119 (17 case IN TH Hira Singh State of Har CORAM: Present: HARKESH appeals be 3463, 3736 2009; 368 & of common [2] seeking fur land. [3] appeal(s) 1894 (for s 30.04.2009 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RFA and Date ingh Versus of Haryana and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR Mr. Deepak Saini, Advocate w Ms. Surbhi Rana, Advocate an Ms. Vamika Johar, Advocate; Mr. Kewal Krishan, Advocate f Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate; for the appellant(s)-landowner( Mr. Abhinash Jain, Deputy Adv for the respondent(s)-State of H **** KESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose off bearing RFA Nos. 3458 (lead c , 3736, 3837, 3838, 3840, 3939, 39 ; 368 & 548 of 2010; and 7656 of 20 mon acquisition / award. In all appeals, the appe ng further enhancement of compe The appellant(s)-landowner( preferred under Section 54 of (for short “1894 Act”), seek modif .2009 passed by the learned A UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH RFA No. 3458 of 2009 (O&M) and “16” connected cases Date of Decision: 13.05.2026 ...Appellant ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA ate with ate and cate; cate for ocate; wner(s). ty Advocate General, Haryana te of Haryana. off the present seventeen (17) lead case), 3460, 3461, 3462, 9, 3940, 3955, 5104 & 5106 of 2011; as the same arise out appellant(s)-landowner(s) are compensation for the acquired wner(s), by way of present 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, modification of the award dated ed Additional District Judge, DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.20 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
     -2-      Kurukshetra (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”), for enhancement of compensation amount. FACTS [4] The relevant date(s) / particulars of the acquisitions are as under:- Particulars Relevant date / description Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 24.07.2003 Final declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 22.07.2004 Village(s) (i) Sunderpur (ii) Darra Kalan; and (iii) Palwal Total extent acquired (i) 81.04 acres (Village Sunderpur) (ii) 3.51 acres (Village Darra Kalan) (iii) 5.36 acres (Village Palwal) Had Bast No. (i) 375 (Village Sunderpur) (ii) 379 (Village Darra Kalan) (iii) 373 (Village Palwal) Tehsil & District Thanesar & Kurukshetra Public Purpose Development and utilization of land as Residential, Commercial, Transport and Communicational Zone for Sectors 9 and 14 in the Urban Estate, Kurukshetra. Land Acquisition Collector’s Award No. & Date 3 dated 21.07.2006 (Village Sunderpur) 4 dated 21.07.2006 (Village Darra Kalan) 5 dated 21.07.2006 (Village Palwal) Land Acquisition Collector’s Award (i) Village Sunderpur Rs. 7.5 lakhs per acre for ‘A’ class land; Rs. 5 lakhs per acre for other land i.e. Chahi; Rs 56,42,270/- as compensation for building /structures; and Rs. 12,71,477/- as compensation for trees alongwith other statutory benefits under the 1894 Act. (ii) Village Darra Kalan Rs. 5 lakhs per acre for Chahi land alongwith other statutory benefits under the 1894 Act. (iii) Village Palwal Rs. 5 lakhs per acre for Chahi and Gair Mumkin land; and Rs. 4,563/- as compensation for trees alongwith other statutory benefits under the 1894 Act. DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.20 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
     -3-      [5] Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award dated 30.04.2009 passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeal(s) have been preferred at the instance of appellant(s)-landowner(s). CONTENTION(S): ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S)-LANDOWNER(S) [6] Impugning the aforesaid award dated 30.04.2009, learned counsel(s) for the appellant(s)-landowner(s) submit(s) that the learned Reference Court went wrong having failed to rely upon the sale instances produced by the landowner(s) in the form of Exhibit P-11 to P-18 which mainly pertained to the revenue estate of Village Sunderpur forming part of the acquired land. [6.1] Learned counsel(s) for the appellant(s)-landowner(s) further contend(s) that the learned Reference Court in the alternate was required to rely upon the decision dated 26.04.2006 (Exhibit Reference Court’s Award Date 30.04.2009 Reference Court’s Award Reference(s) partly accepted; Rs. 7.5 lakhs per acre for K.D.B. Road upto the depth of two acres and Rs. 5 lakhs per acre for other land treating the land as agriculture land and further categorizing the same as “A Class land B Class land respectively for the acquired land alongwith other statutory benefits provided under the 1894 Act; besides the landowners shall be paid annuity for 33 years over and above the usual land compensation of Rs. 7.5 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs per acre and the amount of annuity will be Rs. 15,000/- per acre per annum and shall be increased by fixed sum of Rs. 500/- per year. DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.20 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
