RFA-2968 136 (22 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Ram Mehar and others State of CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken 2. laid to the decision dated Additional District Judge, enhancement of the compensation. 3. 2968-2010 (O&M) & other connected cases cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: Ram Mehar and others Versus State of Haryana and anr. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.S.K. Verma, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the appellants/landowners Mr.Abhinash Jain, DAG Haryana. -.- 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 11.01.2010 Additional District Judge, Jind-cum-Reference Court, seeking further enhancement of the compensation. Briefly stating, some land, situated within the revenue (O&M) & other connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-2968-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.01.2026 …….Appellants Versus ..….Respondents JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA S.K. Verma, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate /landowners. Abhinash Jain, DAG Haryana. Vide this common order, a bunch of 22 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.2968-2010. way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been 11.01.2010 passed by the learned Reference Court, seeking further land, situated within the revenue Regular First Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For . way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been passed by the learned Reference Court, seeking further land, situated within the revenue SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.20 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2968 estate of Village acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated 21.06.2006 and 04.12.2006 Land Acquisition purpose i.e. for Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs. acre, besides to the tune of Rs.16829/ with all other statutory benefits under the Act. 4. landowners filed which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated acquired land @ Rs. benefits under the Act. 5. Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners as well as respondent 6. for the appellants/ landowners submit Court went wrong having ignored the agreement to sell dated 29.12.2006 (Ex.P1) vide which 4K 2968-2010 (O&M) & other connected cases estate of Villages Brah Khurd and Radhana acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated 21.06.2006 and 04.12.2006, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for “Sewerage Treatment Plant Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs. acre, besides compensation for building structures and tubewell etc. to the tune of Rs.16829/- and for trees to the tune of Rs.24535 other statutory benefits under the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appella landowners filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 11.01.2010 while determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.7,50,000/- per acre besides al benefits under the Act. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners as well as respondent Impugning the aforementioned award, le for the appellants/ landowners submit Court went wrong having ignored the agreement to sell dated 29.12.2006 (Ex.P1) vide which 4K- (O&M) & other connected cases [2] Brah Khurd and Radhana, was sought to be acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated , issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public Sewerage Treatment Plant”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award 17.01.2007 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.5,00,000/- per compensation for building structures and tubewell etc. and for trees to the tune of Rs.24535 along other statutory benefits under the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide while determining the market value of the per acre besides all other statutory Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners as well as respondent State. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellants/ landowners submit that the learned Reference Court went wrong having ignored the agreement to sell dated -14M of land forming part of , was sought to be acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated , issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public The Land Acquisition assessed per compensation for building structures and tubewell etc. along nts/ 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 l other statutory Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of arned counsels that the learned Reference Court went wrong having ignored the agreement to sell dated 14M of land forming part of SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.20 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2968 revenue estate of Village Bara Khurd was sold @ Rs.18 acre. It has thus been submitted to be enhanced while taking into account the agreement to sell Ex.P1, besides was situated on the State Highway leading Learned counsel km from the municipal limits and 3 as such keeping compensation was required to be enhan 7. of the respondent State submits that for the purpose of determination of market value, the agreement to sell could not be taken into account and thus was rightly declined by the learned Refere Learned counsel also points out that in the absence of any material evidence available on record, the learned Reference Court went wrong having enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.5 lakhs per acre to Rs.7 passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be set aside and the determination made by the LAC was required to be restored. 