thus in view of the aforesaid submissions and the evidence available on record, the assessment made by the learned Reference Court was determined by granting further enhancement. lso relies upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex R. Manohara Murthy and others Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, reported as 2024 Manik Panjabrao Kalmegh Vs. Executive Engineer Bembla Project Division Yavatmal and ors., reported as 2024 . Paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 of R. Manohara Murthy’s case Manik Panjabrao Kalmegh’s case are R. Manohara Murthy’s case determining the compensation, the Court found that in LAC No.7 of 1996 in which the preliminary notification had been March 1994, the market value had been determined at the rate of Rs.30,000/ Applying the said amount as the base price and granting 10 per cent escalation for 12 years, i.e. 1994 to 2006, the compensation was redetermined at the rate of Rs.66,000/- per comprised therein was at a distance of 3 to 4 acres from the present acquired land. He also points out that from the sale deed Ex.P2 dated 23.05.2001, which also pertained to the revenue estate of Village per sq. yards and thus in view of the aforesaid submissions and the evidence available on record, the assessment made by the learned Reference Court was determined by granting further enhancement. lso relies upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex R. Manohara Murthy and others Vs. Assistant 2024 Manik Panjabrao Kalmegh Vs. Executive Engineer 2024 case are determining the compensation, the Court found that in LAC No.7 of 1996 in which the preliminary notification had been March 1994, the market value had been determined at the rate of Rs.30,000/- Applying the said amount as the base price and escalation for 12 years, i.e. 1994 to 2006, the compensation was per SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3922 3922-2006 (O&M) & other connected cases Manik Panjabrao Kalmegh’s “18. In determining the market value of lands bearing Survey Nos.14 and 15, the reference court had relied upon an earlier judgment in LAC No.48 of 2007 (Exh.68). The land involved in the aforesaid judgment was also acquired for the same project situate in the the aforesaid judgment, reliance was placed upon an exemplar sale deed of the year 1994 (Exh.35). Therefore, the reference court granted increment of 10% per year as per the market value determined on the basis of the exemplar sale deed of the year 1994. The aforesaid judgment and order (Exh.68) is final and conclusive and no evidence or material has been brought on record to establish that the same was in any manner modified so as to grant cumulative increase of 10% in the market valu Therefore, it would not be a prudent exercise to award cumulative increase as claimed by the appellant in the case at hand. 19. In Ramrao Shankar Tapase (supra), this Court only observed that a cumulative increase of 10 15% per year in the market value may be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. A plain reading of paragraph 28 of the aforesaid decision itself would make it clear that the grant of cumulative increase in the market value of the land is not an absolute rule and that it is optional and may be granted in a given case only. In the instant case, it has rightly not been granted for the simple reason that the 2006 (O&M) & other connected cases [5] Manik Panjabrao Kalmegh’s case In determining the market value of lands bearing Survey Nos.14 and 15, the reference court had relied upon an earlier judgment in LAC No.48 of 2007 (Exh.68). The land involved in the aforesaid judgment was also acquired for the same project situate in the adjoining village. In the aforesaid judgment, reliance was placed upon an exemplar sale deed of the year 1994 (Exh.35). Therefore, the reference court granted increment of 10% per year as per the market value determined on the basis of the exemplar ed of the year 1994. The aforesaid judgment and order (Exh.68) is final and conclusive and no evidence or material has been brought on record to establish that the same was in any manner modified so as to grant cumulative increase of 10% in the market valu Therefore, it would not be a prudent exercise to award cumulative increase as claimed by the appellant in the case at hand. In Ramrao Shankar Tapase (supra), this Court only observed that a cumulative increase of 10 15% per year in the market value of the land may be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. A plain reading of paragraph 28 of the aforesaid decision itself would make it clear that the grant of cumulative increase in the market value of the land is not an absolute rule that it is optional and may be granted in a given case only. In the instant case, it has rightly not been granted for the simple reason that the In determining the market value of lands bearing Survey Nos.14 and 15, the reference court had relied upon an earlier judgment in LAC No.48 of 2007 (Exh.68). The land involved in the aforesaid judgment was also acquired for the adjoining village. In the aforesaid judgment, reliance was placed upon an exemplar sale deed of the year 1994 (Exh.35). Therefore, the reference court granted increment of 10% per year as per the market value determined on the basis of the exemplar ed of the year 1994. The aforesaid judgment and order (Exh.68) is final and conclusive and no evidence or material has been brought on record to establish that the same was in any manner modified so as to grant cumulative increase of 10% in the market value. Therefore, it would not be a prudent exercise to award cumulative increase as claimed by the In Ramrao Shankar Tapase (supra), this Court only observed that a cumulative increase of 10- of the land may be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. A plain reading of paragraph 28 of the aforesaid decision itself would make it clear that the grant of cumulative increase in the market value of the land is not an absolute rule that it is optional and may be granted in a given case only. In the instant case, it has rightly not been granted for the simple reason that the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3922 7. of the respondents submits that the sale deeds Exs.P9 to P13 relied upon by the learned Reference Court were all pertaining to small parcels of land ranging between 200 to 4 cut of 1/3 per acre derived from such sale deeds was extremely low. submits that taking into account the smallness of the area involved in the sale deeds Exs.P9 to P13, applied and as such the market value assessed by the learned Reference Court was required to be reduced accordingly. Learned counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellants/landowners and states Hon’ble Apex Court in case of land forming part of the different revenue estate of Village Gohana which was acquired vide notification dated 06.12.1989, cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel submits that once the sale i 3922-2006 (O&M) & other connected cases Exh.68 which is a relied upon judgment pertaining to the same acquisition, no such cumulative increase was perm exhibit has to be accepted wholly and not in part. Thus, there is no arbitrary exercise of power in simply permitting 10% increase in the market value as determined on the basis of exemplar sale deed of the year 1994 as relied upon in the judgment i.e., Exh.68. