RFA-254 114 (4 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Dera Baba Ram Chand Gir Gosai State of CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Appeals 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 b from RFA No. 2. laid to the decision dated Additional District Judge 254-2007 (O&M) & other connected cases cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA XOBJR Date of Decision: Dera Baba Ram Chand Gir Gosai Versus State of Haryana and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Ashok Giri, Advocate for the appellant(s)/landowner Mr.Abhinash Jain, DAG Haryana. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Vide this common order, a bunch of and well as one cross-objection 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 b RFA No.254-2007. By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 26.08.2006 Additional District Judge-II, Jind, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the (O&M) & other connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-254-2007 (O&M) & OBJR-6-CI-2012 Date of Decision: 24.02.2026 …….Appellant Versus ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA /landowner(s). Abhinash Jain, DAG Haryana. Vide this common order, a bunch of 04 Regular First objection, 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 way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been 26.08.2006 passed by the learned hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regular First , details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts eing taken way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been rned hereinafter referred to as ‘the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.26 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-254 Reference Court’). 3. revenue estate of Village acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated 26.03.2000 (published on 09.05.2000) Sections for public purpose, namely, Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) assessed market value in respect of the acquired land Barani land along with Rs.16,000/ other statutory benefits under the Act. 4. landowner which cam decision dated 5. Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellant other landowners. 6. through the paper made on behalf of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s). 7. 254-2007 (O&M) & other connected cases Reference Court’). Briefly stating, 4.71 acres of land revenue estate of Village Kalsola, Teshil Julana, District Jind, acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated .2000 (published on 09.05.2000) Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, r public purpose, namely, for construction of ‘ Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) assessed market value in respect of the acquired land Barani land along with Rs.16,000/- other statutory benefits under the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant landowner(s) filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be dismissed by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 26.08.2006. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellant(s)/ landowner(s), whereas, other landowners. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I do not find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s). The only sale instance relied upon by the land (O&M) & other connected cases [2] 4.71 acres of land, situated within the Kalsola, Teshil Julana, District Jind, was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated .2000 (published on 09.05.2000) and 31.08.2000, issued under 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, construction of ‘Shadipur Minor’. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.85,000/- per acre for for both tubewells, besides other statutory benefits under the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant(s) reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, by the learned Reference Court vide Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of , XOBJR-6-CI-2012 was filed by I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I do not find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s). The only sale instance relied upon by the landowner(s) is , situated within the was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated , issued under 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) assessed market cre for , besides all (s)/ reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, by the learned Reference Court vide Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of filed by I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book. I do not find substance in the submissions owner(s) is SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.26 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-254 dated 09.12.2003 (Ex.P1) vide which 12 kanals of land in the same revenue estate of Village Karsola was sold for a sum of Rs.7 lakhs with base price per acre of Rs.4,66,666/ under Section 4 of the Act in the case 26.03.2000. In such circumstances, the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 09.12.2003 which was executed after more than 3 years and 9 months of the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present doctrine of de land viz-a was not proved on record. either to establish tha land parcel forming part of sale instance Ex.P1. 8. that the land alienated therein was part of rect. No. 67; whereas the acquired land was located far 169 of Village material evidence available on record so as to substantiate the claim made by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) towards and potential reasoned award passed by the learned Reference Court. 9. the instance of appellants/ landowners are hereby 254-2007 (O&M) & other connected cases dated 09.12.2003 (Ex.P1) vide which 12 kanals of land in the same revenue estate of Village Karsola was sold for a sum of Rs.7 lakhs with base price per acre of Rs.4,66,666/ under Section 4 of the Act in the case 26.03.2000. In such circumstances, the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 09.12.2003 which was executed after more than 3 years and 9 months of the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in present case(s), was not be relied u doctrine of de-escalation especially when the location of the acquired a-viz the land parcel forming part of the sale instance Ex.P1 proved on record. No evidence to establish that the acquired land was in close proximity to the land parcel forming part of sale instance Ex.P1. Moreover, a perusal of the sale instance Ex.P1 shows that the land alienated therein was part of rect. No. 67; whereas the acquired land was located far away in rect. Nos. 147 to 150; 168 and 169 of Village Karsola. In such circumstances, material evidence available on record so as to substantiate the claim made by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) towards and potential, no illegality or perversity can be found with the well reasoned award passed by the learned Reference Court. Consequently, all the appeals as well as XOBJR filed at the instance of appellants/ landowners are hereby (O&M) & other connected cases [3] dated 09.12.2003 (Ex.P1) vide which 12 kanals of land in the same revenue estate of Village Karsola was sold for a sum of Rs.7 lakhs with base price per acre of Rs.4,66,666/-, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case(s) in hand was issued on 26.03.2000. In such circumstances, the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 09.12.2003 which was executed after more than 3 years and 9 months of the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in not be relied upon, even by applying the escalation especially when the location of the acquired the land parcel forming part of the sale instance Ex.P1 o evidence has been adduced on record t the acquired land was in close proximity to the land parcel forming part of sale instance Ex.P1. a perusal of the sale instance Ex.P1 shows that the land alienated therein was part of rect. No. 67; whereas the away in rect. Nos. 147 to 150; 168 and . In such circumstances, in absence of any material evidence available on record so as to substantiate the claim made by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) towards similarity of nature no illegality or perversity can be found with the well reasoned award passed by the learned Reference Court. Consequently, all the appeals as well as XOBJR filed at the instance of appellants/ landowners are hereby dismissed. dated 09.12.2003 (Ex.P1) vide which 12 kanals of land in the same revenue estate of Village Karsola was sold for a sum of Rs.7 lakhs otification in hand was issued on 26.03.2000. In such circumstances, the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 09.12.2003 which was executed after more than 3 years and 9 months of the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in pon, even by applying the escalation especially when the location of the acquired the land parcel forming part of the sale instance Ex.P1 has been adduced on record t the acquired land was in close proximity to the a perusal of the sale instance Ex.P1 shows that the land alienated therein was part of rect. No. 67; whereas the away in rect. Nos. 147 to 150; 168 and in absence of any material evidence available on record so as to substantiate the claim similarity of nature no illegality or perversity can be found with the well- Consequently, all the appeals as well as XOBJR filed at SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.26 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-254 10. disposed of. 24.02.2026 sanjay Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 24.02.2026 sanjay 254-2007 (O&M) & other connected cases Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Sr. No. Case No. 1. RFA-255-2007 (O&M) 2. RFA-256-2007 (O&M) 3. RFA-257-2007 (O&M) .2026 (O&M) & other connected cases [4] application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No 2007 (O&M) 2007 (O&M) 2007 (O&M) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.26 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document