8. through the paper 9. to sell dated 29.12.2006 (Ex.P1) vide which 4K 2968-2010 (O&M) & other connected cases revenue estate of Village Bara Khurd was sold @ Rs.18 It has thus been submitted that the market value was required to be enhanced while taking into account the agreement to sell Ex.P1, besides considering the location of the acquired land which was situated on the State Highway leading Learned counsels also point out that the acquired land fell within ½ km from the municipal limits and 3-4 kms from Bus Stand, Jind and as such keeping in view the location of the land, the amount of compensation was required to be enhan On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that for the purpose of determination of market value, the agreement to sell could not be taken into account and thus was rightly declined by the learned Refere Learned counsel also points out that in the absence of any material evidence available on record, the learned Reference Court went wrong having enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.5 lakhs per acre to Rs.7.50 lakhs per acre and passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be set aside and the determination made by the LAC was required to be restored. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. A perusal of the record shows that to sell dated 29.12.2006 (Ex.P1) vide which 4K (O&M) & other connected cases [3] revenue estate of Village Bara Khurd was sold @ Rs.18.60 lakhs per that the market value was required to be enhanced while taking into account the agreement to sell the location of the acquired land which was situated on the State Highway leading from Jind to Gohana. also point out that the acquired land fell within ½ 4 kms from Bus Stand, Jind and the location of the land, the amount of compensation was required to be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that for the purpose of determination of market value, the agreement to sell could not be taken into account and thus was rightly declined by the learned Reference Court. Learned counsel also points out that in the absence of any material evidence available on record, the learned Reference Court went wrong having enhanced the market value of the acquired land from lakhs per acre and as such the award passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be set aside and the determination made by the LAC was required to be restored. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone cord shows that as per the agreement to sell dated 29.12.2006 (Ex.P1) vide which 4K-14M of land forming lakhs per that the market value was required to be enhanced while taking into account the agreement to sell the location of the acquired land which Jind to Gohana. also point out that the acquired land fell within ½ 4 kms from Bus Stand, Jind and the location of the land, the amount of On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that for the purpose of determination of market value, the agreement to sell could not be taken into account nce Court. Learned counsel also points out that in the absence of any material evidence available on record, the learned Reference Court went wrong having enhanced the market value of the acquired land from as such the award passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be set aside and I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone agreement 14M of land forming SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.20 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2968 part of the sold @ Rs.18 No.2644 dated said agreement with sale price @ Rs.5 lakhs per acre deed was produced on record by the respondents as Ex.D8/A, such circumstances, the genuineness of the agreement to sell Ex.P1 being doubtful in the wake of substantial difference of sale consideration sale price mentioned in the sale deed Ex.P1 dated 29.12.2006 was rightly discarded by the learned Reference Court evidence for the purpose of determination of market value of the acquired land. Besides it, no other evidence whatsoever was produced on record from the side of landowners in support of their claim towards enhancement of market value against their acquired land and thus, their prayer for re be accepted and is hereby rejected. 10. on record, besides the s has come on record that the acquired land is situated on the State Highway leading from Jind located at some distance from the Jind Bus Stand municipal limits, Ji 2968-2010 (O&M) & other connected cases the revenue estate of Village sold @ Rs.18.60 lakhs per acre; however, No.2644 dated 30.08.2007 was executed between the parties to the said agreement with sale price @ Rs.5 lakhs per acre was produced on record by the respondents as Ex.D8/A, such circumstances, the genuineness of the agreement to sell Ex.P1 doubtful in the wake of substantial difference of sale consideration mentioned in the agreement to sell sale price mentioned in the sale deed Ex.P1 dated 29.12.2006 was rightly discarded by the learned ence Court for no considering it being a evidence for the purpose of determination of market value of the acquired land. Besides it, no other evidence whatsoever was produced on record from the side of landowners in support of their claim towards enhancement of market value against their acquired land and thus, their prayer for re-assessment of market value cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected. However, taking into account the oral evidence available on record, besides the site plan Ex.P2 has come on record that the acquired land is situated on the State Highway leading from Jind to Gohana. Besides it, the same is located at some distance from the Jind Bus Stand municipal limits, Jind, as such keeping into account the geographical (O&M) & other connected cases [4] revenue estate of Village Brah Khurd was agreed to be however, later sale deed vide Vasika 08.2007 was executed between the parties to the said agreement with sale price @ Rs.5 lakhs per acre. The said sale was produced on record by the respondents as Ex.D8/A, thus such circumstances, the