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the sale deeds Exs.P9 to P13 relied upon by the learned Reference Court were all pertaining to small parcels of land ranging between 200 to 4 1/3rd applied by the learned Reference Court on the base price per acre derived from such sale deeds was extremely low. submits that taking into account the smallness of the area involved in the sale deeds Exs.P9 to P13, a cut of 50% was required to be applied and as such the market value assessed by the learned Reference Court was required to be reduced accordingly. Learned counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellants/landowners and states that the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of land forming part of the different revenue estate of Village Gohana which was acquired vide notification dated 06.12.1989, cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel submits that once the sale i 2006 (O&M) & other connected cases [6] Exh.68 which is a relied upon judgment pertaining to the same acquisition, no such cumulative increase was permitted. The said exhibit has to be accepted wholly and not in part. Thus, there is no arbitrary exercise of power in simply permitting 10% increase in the market value as determined on the basis of exemplar sale deed of the year 1994 as relied upon in the udgment i.e., Exh.68. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the sale deeds Exs.P9 to P13 relied upon by the learned Reference Court were all pertaining to small parcels of land ranging between 200 to 400 sq. yards and thus the applied by the learned Reference Court on the base price per acre derived from such sale deeds was extremely low. submits that taking into account the smallness of the area involved in a cut of 50% was required to be applied and as such the market value assessed by the learned Reference Court was required to be reduced accordingly. Learned counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the that the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of land forming part of the different revenue estate of Village Gohana which was acquired vide notification dated 06.12.1989, cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel submits that once the sale instances pertaining to Village Exh.68 which is a relied upon judgment pertaining to the same acquisition, no such itted. The said exhibit has to be accepted wholly and not in part. Thus, there is no arbitrary exercise of power in simply permitting 10% increase in the market value as determined on the basis of exemplar sale deed of the year 1994 as relied upon in the On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the sale deeds Exs.P9 to P13 relied upon by the learned Reference Court were all pertaining to small the applied by the learned Reference Court on the base price He submits that taking into account the smallness of the area involved in a cut of 50% was required to be applied and as such the market value assessed by the learned Reference Court was required to be reduced accordingly. Learned counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the that the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of land forming part of the different revenue estate of Village Gohana which was acquired vide notification dated 06.12.1989, cannot be relied upon. Learned nstances pertaining to Village SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3922 Khandrai were available on record as part of evidence, then the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which related to different Village and in particular the acquisition proceedings which commenced 12 years back from be ignored. He thus submits that the appeal(s) preferred at the instance of landowners were required to be dismissed and those of the respondents were allowed. 8. through the paper behalf of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s). 9. upon the appreciation of evidence available on record, a positive finding of fact h respect to the locational and potential advantage attached to the land under present acquisition. Relevant paragraphs No.23 and 24 of the award are reproduced hereunder: 3922-2006 (O&M) & other connected cases Khandrai were available on record as part of evidence, then the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which related to different Village and in particular the acquisition proceedings which commenced 12 years back from the present acquisition, was liable to be ignored. He thus submits that the appeal(s) preferred at the instance of landowners were required to be dismissed and those of the respondents were allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gon through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s). At the first instance, it may be noticed here that based upon the appreciation of evidence available on record, a positive finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Reference Court with respect to the locational and potential advantage attached to the land under present acquisition. Relevant paragraphs No.23 and 24 of the award are reproduced hereunder:- “23. Coming to the fact of the p analyzing the evidence no record, i have hesitation in my mind to conclude that at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the suit land had high used for residential as well as for commercial purposes. The oral evidence produced by the Petitioner which is plan Ex.P1, which has been prepared by a licensed draftsmen clearly revels that suit land 2006 (O&M) & other connected cases [7] Khandrai were available on record as part of evidence, then the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which related to different Village and in particular the acquisition proceedings which the present acquisition, was liable to be ignored. He thus submits that the appeal(s) preferred at the instance of landowners were required to be dismissed and those of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gon book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s). At the first instance, it may be noticed here that based upon the appreciation of evidence available on record, a positive as been recorded by the learned Reference Court with respect to the locational and potential advantage attached to the land under present acquisition. Relevant paragraphs No.23 and 24 of the oming to the fact of the present case, after analyzing the evidence no record, i have no in my mind to conclude that