1 124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MKTG. INDRO AND ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate and Ms. Divya Godara, Advocate for the appellants in RFA Nos.4812, 4813 and 4814 of 2011 and for respondents in RFA Nos.314, 315 and 316 of 2010. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate with Ms. Surbhi Rana, Advocate for respondent HARKESH MANUJA Vide this common order, a batch of 6 Regular First Appeals shall stand disposed of, details whereof are mentioned in the footnote of the judgment. For convenience, the facts are drawn from RFA 2. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated Judge, Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as ‘Reference Court’) reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acqu (hereinafter referred to as landowners, seeking enhancement of compensation was 3. Briefly stating, land measuring within the revenue estate of Village was acquired for the public purpose from village Sultanpuria to New Grain Market, Rania RFA-314-2010 (O&M) and other connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-314-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MKTG. Versus INDRO AND ORS. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate and Ms. Divya Godara, Advocate for the appellants in RFA Nos.4812, 4813 and 4814 of 2011 and for respondents in RFA Nos.314, 315 and 316 of 2010. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate with Ms. Surbhi Rana, Advocate for respondent-Market Committee, Rania. **** MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Vide this common order, a batch of 6 Regular First Appeals shall stand disposed of, details whereof are mentioned in the footnote of the judgment. For convenience, the facts are drawn from RFA By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 13.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional District (hereinafter referred to as ‘Reference Court’) reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acqu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) preferred , seeking enhancement of compensation was Briefly stating, land measuring 6 kanals 14 marlas within the revenue estate of Village Rania, Tehsil Rania and District Sirsa was acquired for the public purpose, namely, from village Sultanpuria to New Grain Market, Rania and other connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH and other connected cases Date of Decision: January 30, 2026 HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MKTG. BOARD ........Appellant ......Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate and Ms. Divya Godara, Advocate for the appellants in RFA Nos.4812, 4813 and 4814 of 2011 and for respondents in RFA Nos.314, 315 and 316 of 2010. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate with Market Committee, Rania. Vide this common order, a batch of 6 Regular First Appeals shall stand disposed of, details whereof are mentioned in the footnote of the judgment. For convenience, the facts are drawn from RFA-314-2010. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the passed by the learned Additional District (hereinafter referred to as ‘Reference Court’), whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 preferred by the respondents- , seeking enhancement of compensation was partly allowed. 6 kanals 14 marlas, situated Rania, Tehsil Rania and District Sirsa namely, for “construction of link road from village Sultanpuria to New Grain Market, Rania” vide notification and other connected cases January 30, 2026 Vide this common order, a batch of 6 Regular First Appeals shall stand disposed of, details whereof are mentioned in the footnote of By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the passed by the learned Additional District whereby the isition Act, 1894 - , situated Rania, Tehsil Rania and District Sirsa construction of link road vide notification TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.04 09:34 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 RFA-314-2010 (O&M) and other connected cases dated 18.12.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) vide Award No.6 dated 17.06.2004 assessed the market value of the land @Rs.1,35,000/- per acre. 4. The respondents-landowners, feeling dissatisfied with the award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act pleading that the price of acquired land was inadequate as the same was adjoining commercial establishments. It was further pleaded that the landowners did not suffer any loss due to acquisition of their land by the State. 5. Upon notice, the same was contested by the appellant-State while pleading that the market value awarded by the LAC was adequate, proper and reasonable. Moreover, it was pleaded that the landowners did not suffer any loss due to acquisition of their land by the State. 6. After considering the evidence, the learned Reference Court vide award dated 13.08.2009 enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.7,00,000/- per acre. 7. Aggrieved of the aforesaid award dated 13.08.2009 passed by the learned Reference Court, both the appellants and respondents filed the present appeal(s). 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the respondents-landowners to some extent. 