     -4-      P-8) passed in RFA No. 2384 of 1996, titled “Bhura Singh Versus State of Haryana and another”, whereby this Court assessed the market value at the rate of Rs. 7,26,000/- per acre for the revenue estate(s) of Villages Devi Das Pura, Ratgal, Sunderpur and Palwal in District Kurukshetra. Pertinently, in Bhura Singh’s case (supra), the land was acquired vide notifications dated 21.04.1992 & 08.03.1993 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the 1894 Act respectively, for the public purpose, namely, “for the development and utilization of land for residential and commercial purpose for carving out Sector-8, Kurukshetra”. While referring to the site plan (Exhibit P-1), learned counsel(s) for the appellant(s) submit(s) that the land parcel forming part of the revenue estate of Village Sunderpur which was previously acquired vide notification dated 21.04.1992 is just abutting and adjoining the land parcel under the present acquisition and thus, an appreciation at the rate of 12% per annum was required to be granted in favour of the appellant(s)-landowner(s) over and above the market value assessed by this Court in Bhura Singh’s case (supra) for the time gap between the previous notification dated 21.04.1992 till the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case(s) at hand, i.e. 24.07.2003. [6.2] Learned counsel(s) for the appellant(s) also point(s) out that the entire acquisition carried out from the three revenue estate(s) of Village(s) Sunderpur, Darra Kalan and Palwal was a compact block and the land parcel acquired from all the three revenue estate(s) was abutting the already existing developed DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.20 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
     -5-      Sector-8, Kurukshetra. Learned counsel(s) thus submit(s) that for all the three revenue estate(s), one uniform market value was to be awarded in favour of the appellant(s)-landowner(s). No other argument has been addressed on behalf of the appellant(s)-landowner(s). ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT(S)-STATE OF HARYANA [7] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent(s)-State of Haryana submits that the sale deeds produced by the appellant(s)-landowner(s) were mainly relating to the revenue estate of Village Sunderpur, which thus could not be relied upon for the purpose of determination of the market value of the land parcel acquired from the two other revenue estates of Villages Darra Kalan and Palwal. He also points out that the learned Reference Court failed to take into account the sale deeds produced by the respondents, as per which, the market price per acre was approximately Rs. 7,00,000/-. [7.1] Learned State Counsel further contends that the impugned award(s) passed by the learned Reference Court being based on proper appreciation of evidence and the pleadings available on record, call(s) for no interference; as such, no modification therein was required and thus, the present appeals are liable to be dismissed. DISCUSSION AND REASONING [8] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the paper-book / records, I find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant(s)-landowner(s). DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.20 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
     -6-      VILLAGE–SUNDERPUR [9] Before proceeding in the matter, it may be relevant to take note of the sale exemplars produced by both the parties in order to support their respective claim:- (i) Sale-deeds produced by the appellant(s)- landowner(s):- Sr. No. Exhibit Sale Deed No. Date Land Area (Kanal- Marla) Total Sale Consideration (in Rs.) Price Per Acre (in Rs.) Revenue Estate / Village Rect. No. 1 P-11 1863/1 07.09.1992 1K-19M 1,76,719/- 7,25,071/- Sunderpur 4 2 P-12 2022/1 05.10.1992 42K-2M 32,89,062/- 6,26,488/- Sunderpur 4 3 P-13 2426/1 24.08.1999 1K-4M 3,63,000/- 24,20,000/- Sunderpur 10 4 P-14 2427/1 24.08.1999 0K-12M 1,81,500/- 24,20,000/- Sunderpur 10 5 P-15 2428/1 24.08.1999 0K-12M 1,81,500/- 24,20,000/- Sunderpur 10 6 P-16 7584/1 02.11.2006 12K-2M 45,37,500/- 30,00,000/- Sunderpur -- 7 P-17 818/1 23.11.2006 21K- 10½ M 80,71,875/- 30,00,000/- Sunderpur -- 8 P-18 1268/1 24.05.2007 16K-0M 21,22,14,618/- 10,61,07,309/- Ratgal -- (ii) Sale-deeds produced by the respondent(s)-State of Haryana:- Sr. No. Exhibit Sale Deed No. Date of sale deed Land Area (Kanal- Marla) Total Sale Consideration (Rs.) Price Per Acre (in Rs.) Revenue Estate/ Village 1 R-1 46 02.04.2004 3K-10M 3,06,300/- 10,00,000/- Sunderpur 2 R-2 3140/1 17.06.2005 -- 2,00,000/- -- Sunderpur 3 R-3 3624 04.06.2005 1K-4M 1,13,000/- 7,53,333/- Sunderpur 4 R-4 3729 21.07.2004 4K-0M 3,50,000/- 10,00,000/- Sunderpur 5 R-5 5563 04.10.2004 1K-6M 1,13,750/- 7,00,000/- Sunderpur 6 R-6 4669 22.08.2005 4K-0M 3,75,000/- 7,50,000/- Sunderpur 7 R-7 5228 20.09.2004 2K-0M 1,75,000/- 7,00,000/- Sunderpur 8 R-8 7207 06.12.2004 2K-10M 1,50,750/- 7,00,000/- Sunderpur DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.20 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