at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the suit land had high potentiality for being residential as well as for commercial purposes. The oral evidence produced by the Petitioner which is duly supported by the site plan Ex.P1, which has been prepared by a licensed draftsmen clearly revels that suit land Khandrai were available on record as part of evidence, then the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which related to different Village and in particular the acquisition proceedings which the present acquisition, was liable to be ignored. He thus submits that the appeal(s) preferred at the instance of landowners were required to be dismissed and those of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I find substance in the submissions made on At the first instance, it may be noticed here that based upon the appreciation of evidence available on record, a positive as been recorded by the learned Reference Court with respect to the locational and potential advantage attached to the land under present acquisition. Relevant paragraphs No.23 and 24 of the after no in my mind to conclude that at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act, being residential as well as for commercial purposes. The oral evidence produced by the supported by the site plan Ex.P1, which has been prepared by a licensed draftsmen clearly revels that suit land SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3922 3922-2006 (O&M) & other connected cases is located just abutting the main Jin Road. This fact is admitted even by both the witnesses of the respondents. Even in the site plan Ex.R8 of the respondents, it is clearly shown that suit land is situated abutting Jind Gohana Road. Further, M/s Shiv Rice Mill is located just abutti testified by PW9 Shri Ramdan, who is even a partner in the said mill. New Grain Market of Gohana is only 15 acres a land as is evident from site plan Ex.P1 and which fact has been admitted by RW2 Shri Ajay Kumar Patwari further it may be noted respondents have tried to conceal more the court than to divulge the true fact the court inasmuch as numerous structures/ establishments lying in the vicinity of the s land, have not at all been shown by the respondents in the site plan Ex.R existence thereof was duly admitted by RW2 Shri Ajay Kumar examination. Hospital, Ram Sharanam Ashram, godown, establishment namely Laxmi the office of Mudlana located in between the suit land and the New Grain Market. Just ahead of New Grain Market, towards Gohana there are residential colonies, petrol pumps and M/s Jai B etc. RW1 has rice shellers on Jind Gohana Road, one of which is abutting 2006 (O&M) & other connected cases [8] is located just abutting the main Jind-Gohana Road. This fact is admitted even by both the witnesses of the respondents. Even in the site of the respondents, it is clearly shown that suit land is situated abutting Jind Gohana Road. Further, M/s Shiv Rice Mill is just abutting the suit land as has been testified by PW9 Shri Ramdan, who is even a partner in the said mill. New Grain Market of Gohana is only 15 acres away from the suit land as is evident from site plan Ex.P1 and which fact has been admitted by RW2 Shri Ajay Patwari Halqa. Before proceeding further it may be noted here itself that respondents have tried to conceal more from the court than to divulge the true facts before the court inasmuch as numerous structures/ establishments lying in the vicinity of the suit land, have not at all been shown by the respondents in the site plan Ex.R8, though the existence thereof was duly admitted by RW2 Shri Ajay Kumar Patwari in his cross Further, Satya Nand Eye Hospital, Ram Sharanam Ashram, godown, ment namely Laxmi Fabrics Ltd. and Mudlana Panchayat Samiti are located in between the suit land and the New Grain Market. Just ahead of New Grain Market, towards Gohana there are residential colonies, petrol pumps and M/s Jai Bharat Mills Textiles has admitted the existence of two rice shellers on Jind Gohana Road, one of which is abutting to the suit land and the other Gohana Road. This fact is admitted even by both the witnesses of the respondents. Even in the site of the respondents, it is clearly shown that suit land is situated abutting Jind Gohana Road. Further, M/s Shiv Rice Mill is the suit land as has been testified by PW9 Shri Ramdan, who is even a partner in the said mill. New Grain Market of from the suit land as is evident from site plan Ex.P1 and which fact has been admitted by RW2 Shri Ajay proceeding itself that from before the court inasmuch as numerous structures/ uit land, have not at all been shown by the , though the existence thereof was duly admitted by RW2 cross- Further, Satya Nand Eye Hospital, Ram Sharanam Ashram, godown, Fabrics Ltd. and anchayat Samiti are located in between the suit land and the New Grain Market. Just ahead of New Grain Market, towards Gohana there are residential colonies, xtiles admitted the existence of two rice shellers on Jind Gohana Road, one of to the suit land and the other SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3922 counsel for the respondents so as to dispute or question the findings recorded in favour of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) with respect to the potential of the acquired land, therefore, such findings are to be final between the parties. 10. quantum of market value, it would be appropriate for this Court to first deal with the contention raised on behalf of the respondents about 3922-2006 (O&M) & other connected cases is at a distance of only about 3 acres towards Jind. He further admits that plinth for storage of food grain etc. a 3 to 5 acres from the rent with CONFED petrol pump six acres away from the suit land as admitted by him besides a saw mill. He has also clearly admitted that Gohana City is expanding towards Jind Road. Not only above instances as shall be discussed in the following paragraphs would show that land of the vicinity was being sold prior to the date of the notification under section 4 of the Act in the forms of plots commercial purposes. 