9. A perusal of the record shows that the learned Reference Court went wrong having relied upon the sale instance (Ex.P-8) dated 24.02.2004 because the same pertained to the period which was post issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand i.e. 18.12.2003. Accordingly, the evidence available on record was required TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.04 09:34 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 RFA-314-2010 (O&M) and other connected cases to be re-examined and re-assessed to determine the market value in the present case. 10. A perusal of record further shows that based on the appreciation of material evidence available on record including the site plan Ex.P-2 as well as the deposition of PWs-1 to 3 namely Lila Krishan, Harbans Lal Verma and Rakesh Kumar respectively, a positive finding of fact has been recorded that the acquired land formed part of municipal limits of Village Rania and the same was located adjoining to the already developed Grain Market, Rania and also adjacent to residential area. It was also recorded that the land under acquisition was semi-commercial in nature. This fact was even corroborated from the sale instances dated 25.10.2002 and 24.02.2004 available on record in the form of Exs.P-7 and Ex.P-8 respectively which related to smaller parcels of land. No evidence whatsoever has been pointed out by the counsel representing the appellant-State to this Court for taking different view on the matter and thus, the said finding has become final and conclusive. 11. Further, perusal of record shows that the respondents- landowners have produced on record sale deed Ex.P-7 dated 25.10.2002 for an area measuring 4 marlas 3 sirsai forming part of revenue estate of Village Rania, sold for Rs.26,500/- with base price of Rs.9,78,461.53/- per acre. Once the said sale instance was pertaining to the same revenue estate of Village Rania and pertained to the period prior to the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand i.e. 18.12.2003, the same was required to be relied upon for determining the market value of the land acquired in the present case. Moreover, considering the fact that the acquired land carried the same commercial and potential advantage being surrounded by residential colony as well TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.04 09:34 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 RFA-314-2010 (O&M) and other connected cases as institutional building like grain market, appreciation @15% per annum needs to be awarded in favour of respondents-landowners for the time gap from the date of sale instance (Ex.P-7) dated 25.10.2002 till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand i.e. 18.12.2003. 12. Further, in the given facts and circumstances where the acquired parcel has got locational and potential advantage, as such, a cut of 25% towards the smallness of area involved in the sale instance (Ex.P-7) would suffice especially, when the total acquired land is merely 6 kanals and 14 marlas and the area alienated via sale deed (Ex.P-7) is 4 marlas and 3 sirsai. Also the purpose of acquisition in the present case is construction of link road from Village Sultanpuria to New Grain Market, Rania which itself depicts the locational advantage attached to the land under acquisition; the same being abutting-adjacent to the New Grain Market, Rania, as such, no development cut is required to be applied in the case in hand. 13. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the market value of the acquired land thus comes to Rs.8,62,269/- per acre. Besides it, the respondents-landowners shall also be entitled for all other statutory benefits and interest especially, the interest on solatium. 14. Further, it may also be noticed here that the land under acquisition has been carried out for the public purpose namely, for construction of link road from village Sultanpuria to New Grain Market, Rania which as per the pleadings of the respondents-landowners has resulted into bifurcation of their holdings, thus, leaving them with no path as well as loss of irrigation facility. In the written statement, no specific or categoric rebuttal has been made thereto. Though, the learned TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.04 09:34 I agree to specified portions of this document 5 RFA-314-2010 (O&M) and other connected cases Reference Court did not adjudicate upon the said issue, however, taking into account the fact that the damages towards severance of land flow from the statutory mandate of Clause 3 to Section 23(1) of the Act, the landowners-respondents are required to be compensated on this account. 15. Furthermore, considering the fact the as an effect of acquisition of land in the present case(s), the land would be definitely and conclusively dissected by bifurcating it into two parts, in such circumstances, the respondents/landowners are bound to suffer loss towards cultivation of land besides causing them inconvenience towards connectivity of the parcels left on either side of the road. Moreover, severance also causes reduction in value of remaining land due to alteration in access, useability, irregularity of shape and loss of agricultural viability etc., thus, it would be appropriate to award damages against severance of land in favour of the landowners @ 20% of the market value as assessed by this Court. 16. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present appeal(s) are disposed of with the aforesaid modification. 17. Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications before the learned Executing Court. 18. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 30.01.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.04 09:34 I agree to specified portions of this document 6 RFA-314-2010 (O&M) and other connected cases Other connected cases RFA-315-2010 RFA-316-2010 RFA-4812-2011 RFA-4813-2011 RFA-4814-2011 TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.04 09:34 I agree to specified portions of this document