     -7-      9 R-9 7208 06.12.2004 6K-7M 5,00,000/- 7,00,000/- Sunderpur 10 R-10 7209 06.12.2004 5K-3M 3,00,000/- 7,00,000/- Sunderpur 11 R-11 7210 06.12.2004 3K-11M 2,50,000/- 7,00,000/- Sunderpur 12 R-12 5227 20.09.2004 7K-0M 6,12,500/- 7,00,000/- Sunderpur [9.1] To start with the sale exemplars of respondents in the form of Exhibits R-1 to R-12, it may be noticed here that though the same were of the revenue estate of Village Sunderpur, but pertain to period subsequent to notification dated 24.07.2003 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case(s) at hand; as such, need not be relied upon, and thus were rightly discarded. [9.2] Moreover, the sale deeds Exhibits P-16 to P-18 produced by the appellant(s)-landowner(s) were also post notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case(s) at hand, therefore, it was not justified to place reliance upon the same. [9.3] Further, out of remaining, the two sale instances Exhibits P-11 & P-12 produced by the appellant(s)-landowner(s) relate to the year 1992, whereas the three sale instances Exhibits P-13 to P-15 pertained to the year 1999, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 in the case(s) at hand was issued on 24.07.2003. In such circumstances, it was appropriate to rely upon the sale instances Exhibits P-13 to P-15 being in close temporal proximity, with the base price per acre as Rs. 24,20,000/-. Moreover, all the aforementioned sale deeds which pertained to land parcels forming part of Rectangle No. 10, Village Sunderpur, District Kurukshetra are apparently located in close proximity to the DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.20 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
     -8-      acquired land, as it can be traced out from the records that certain land parcels comprised in Rectangle No. 10 of the revenue estate of Village Sunderpur were also under the present acquisition proceedings. [10] From the perusal of site plan / Exhibit P-1, it is also evident that the entire acquired land parcel in the case(s) at hand, which formed part of the three revenue estate(s) of Villages Sunderpur, Darra Kalan, Palwal abuts an already developed residential and commercial Sector-8, Kurukshetra regarding which the acquisition commenced way-back in the year 1992 vide notification dated 21.04.1992 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. Thus, in the given circumstances, considering the gap of around 11 years between the two notifications, there would have been a deemed appreciation towards the potential advantage attached to the acquired land in the case(s) at hand being adjacent to Sector-8, Kurukshetra. Accordingly, an appreciation at the rate of 12% needs to be applied over the base price derived from the sale instance dated 24.08.1999 (Exhibit P-13), vide which, land measuring 1 kanal 4 marla was sold for Rs. 3,63,000/- with the base price per acre of Rs.24,20,000/-. [11] Further, taking into account the fact that the total acquisition from the revenue estate of Village Sunderpur is 81.04 acres, whereas the land parcel forming part of sale instance dated 24.08.1999 (Exhibit P-13) has only been 01 kanal and 04 marla, a cut of 25% needs to be applied towards smallness of area involved in the sale exemplar / Exhibit P-13. DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.20 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
     -9-      [12] Moreover, taking into account the fact that the acquisition in the present case(s) was carried out for the public purpose, namely “for development and utilization of land as residential, commercial, Transport and Communicational Zone for Sectors 9 & 14 in the Urban Estate, Kurkshetra”, the respondent(s)- State definitely suffered loss of land as well as cost towards providing of basic/additional infrastructural amenities; therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, an additional cut of 30% towards development cost needs to be applied. [13] Accordingly, the market value of the land under present acquisition with regard to Village Sunderpur is re-assessed at the rate of Rs. 16,00,000/- per acre, as per calculation below:- Description Amount