24. All the aforesaid evidence leaves no doubt to hold that at the time when suit land was notified for acquisition, it had the potential for being used as residential as well as commercial purpose.” No evidence at all has been referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents so as to dispute or question the findings recorded in favour of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) with respect to the potential of the acquired land, therefore, such findings are to be final between the parties. Before proceeding further towards determination of quantum of market value, it would be appropriate for this Court to first deal with the contention raised on behalf of the respondents about 2006 (O&M) & other connected cases [9] is at a distance of only about 3 acres towards Jind. He further admits that plinth for storage of are located at distance of hardly 3 to 5 acres from the suit land, which are on rent with CONFED and HAFED. There is a petrol pump six acres away from the suit land as admitted by him besides a saw mill. He has also clearly admitted that Gohana City is now expanding towards Jind Road. Not only above, the various sale instances as shall be discussed in the following would show that land of the vicinity was being sold prior to the date of the notification under section 4 of the Act in the lots for residential as well as commercial purposes. All the aforesaid evidence leaves no doubt to hold that at the time when suit land was notified for acquisition, it had the potential for being residential as well as commercial evidence at all has been referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents so as to dispute or question the findings recorded in favour of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) with respect to the potential of the acquired land, therefore, such findings are treated Before proceeding further towards determination of quantum of market value, it would be appropriate for this Court to first deal with the contention raised on behalf of the respondents about is at a distance of only about 3 acres towards Jind. He further admits that plinth for storage of re located at distance of hardly land, which are on There is a petrol pump six acres away from the suit land as admitted by him besides a saw mill. He has now the various sale instances as shall be discussed in the following would show that land of the vicinity was being sold prior to the date of the notification under section 4 of the Act in the residential as well as All the aforesaid evidence leaves no doubt to hold that at the time when suit land was notified for acquisition, it had the potential for being residential as well as commercial evidence at all has been referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents so as to dispute or question the findings recorded in favour of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) with respect to treated Before proceeding further towards determination of quantum of market value, it would be appropriate for this Court to first deal with the contention raised on behalf of the respondents about SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3922 the availability o Village Khandrai being part of the record and under such circumstances, the assessment made by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the adjoining revenue estate is not to be relied upon. pertains to assessment of market value/ compensation against compulsory acquisition of land. Under such circumstances, the rights of the landowners fundamentally flow from Article 300 Constitution of India. Act is to award just and fair compensation to the affected landowners. Based on the judicial determination and pronouncements from time to time by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it can be noticed that the main emphasis laid by the Courts is that the landowners should get the highest sale price which a willing purchaser is ready to part with in favour of a willing seller similar parcel of land. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid, of repetition, it may be noticed here that once the entire purpose and object of the Act is to award just and fair compensation in favour of the landowners, it would be highly unjustified in the given facts and circumstances to ignore the asse Hon’ble Apex Court vide its decision dated 08.11.2017 (CA No.18616 estate of Village Gohana, especially when the acquired parcel of land 3922-2006 (O&M) & other connected cases the availability of sale deeds pertaining to the revenue estate of Village Khandrai being part of the record and under such circumstances, the assessment made by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the adjoining revenue estate is not to be relied upon. It may be noticed here that dispute in the present case pertains to assessment of market value/ compensation against compulsory acquisition of land. Under such circumstances, the rights of the landowners fundamentally flow from Article 300 Constitution of India. Moreover, the entire object and purpose of the Act is to award just and fair compensation to the affected landowners. Based on the judicial determination and pronouncements from time to time by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it can be ticed that the main emphasis laid by the Courts is that the landowners should get the highest sale price which a willing purchaser is ready to part with in favour of a willing seller similar parcel of land. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid, of repetition, it may be noticed here that once the entire purpose and object of the Act is to award just and fair compensation in favour of the landowners, it would be highly unjustified in the given facts and circumstances to ignore the assessment/ determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its decision dated 08.11.2017 (CA No.18616-2017) though the same pertained to the abutting revenue estate of Village Gohana, especially when the acquired parcel of land 2006 (O&M) & other connected cases [10] f sale deeds pertaining to the revenue estate of Village Khandrai being part of the record and under such circumstances, the assessment made by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the adjoining revenue estate is not to be relied upon. d here that dispute in the present case pertains to assessment of market value/ compensation against compulsory acquisition of land. Under such circumstances, the rights of the landowners fundamentally flow from Article 300-A of the Moreover, the entire object and purpose of the Act is to award just and fair compensation to the affected landowners. Based on the judicial determination and pronouncements from time to time by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it can be ticed that the main emphasis laid by the Courts is that the landowners should get the highest sale price which a willing purchaser is ready to part with in favour of a willing seller-vendor for a similar parcel of land. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid, at the cost of repetition, it may be noticed here that once the entire purpose and object of the Act is to award just and fair compensation in favour of the landowners, it would be highly unjustified in the given facts and ssment/ determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its decision dated 08.11.2017 (CA 2017) though the same pertained to the abutting revenue estate of Village Gohana, especially when the acquired parcel of land f sale deeds pertaining to the revenue estate of Village Khandrai being part of the record and under such circumstances, the assessment made by the Hon’ble Apex Court with d here that dispute in the present case pertains to assessment of market value/ compensation against compulsory acquisition of land. Under such circumstances, the rights A of the Moreover, the entire object and purpose of the Act is to award just and fair compensation to the affected landowners. Based on the judicial determination and pronouncements from time to time by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it can be ticed that the main emphasis laid by the Courts is that the landowners should get the highest sale price which a willing vendor for a at the cost of repetition, it may be noticed here that once the entire purpose and object of the Act is to award just and fair compensation in favour of the landowners, it would be highly unjustified in the given facts and ssment/ determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its decision dated 08.11.2017 (CA 2017) though the same pertained to the abutting revenue estate of Village Gohana, especially when the acquired parcel of land SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3922 therein was located in close acres from the acquired land. 11. 11. Gohana which was acquired previously vide notification dated 06.12.1989 and the land parcel under present acquisition da 05.04.2001 are both located on National Highway leading from Gohana- purpose of placing reliance upon the adjudication made by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the abutting and adjoining revenue estate despite there being other direct evidence available on records, reliance can be placed upon the latest exposition of law laid by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Haryana and ors. to 20 thereof being relevant are reproduced hereunder: 3922-2006 (O&M) & other connected cases therein was located in close vicinity at a distance of merely 13 to 14 acres from the acquired land. As a matter of record, the land parcel situated in Village Gohana which was acquired previously vide notification dated 06.12.1989 and the land parcel under present acquisition da 05.04.2001 are both located on National Highway leading from -Sonepat road (previously the State Highway). For the purpose of placing reliance upon the adjudication made by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the abutting and adjoining e estate despite there being other direct evidence available on records, reliance can be placed upon the latest exposition of law laid by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Haryana and ors., reported as 2025 INSC 638 to 20 thereof being relevant are reproduced hereunder: “18. The sole apparent justification for this differentiation appears to be the existence of distinct sale deeds for Kukrola and Fazalwas. In Karigowda (supra), this Court recognized tha sale exemplars from adjacent villages may only be relied upon in the absence of direct evidence. However, in our considered view, a rigid adherence to this principle is unwarranted in the present case. We say so for the following reasons: a) A fundamental principle in land acquisition jurisprudence is that lands with similar locational and developmental potential must be 2006 (O&M) & other connected cases [11] vicinity at a distance of merely 13 to 14 As a matter of record, the land parcel situated in Village Gohana which was acquired previously vide notification dated 06.12.1989 and the land parcel under present acquisition dated 05.04.2001 are both located on National Highway leading from Sonepat road (previously the State Highway). For the purpose of placing reliance upon the adjudication made by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the abutting and adjoining e estate despite there being other direct evidence available on records, reliance can be placed upon the latest exposition of law laid by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Krishan Kumar Vs. State of 2025 INSC 638, and paragraphs 18 to 20 thereof being relevant are reproduced hereunder:- The sole apparent justification for this differentiation appears to be the existence of distinct sale deeds for Kukrola and Fazalwas. In Karigowda (supra), this Court recognized tha sale exemplars from adjacent villages may only be relied upon in the absence of direct evidence. However, in our considered view, a rigid adherence to this principle is unwarranted in the present case. We say so for the following l principle in land acquisition jurisprudence is that lands with similar locational and developmental potential must be vicinity at a distance of merely 13 to 14 As a matter of record, the land parcel situated in Village Gohana which was acquired previously vide notification dated ted 05.04.2001 are both located on National Highway leading from Sonepat road (previously the State Highway). For the purpose of placing reliance upon the adjudication made by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the abutting and adjoining e estate despite there being other direct evidence available on records, reliance can be placed upon the latest exposition of law laid Krishan Kumar Vs. State of paragraphs 18 The sole apparent justification for this differentiation appears to be the existence of distinct sale deeds for Kukrola and Fazalwas. In Karigowda (supra), this Court recognized that sale exemplars from adjacent villages may only be relied upon in the absence of direct evidence. However, in our considered view, a rigid adherence to this principle is unwarranted in the present case. We say so for the following l principle in land acquisition jurisprudence is that lands with similar locational and developmental potential must be SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3922 3922-2006 (O&M) & other connected cases compensated equitably unless clear, objective distinctions justify otherwise. Neither the LAC nor the Reference Court in this case have returned any specific finding that the potential or advantages of the acquired lands in the two villages differ significantly. No cogent evidence or expert report has been placed on record to justify the lower compensation awarded to Kukrola or the higher The ‘leading judgments’ instead provide no factual basis to support this artificial classification between the two sets of landowners. In such an evidentiary vacuum, the High Court ought not to have relied solely on differing sale deeds to assign vastly disparate compensation rates. Arbitrary differentiation in compensation, based on superficial considerations, necessarily violates settled constitutional principles of fairness and equality. b) The High Court should have refrained proceeding on the basis of a singular sale deed to award widely divergent compensation between the two villages. In the absence of corroborative evidence comparable sale transactions, expert valuation reports, or any factual finding i genuine difference in market potential of an isolated transaction to justify such a disparity is per se erroneous. Without further evidence to establish that the lands in Kukrola differ in their