1 155 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RAJBIR AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. HARKESH MANUJA Vide this common order, a batch of 3 connected appeals shall stand disposed of, details whereof is provided 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 Judge, Gurugram of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to a the appellants-landowners partly allowed. 2. Briefly stating, land measuring revenue estate of Village acquired for deve meter wide periphery road linking Dwarka Township Delhi from Haryana Boundary to NH Section 4 dated 05.01.2012 and The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award No. RFA-91-2019 and other connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-91-2019 and other connected cases Date of Decision: RAJBIR AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. **** MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Vide this common order, a batch of 3 connected appeals shall stand disposed of, details whereof is provided 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 12.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Gurugram, whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to a landowners, seeking enhancement of compensation was Briefly stating, land measuring 0.53 acres revenue estate of Village Tikampur, Hadbast No.54, District Gurgaon development and utilization of land for (left out pocket) 150 meter wide periphery road linking Dwarka Township Delhi from Haryana Boundary to NH-8 near Kherki Daula vide notifications issued under dated 05.01.2012 and Section 6 dated 10.07.2012 The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award No. 2019 and other connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2019 and other connected cases Date of Decision: January 20, 2026 .......Appellants ........Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Vide this common order, a batch of 3 connected appeals shall stand disposed of, details whereof is provided in the footnote of the judgment. For convenience, the facts are drawn from RFA-91-2019. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the passed by the learned Additional District , whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by , seeking enhancement of compensation was 0.53 acres, situated within the Tikampur, Hadbast No.54, District Gurgaon was lopment and utilization of land for (left out pocket) 150 meter wide periphery road linking Dwarka Township Delhi from Haryana vide notifications issued under 6 dated 10.07.2012 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award No.49 2019 and other connected cases January 20, 2026 s Vide this common order, a batch of 3 connected appeals shall stand disposed of, details whereof is provided in the footnote of the By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the passed by the learned Additional District , whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 ‘the Act’) by , seeking enhancement of compensation was , situated within the was lopment and utilization of land for (left out pocket) 150 meter wide periphery road linking Dwarka Township Delhi from Haryana vide notifications issued under he Act. 49 TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.04 15:40 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 RFA-91-2019 and other connected cases dated 22.03.2013 assessing the market value at the rate of Rs.1,25,00,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits. 3. The appellants-landowners, feeling dissatisfied with the award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act pleading that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was unjust and inadequate as the acquired land was fit for residential as well as commercial purposes, falling within the municipal limits of Gurgaon City. It was further pleaded that the other co-villagers sold their undeveloped land adjoining the land of petitioners ranging from Rs.2 to 5 crores per acre. 4. Upon notice, the same was contested by the respondent(s)- State and further, it was contended that the market value assessed by the assessing authority was fair as the acquired land was agricultural land and cannot be used for any other purpose without development. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Reference Court on 20.04.2015:- “1. What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act in all the petitions? OPP 2. Relief.” 6. After considering the evidence, the learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram, vide award dated 12.10.2018 enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.1,54,34,953/- per acre. 7. Aggrieved of the aforesaid award dated 12.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram, the appellants- landowners filed the present appeal. TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.04 15:40 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 RFA-91-2019 and other connected cases 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. 9. A perusal of record shows that learned Reference Court while making assessment of market value @ Rs.1,54,34,953/- per acre, relied upon a decision dated 05.09.2017 rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “State of Haryana and Ors. Etc. Vs. Ram Chander and Anr.” Etc.”, Civil Appeal Nos.11814-11864 of 2017. Vide decision dated 05.09.2017, the determination of the market value for the acquired land forming part of revenue estate of village Tikampur was made with respect to notifications dated 25.01.2008 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) whereas, the present acquisition proceedings relate to the notification dated 05.01.2012 (issued under Section 4 of the Act). It may also be noticed here that the purpose of acquisition in both the acquisitions arising out of notification dated 25.01.2008 and 05.01.2012 has been the same i.e. for development and utilization of land for (left out pocket) 150 meter road wide periphery road linking Dwarka Township Delhi from Haryana Boundary to N.H.8 near Kherki Daula at Gurgaon. 10. In such circumstances taking into consideration the fact that the revenue estate of village Tikampur is located in NCR and forms part of District Gurgaon, and also, while considering the locational and potential advantage of land under acquisition, the learned Reference Court was required to award appreciation @ 12% per annum over the assessment of market value made by the Hon’ble Apex Court for the time gap between the two notifications-acquisitions i.e. w.e.f. 25.01.2008 till TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.04 15:40 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 RFA-91-2019 and other connected cases 05.01.2012 especially, when both the acquisitions were related to the same revenue estate. 11. The reliance is placed on decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as “Ramrao Shankar Tapase Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.” 2022(7) SCC 563 whereby, it was held that 12% increase for 3 years would be just and reasonable. The relevant paragraph Nos.10 and 14 are extracted hereunder:- “10. Looking to the fact that the sale deed produced at Ex. 41 with respect to the land bearing Survey No. 20/2 was with respect to the very village Bhoyar which was the only sale exemplar of the same village and other sale exemplars/sale deeds were with respect to another village Lohara and also with respect to small pieces of land, we are of the considered view that the High Court has rightly relied upon and considered the sale exemplar at Ex. 41 while determining the compensation in the present cases with respect to the lands of very village Bhoyar. However, at the same time, bearing in mind the decision of this Court in the case of Pehlad Ram (supra), by which this Court has observed and held that a cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per year in the market value of the land may be accepted, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that instead of 10% cumulative increase as adopted by the High Court, if 12% cumulative increase would have been adopted, it would have been just and proper and in the fitness of things. 14. In the present case, as such, there is already a sale exemplar at Ex. 41 with respect to very village Bhoyar which as observed hereinabove can be said to be the best exemplar while determining the compensation with respect to the lands acquired of the same village Bhoyar. The High Court has rightly relied upon and considered the sale deed at Ex. 41 being land survey no. 20/2 and determined the market value at Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare in the year 1992 and has rightly determined the compensation relying upon the sale exemplar produced at Ex. 41. However, at the same time, as observed hereinabove, instead of 10% cumulative increase, the High Court ought to have added 12% increase cumulatively for about three years. To that extent, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to be modified and the appeals preferred by the original claimants are required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Thus, the market value of the acquired land would be Rs. 1,40,492/- per hectare and after rounding off, it will become Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare. Further adding 50% towards the nonagricultural potentiality, the fair market value for determining the compensation would be Rs. 2,25,000/- per hectare in the cases where the High Court has determined and awarded the compensation at Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare. There shall be corresponding reduction in the compensation with respect to other lands as made TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.04 15:40 I agree to specified portions of this document 5 RFA-91-2019 and other connected cases by the High Court looking to the location of the lands. Thus, wherever the High Court has determined the compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare, it will come to Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare and wherever the High Court has determined the compensation at Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare, it will come to Rs. 1,75,000/- per hectare. The appeals preferred by the claimants are required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.” Accordingly, the market value of the acquired land in the present case comes to Rs.2,26,89,381/-(rounded off) per acre/-. The appellants shall be entitled for other statutory benefits and interest including the interest on solatium under the Act. 12. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of. 13. 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. 14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 20.01.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Other connected cases RFA-90-2019 RFA-92-2019 TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.04 15:40 I agree to specified portions of this document