genuineness of the agreement to sell Ex.P1 doubtful in the wake of substantial difference of sale mentioned in the agreement to sell in comparison to the sale price mentioned in the sale deed, the said agreement to sell Ex.P1 dated 29.12.2006 was rightly discarded by the learned for no considering it being a relevant piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of market value of the acquired land. Besides it, no other evidence whatsoever was produced on record from the side of landowners in support of their claim towards enhancement of market value against their acquired assessment of market value cannot However, taking into account the oral evidence available ite plan Ex.P2 and the aks shajra Ex.D12, it has come on record that the acquired land is situated on the State Gohana. Besides it, the same is located at some distance from the Jind Bus Stand and also the nd, as such keeping into account the geographical agreed to be later sale deed vide Vasika 08.2007 was executed between the parties to the . The said sale thus in such circumstances, the genuineness of the agreement to sell Ex.P1 doubtful in the wake of substantial difference of sale in comparison to the the said agreement to sell Ex.P1 dated 29.12.2006 was rightly discarded by the learned relevant piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of market value of the acquired land. Besides it, no other evidence whatsoever was produced on record from the side of landowners in support of their claim towards enhancement of market value against their acquired assessment of market value cannot However, taking into account the oral evidence available Ex.D12, it has come on record that the acquired land is situated on the State Gohana. Besides it, the same is the nd, as such keeping into account the geographical SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.20 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2968 location of the land under acquisition, no interference is called for with the enhancement of market value from Rs.5 lakhs per acre to Rs.7 lakhs per acre 11. the instance of landowners as well as appeals are dismissed lakhs per acre as assessed by learned Reference Court vide award dated 11.01.2010 to all other statutory benefits and interest provided under the Act, especially the interest on solatium. 13. and construction, no ar findings recorded by the learned Reference Court in this regard are hereby affirmed. 14. disposed of. 14.01.2026 sanjay Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2968-2010 (O&M) & other connected cases location of the land under acquisition, no interference is called for with the enhancement of market value from Rs.5 lakhs per acre to Rs.7 lakhs per acre, awarded by the learned Reference Court. Accordingly, finding no merits in the appeals preferred at the instance of landowners as well as appeals are dismissed while upholding the market value of Rs.7 lakhs per acre as assessed by learned Reference Court vide award 11.01.2010. The appellants/ landowners shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits and interest provided under the Act, especially the interest on solatium. With respect to the other claims such as tubewell, trees and construction, no arguments have been raised, as such the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court in this regard are hereby affirmed. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 14.01.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Sr. No. Case No. 1. RFA-4088-2010 (O&M) 2. RFA-4614-2010 (O&M) 3. RFA-2969-2010 (O&M) 4. RFA-4609-2010 (O&M) 5. RFA-4611-2010 (O&M) (O&M) & other connected cases [5] location of the land under acquisition, no interference is called for with the enhancement of market value from Rs.5 lakhs per acre to Rs.7.50 awarded by the learned Reference Court. cordingly, finding no merits in the appeals preferred at the instance of landowners as well as respondent State, all the upholding the market value of Rs.7.50 lakhs per acre as assessed by learned Reference Court vide award . The appellants/ landowners shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits and interest provided under the Act, With respect to the other claims such as tubewell, trees guments have been raised, as such the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court in this regard are Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No 2010 (O&M) 2010 (O&M) 2010 (O&M) 2010 (O&M) 2010 (O&M) location of the land under acquisition, no interference is called for with .50 cordingly, finding no merits in the appeals preferred at State, all the .50 lakhs per acre as assessed by learned Reference Court vide award . The appellants/ landowners shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits and interest provided under the Act, With respect to the other claims such as tubewell, trees guments have been raised, as such the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court in this regard are Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.20 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2968 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 14.01.2026 sanjay 2968-2010 (O&M) & other connected cases 6. RFA-4613-2010 (O&M) 7. RFA-4615-2010 (O&M) 8. RFA-4616-2010 (O&M) 9. RFA-4617-2010 (O&M) 10. RFA-4854-2010 (O&M) 11. RFA-4087-2010 (O&M) 12. RFA-4525-2010 (O&M) 13. RFA-4852-2010 (O&M) 14. RFA-5194-2010 (O&M) 15. RFA-4610-2010 (O&M) 16. RFA-4612-2010 (O&M) 17. RFA-4853-2010 (O&M) 18. RFA-4855-2010 (O&M) 19. RFA-1236-2011 (O&M) 20. RFA-4618-2010 (O&M) 21. RFA-4608-2010 (O&M) 14.01.2026 (O&M) & other connected cases [6] (O&M) 2010 (O&M) 2010 (O&M) 2010 (O&M) 2010 (O&M) 2010 (O&M) 2010 (O&M) 2010 (O&M) 2010 (O&M) 2010 (O&M) 2010 (O&M) 2010 (O&M) 2010 (O&M) 2011 (O&M) 2010 (O&M) 2010 (O&M) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.20 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document