developmental potential from those in Fazalwas, the differential compensation lacks a sound logical foundation and cannot be 2006 (O&M) & other connected cases [12] compensated equitably unless clear, objective distinctions justify otherwise. Neither the LAC nor the Reference Court in this case have returned any specific finding that the potential or advantages of the acquired lands in the two villages differ significantly. No cogent evidence or expert report has been placed on record to justify the lower compensation awarded to Kukrola or the higher rate granted to Fazalwas. The ‘leading judgments’ instead provide no factual basis to support this artificial classification between the two sets of landowners. In such an evidentiary vacuum, the High Court ought not to have relied solely on deeds to assign vastly disparate compensation rates. Arbitrary differentiation in compensation, based on superficial considerations, necessarily violates settled constitutional principles of fairness and equality. The High Court should have refrained from proceeding on the basis of a singular sale deed to award widely divergent compensation between the two villages. In the absence of corroborative evidence—such as multiple comparable sale transactions, expert valuation reports, or any factual finding indicating a genuine difference in market potential—the use of an isolated transaction to justify such a disparity is per se erroneous. Without further evidence to establish that the lands in Kukrola differ in their developmental potential from those alwas, the differential compensation lacks a sound logical foundation and cannot be compensated equitably unless clear, objective distinctions justify otherwise. Neither the LAC nor the Reference Court in this case have returned any specific finding that the potential or advantages of the acquired lands in the two villages differ significantly. No cogent evidence or expert report has been placed on record to justify the lower compensation awarded to rate granted to Fazalwas. The ‘leading judgments’ instead provide no factual basis to support this artificial classification between the two sets of landowners. In such an evidentiary vacuum, the High Court ought not to have relied solely on deeds to assign vastly disparate compensation rates. Arbitrary differentiation in compensation, based on superficial considerations, necessarily violates settled constitutional principles of fairness and equality. from proceeding on the basis of a singular sale deed to award widely divergent compensation between the two villages. In the absence of such as multiple comparable sale transactions, expert valuation ndicating a the use of an isolated transaction to justify such a disparity is per se erroneous. Without further evidence to establish that the lands in Kukrola differ in their developmental potential from those alwas, the differential compensation lacks a sound logical foundation and cannot be SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3922 3922-2006 (O&M) & other connected cases sustained. c) Moreover, a glaring inconsistency arises in the present case: while lands abutting NH depth of 5 acres have been awarded markedly different rates of compensation, lands situated beyond this depth have been treated uniformly. What is particularly problematic is that the most homogeneous and comparable category namely, the lands adjacent to NH assessed disparately, whereas the more heterogeneous lands farther from the highway, which ostensibly vary significantly in terms of location and developmental potential, have been treated alike. Such an approach not only appears incongruous but also contrary to the principles of equality and fairness govern the exercise of determining compensation under the 1894 Act. Consistency, therefore, demands the application of a uniform standard across both villages Kukrola and Fazalwas. This is especially true when we consider their relative distance National Capital Region, with Kukrola being closer thereto. d) In any case, we must caution against an excessively positivist approach in matters of land acquisition. It is well understood that the very exercise of assessing compensation is antithetical to rigid formalism. Compensation cannot be assessed in a mechanical or formulaic manner but must be guided by considerations of equality, equity, and justice. 19. It is thus evident that irrespective of whether the 2006 (O&M) & other connected cases [13] Moreover, a glaring inconsistency arises in the present case: while lands abutting NH-8 within a depth of 5 acres have been awarded markedly of compensation, lands situated beyond this depth have been treated uniformly. What is particularly problematic is that the most homogeneous and comparable category— namely, the lands adjacent to NH-8—have been assessed disparately, whereas the more eneous lands farther from the highway, which ostensibly vary significantly in terms of location and developmental potential, have been treated alike. Such an approach not only appears incongruous but also contrary to the principles of equality and fairness that must govern the exercise of determining compensation under the 1894 Act. Consistency, therefore, demands the application of a uniform standard across both villages Kukrola and Fazalwas. This is especially true when we consider their relative distances from the National Capital Region, with Kukrola being In any case, we must caution against an excessively positivist approach in matters of land acquisition. It is well understood that the very exercise of assessing compensation is ithetical to rigid formalism. Compensation cannot be assessed in a mechanical or formulaic manner but must be guided by considerations of equality, equity, and justice. It is thus evident that irrespective of whether the Moreover, a glaring inconsistency arises in the 8 within a depth of 5 acres have been awarded markedly of compensation, lands situated beyond this depth have been treated uniformly. What is particularly problematic is that the most — have been assessed disparately, whereas the more eneous lands farther from the highway, which ostensibly vary significantly in terms of location and developmental potential, have been treated alike. Such an approach not only appears incongruous but also contrary to the that must govern the exercise of determining compensation under the 1894 Act. Consistency, therefore, demands the application of a uniform standard across both villages Kukrola and Fazalwas. This is especially true when we s from the National Capital Region, with Kukrola being In any case, we must caution against an excessively positivist approach in matters of land acquisition. It is well understood that the very exercise of assessing compensation is ithetical to rigid formalism. Compensation cannot be assessed in a mechanical or formulaic manner but must be guided by considerations of It is thus evident that irrespective of whether the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3922 12. in the submissions made on behalf of respondents so as to ignore the determination the Hon’ble Apex respect to the adjoining revenue estate of Village Gohana the reason that the sale instance estate of Village Khand 13. time gap of more than 11 years between the two notifications i.e. from 06.12.1989 to 05.04.2001, a suitable appreciation needs to be 3922-2006 (O&M) & other connected cases sale deed relied upon pertains Fazalwas, the same set of exemplars must be applied uniformly across both villages. Artificial boundaries created for administrative convenience cannot be allowed to obstruct the application of the fundamental principle of fairness. 