per acre (in Rs.) Base price of the land (as per sale deed Exhibit P-13) 24,20,000.00 Add: Appreciation 12% per annum Rs. 24,20,000 x 12/100 x 47 / 12) (from 24.08.1999 to 24.07.2003 = 47 months) 11,37,400.00 35,57,400.00 Less: 55% cut towards smallness of area and development (25% + 30% respectively) (Rs. 35,57,400 x 55/100) 19,56,570.00 16,00,830.00 Net Compensation 16,00,000.00 (Round Off) [14] Simultaneously, in the case(s) at hand, the reliance is being placed upon the determination by this Court vide decision dated 26.04.2006 (Exhibit P-8) passed in case of Bhura Singh (supra) as per which the land forming part of four revenue estate of Villages Devi Das Pura, Ratgal, Sunderpur and Palwal, District Kurukshetra (Villages Sunderpur and Palwal involved in the DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.20 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
     -10-      present acquisition) was acquired vide notification dated 21.04.1992 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, and the market value was assessed at the rate of Rs. 7,26,000/- per acre. 7,26,000/- per acre. A perusal of the record shows that the said acquisition was carried out for the public purpose, namely, “for the development and utilization of land for residential and commercial purpose for carving out Sector-8, Kurukshetra”. As already stated hereinabove, in view of the site plan (Exhibit P-1), the land parcel previously acquired vide notification dated 21.04.1992 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act is abutting the present acquired land. In such circumstances, in case an appreciation of 10% for the long time gap between the previous notification dated 21.04.1992 till the date of notification dated 24.07.2003 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case(s) at hand (i.e. 11 years and 3 months = Total 135 months) is applied over the market value of Rs. 7,26,000/- as assessed in case of Bhura Singh (supra), the price of the land per acre comes to Rs.15,42,750/- which does not differ significantly from the assessment made by this Court on the basis of sale deeds produced by the landowners. In such circumstances, the appellant(s)-landowner(s) whose land forming part of the revenue estate of Village Sunderpur had been acquired, are held entitled for market value at the rate of Rs. 16,00,000/- per acre with respect to the present acquisition proceedings. VILLAGE(S)–PALWAL & DARRA KALAN [15] A perusal of the record shows that in the present acquisition, 5.36 acres of land was acquired from the revenue DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.20 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
     -11-      estate of Village Palwal, whereas 3.51 acres of the acquired land formed part of the revenue estate of Village Darra Kalan and as per the site plan (Exhibit P-1), which was proved on record, it becomes evident and clear that the land parcel forming part of three revenue estate(s) of Villages Palwal, Sunderpur and Darra Kalan formed one compact unit, which was abutting the already developed Sector-8, Kurukshetra. Besides it, the acquired land parcel from all the three revenue estate(s) are located in close proximity to Umri road which further leads to grand trunk road (Delhi-Ambala Section). [16] In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be fair and justify to award the benefit of similar market value at the rate of Rs. 16,00,000/- per acre in favour of the appellant(s)- landowner(s) pertaining to the present acquisition proceedings, forming part of the revenue estate(s) of Villages Palwal and Darra Kalan. DECISION [17] In view of the aforesaid discussion, impugned award dated 30.04.2009 passed by the learned Reference Court is modified and the respondent(s)-landowner(s) are held entitled for award of market value at the rate of Rs. 16,00,000/- per acre in respect of Villages Sunderpur, Palwal and Darra Kalan, Tehsil Thansear, District Kurukshetra. The landowner(s) are also awarded consequential / statutory benefits and interest as provided in the 1894 Act (as amended up-to-date), especially the interest on solatium as well. DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.20 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
     -12-      [18] Also, wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately died in the appeal(s) / cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal representatives 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. [19] All the appeals are disposed off accordingly. [20] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off.
May 13, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE

    
    DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.20 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document