20. Consequently, we find no justification for the disparity in compensation for lands from both villages situated in the inner belt. The High Court itself has offered no factual finding to support the conclusion that lands abutting NH must be valued Fazalwas. Accordingly, we hold that the differential compensation is unsustainable and must be set aside. The quantum of compensation across both villages should remain at par.” In view of the aforesaid discussion, no me in the submissions made on behalf of respondents so as to ignore the determination of the market value (Rs.300/ the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjee respect to the adjoining revenue estate of Village Gohana the reason that the sale instances pertaining to the same revenue estate of Village Khandrai, District Sonepat were available on record. Having recorded the aforesaid, since th time gap of more than 11 years between the two notifications i.e. from 06.12.1989 to 05.04.2001, a suitable appreciation needs to be 2006 (O&M) & other connected cases [14] sale deed relied upon pertains to Kukrola or Fazalwas, the same set of exemplars must be applied uniformly across both villages. Artificial boundaries created for administrative convenience cannot be allowed to obstruct the application of the fundamental principle of sequently, we find no justification for the disparity in compensation for lands from both villages situated in the inner belt. The High Court itself has offered no factual finding to support the conclusion that lands abutting NH-8 in Kukrola must be valued differently from those in Fazalwas. Accordingly, we hold that the differential compensation is unsustainable and must be set aside. The quantum of compensation across both villages should In view of the aforesaid discussion, no merit can be found in the submissions made on behalf of respondents so as to ignore the of the market value (Rs.300/- per sq. yards) made by eev Kumar’s case (supra) with respect to the adjoining revenue estate of Village Gohana merely for pertaining to the same revenue i, District Sonepat were available on record. Having recorded the aforesaid, since there has been a time gap of more than 11 years between the two notifications i.e. from 06.12.1989 to 05.04.2001, a suitable appreciation needs to be to Kukrola or Fazalwas, the same set of exemplars must be applied uniformly across both villages. Artificial boundaries created for administrative convenience cannot be allowed to obstruct the application of the fundamental principle of sequently, we find no justification for the disparity in compensation for lands from both villages situated in the inner belt. The High Court itself has offered no factual finding to support the 8 in Kukrola differently from those in Fazalwas. Accordingly, we hold that the differential compensation is unsustainable and must be set aside. The quantum of compensation across both villages should rit can be found in the submissions made on behalf of respondents so as to ignore the made by with merely for pertaining to the same revenue i, District Sonepat were available on record. ere has been a time gap of more than 11 years between the two notifications i.e. from 06.12.1989 to 05.04.2001, a suitable appreciation needs to be SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3922 applied. Although, in the decisions relied upon by learned counsel in R. Manohara Murthy’s Kalmegh’s been granted in favour of the landowners, however, taking into account the fact that the first acquisition commenced 11 years back vide notification dated 06.12.1989 issued un pertaining to the adjoining revenue estate of Village Gohana, though located in the close proximity, it may be appropriate to award appreciation of 6% per annum for the long time gap between the two notifications from 06.12.1989 to value comes to Rs.498/ 14. deed Ex.P2 dated 23.05.2001, area measuring 44.27 sq. yards was sold for Rs.30,000/ sale deed 55.45 sq. y acquired land, the sale was @ Rs.541/ disputed that both the sale instances i.e. Ex.P2 and Annexure pertained to the same revenue estate of Village Khand Gohana Annexure price thereunder ranged from Rs.541 considering that 3922-2006 (O&M) & other connected cases applied. Although, in the decisions relied upon by learned counsel in R. Manohara Murthy’s case (supra) and Kalmegh’s case (supra), annual appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granted in favour of the landowners, however, taking into account the fact that the first acquisition commenced 11 years back vide notification dated 06.12.1989 issued un pertaining to the adjoining revenue estate of Village Gohana, though located in the close proximity, it may be appropriate to award appreciation of 6% per annum for the long time gap between the two notifications from 06.12.1989 to 05.04.2001, value comes to Rs.498/- per sq. yard. Moreover, it may also be noticed here that from the sale deed Ex.P2 dated 23.05.2001, area measuring 44.27 sq. yards was sold for Rs.30,000/- i.e. @ Rs.32,79,873/ sale deed Annexure-A2 dated 01.03.2001, for the land measuring 55.45 sq. yards which was located at a distance of 3 to 4 acres of acquired land, the sale was @ Rs.541/ disputed that both the sale instances i.e. Ex.P2 and Annexure pertained to the same revenue estate of Village Khand District Sonepat. Though the sale instances Ex.P2 and Annexure-A2 pertained to small parcels of land, however, the sale price thereunder ranged from Rs.541 considering that the sale instance fetching 2006 (O&M) & other connected cases [15] applied. Although, in the decisions relied upon by learned counsel in case (supra) and Manik Panjabrao case (supra), annual appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granted in favour of the landowners, however, taking into account the fact that the first acquisition commenced 11 years back vide notification dated 06.12.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Act pertaining to the adjoining revenue estate of Village Gohana, though located in the close proximity, it may be appropriate to award appreciation of 6% per annum for the long time gap between the two 05.04.2001, therefore, the market , it may also be noticed here that from the sale deed Ex.P2 dated 23.05.2001, area measuring 44.27 sq. yards was i.e. @ Rs.32,79,873/- per acre and further vide A2 dated 01.03.2001, for the land measuring ards which was located at a distance of 3 to 4 acres of acquired land, the sale was @ Rs.541/- per sq. yard. It was not disputed that both the sale instances i.e. Ex.P2 and Annexure- pertained to the same revenue estate of Village Khandrai, Tehsil District Sonepat. Though the sale instances Ex.P2 and A2 pertained to small parcels of land, however, the sale price thereunder ranged from Rs.541/- to Rs.677/- per sq. yard and the sale instance fetching the highest of the sale applied. Although, in the decisions relied upon by learned counsel in Manik Panjabrao case (supra), annual appreciation @ 10% per annum has been granted in favour of the landowners, however, taking into account the fact that the first acquisition commenced 11 years back der Section 4 of the Act pertaining to the adjoining revenue estate of Village Gohana, though located in the close proximity, it may be appropriate to award appreciation of 6% per annum for the long time gap between the two the market , it may also be noticed here that from the sale deed Ex.P2 dated 23.05.2001, area measuring 44.27 sq. yards was per acre and further vide A2 dated 01.03.2001, for the land measuring ards which was located at a distance of 3 to 4 acres of not -A2 i, Tehsil District Sonepat. Though the sale instances Ex.P2 and A2 pertained to small parcels of land, however, the sale per sq. yard and highest of the sale SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3922 consideration was of 25% smallness of area involved in such sale instance, the value per sq. yard would come to Rs.50 determined by the Hon’ble Apex Court application of two notifications. produced by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) as Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 and Ex.P9 to Ex.P12; relate to small parcels of land located in the same vicinity of the acquired land which thus clearly reflects that the parcels in and around acquisition carried location and potential for being used development cut needs to be applied in the present case. 15. filed by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) are allowed thereby granting them the benefit of all other statutory benefits as provided under the Act, whereas the appeals filed at the instance of dismissed. 16. unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross 3922-2006 (O&M) & other connected cases consideration was to be taken into account and upon the sale price of Rs.67 smallness of area involved in such sale instance, the value per sq. yard would come to Rs.507/- (approx.) determined by placing reliance upon the previous adjudication by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjee application of appreciation thereupon for the time gap between the two notifications. It may also be noticed here that all the sale instances produced by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) as Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 and Ex.P9 to Ex.P12; relate to small parcels of land located in the same vicinity of the acquired land which thus clearly reflects that the parcels in and around acquisition carried location and potential for being used for commercial and residential purposes development cut needs to be applied in the present case. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the appeals filed by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) are allowed thereby granting them the benefit of market value @ Rs.498/ all other statutory benefits as provided under the Act, whereas the appeals filed at the instance of dismissed. Further wherever, the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross 2006 (O&M) & other connected cases [16] taken into account and further imposing a cut upon the sale price of Rs.677/- per sq. yard towards smallness of area involved in such sale instance, the value per sq. (approx.) which was almost the same as upon the previous adjudication made eev Kumar’s case (supra), after appreciation thereupon for the time gap between the It may also be noticed here that all the sale instances produced by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) as Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 and Ex.P9 to Ex.P12; relate to small parcels of land located in the same vicinity of the acquired land which thus clearly reflects that the land parcels in and around acquisition carried location and potential for commercial and residential purposes and thus, no development cut needs to be applied in the present case. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the appeals filed by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) are allowed thereby granting market value @ Rs.498/- per sq. yards along with all other statutory benefits as provided under the Act, whereas the appeals filed at the instance of respondent-State are hereby wherever, the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross-objection(s) after filing further imposing a cut per sq. yard towards smallness of area involved in such sale instance, the value per sq. e same as made after appreciation thereupon for the time gap between the It may also be noticed here that all the sale instances produced by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) as Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 and Ex.P9 to Ex.P12; relate to small parcels of land located in the same land parcels in and around acquisition carried location and potential for and thus, no In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the appeals filed by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) are allowed thereby granting per sq. yards along with all other statutory benefits as provided under the Act, whereas the are hereby wherever, the landowner(s) has/have objection(s) after filing SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3922 thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present d appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. 17. disposed of. 27.01.2026 sanjay Sr. No. 1. 2. 3 4 5. 27.01.2026 sanjay 3922-2006 (O&M) & other connected cases thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present d appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27.01.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Sr. No. Case No. 1. RFA-3923-2006 (O&M) 2. RFA-3924-2006 (O&M) 3. RFA-4144-2006 (O&M) 4. RFA-4145-2006 (O&M) 5. RFA-4146-2006 (O&M) 27.01.2026 2006 (O&M) & other connected cases [17] 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. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No 2006 (O&M) 2006 (O&M) 2006 (O&M) 2006 (O&M) 2006 (O&M) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at ecision by moving Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.03 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document