RFA-4383 127 (21 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Nahni and ors. State of CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, 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, 4383-2013 (O&M) & other connected cases cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: Nahni and ors. Versus State of Haryana and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate with Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate and for the appellants. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Ms. Surbhi Rana, Advocate for Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3. -.- 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 16.02.2013 Additional District Judge, Sonepat-cum 2013 (O&M) & other connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-4383-2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 …….Appellants Versus ..….Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate with Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate and Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Ms. Surbhi Rana, Advocate for Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for Vide this common order, a bunch of 21 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.4383-2013. way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been 16.02.2013 passed by the learned cum-Reference Court (for short 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 (for short SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.18 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-4383 ‘the Reference Court’) 3. estate of Village District Sonepat notifications dated Sections 4 and 6 of the Land respectively, for public purpose Phool Singh Mahila Vishwavidyalaya, Khanpur Kalan, Tehsil District Son vide awa acquired land @ Rs. and additional amount @ 12% per annum, besides benefits under the Act. 4. landowners filed which came to be decision dated LAC. 5. the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners. 6. the appellants/ landowners submits that the learned Reference 4383-2013 (O&M) & other connected cases ‘the Reference Court’). Briefly stating, some land situated within the revenue estate of Village Khanpur Kalan, Hadbast No.71, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated 01.08.2007 and 03.01.2008 Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose, namely, Phool Singh Mahila Vishwavidyalaya, Khanpur Kalan, Tehsil District Sonepat’. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 25.06.2008 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.16,00,000/- per acre and additional amount @ 12% per annum, besides benefits under the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid aw landowners filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be dismissed by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 16.02.2013, while upholding the Award passed by the Aggrieved of the decision o the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellants/ landowners submits that the learned Reference 2013 (O&M) & other connected cases [2] land situated within the revenue Khanpur Kalan, Hadbast No.71, Tehsil Gohana, , was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide 01.08.2007 and 03.01.2008, issued under Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ , namely, for “extension of Bhagat Phool Singh Mahila Vishwavidyalaya, Khanpur Kalan, Tehsil Gohana, The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) assessed market value in respect of the per acre along with solatium @ 30% and additional amount @ 12% per annum, besides all other statutory Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, by the learned Reference Court vide 16.02.2013, while upholding the Award passed by the decision of the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellants/ Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellants/ landowners submits that the learned Reference Court land situated within the revenue Khanpur Kalan, Hadbast No.71, Tehsil Gohana, , was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide , issued under Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ extension of Bhagat ohana, The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) assessed market value in respect of the along with solatium @ 30% other statutory ard, the appellants/ reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, by the learned Reference Court vide 16.02.2013, while upholding the Award passed by the the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellants/ Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for ourt SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.18 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-4383 while dismissing the claim made by the landowners failed to take into consideration the locational advantage attached to the acquired land which was further contends that Bhagat Phool Singh Mahila Vishwavidyalaya, Khanpur Kalan, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonipat established potential value. Learned counsel also point land was Highway. Further, were existing was required to be against compulsory acquisition of their land and the award passed by the learned Reference Court was thus liable to be modified. 6.1. no evidence admitted case of respondent No.3 that acquired land was subject to provisions of National Capital Region Planning Board plans to ensure harmonized and planned growth of NCR. market value of the acquired land was required to be re and pray to be allowed. 7. 4383-2013 (O&M) & other connected cases while dismissing the claim made by the landowners failed to take into consideration the locational advantage attached to the acquired land which was located near Gohana town contends that since the land was acquired for Bhagat Phool Singh Mahila Vishwavidyalaya, Khanpur Kalan, Tehsil ohana, District Sonipat’, it was abutting and adjoining established educational institution and potential value. Learned counsel also point land was situated in close geographical proximity . Further, number of schools, were existing in its close vicinity, therefore, a was required to be granted in favour of appellants / landowners against compulsory acquisition of their land and the award passed by the learned Reference Court was thus liable to be modified. Learned counsel further submits that although there no evidence available in the form of sale exemplars, but it admitted case of respondent No.3 that acquired land was subject to provisions of National Capital Region Planning Board plans to ensure harmonized and planned growth of NCR. market value of the acquired land was required to be re and prayed that appeals preferred at the instance of landowners were to be allowed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 2013 (O&M) & other connected cases [3] while dismissing the claim made by the landowners failed to take into consideration the locational advantage attached to the acquired land near Gohana town as well as Sonepat City. He the land was acquired for ‘extension of Bhagat Phool Singh Mahila Vishwavidyalaya, Khanpur Kalan, Tehsil abutting and adjoining an already institution and thus, carried significant potential value. Learned counsel also points out that the acquired situated in close geographical proximity to Rohtak-Sonepat number of schools, petrol pumps and banks etc. in its close vicinity, therefore, a suitable enhancement n favour of appellants / landowners against compulsory acquisition of their land and the award passed by the learned Reference Court was thus liable to be modified. Learned counsel further submits that although there was e form of sale exemplars, but it was admitted case of respondent No.3 that acquired land was subject to provisions of National Capital Region Planning Board plans to ensure harmonized and planned growth of NCR. He thus submits that the market value of the acquired land was required to be re-assessed that appeals preferred at the instance of landowners were On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while dismissing the claim made by the landowners failed to take into consideration the locational advantage attached to the acquired land Sonepat City. He extension of Bhagat Phool Singh Mahila Vishwavidyalaya, Khanpur Kalan, Tehsil already significant s out that the acquired Sonepat etrol pumps and banks etc. suitable enhancement n favour of appellants / landowners against compulsory acquisition of their land and the award passed by was an admitted case of respondent No.3 that acquired land was subject to provisions of National Capital Region Planning Board plans to ensure He thus submits that the assessed that appeals preferred at the instance of landowners were On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.18 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-4383 submits that the impug Reference Court after appreciation of material available on record, thus the same calls for no interference as the appellants/ landowners were not able to produce on record any substantial evidence to prove their claim t that the appeals preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners were liable to be dismissed. 8. through the paper 9. documentary evidence in the parcel forming part of either Kalan or any to the acquisition landowners to compensation decisions minimum benefit compulsorily acquired for development purposes. 10. the Government of Haryana issued policies from time whereby the minimum compensation for acquisition of the land in the State of Haryana, was fixed. 4383-2013 (O&M) & other connected cases submits that the impugned award was passed by the learned Reference Court after appreciation of material available on record, thus the same calls for no interference as the appellants/ landowners were not able to produce on record any substantial evidence to prove their claim towards enhancement of market value. He thus submits that the appeals preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners were liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book as well as records of the From the perusal of record, it documentary evidence in the form of sale deed pertaining to the land parcel forming part of either the revenue estate of Village or any other adjoining revenue estate for the period to the acquisition were placed on record by the appellants/ landowners to substantiate their claim towar compensation. However, State cannot decisions issued from time to time minimum benefits to the landowners whose land(s) have been compulsorily acquired for development purposes. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State that the Government of Haryana issued policies from time whereby the minimum compensation for acquisition of the land in the State of Haryana, was fixed. As per the 2013 (O&M) & other connected cases [4] ned award was passed by the learned Reference Court after appreciation of material available on record, thus the same calls for no interference as the appellants/ landowners were not able to produce on record any substantial evidence to prove owards enhancement of market value. He thus submits that the appeals preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book as well as records of the case. record, it is evident that of sale deed pertaining to the land revenue estate of Village Khanpur revenue estate for the period proximate placed on record by the appellants/ their claim towards enhancement of State cannot resile from its own policy ime with the object of granting to the landowners whose land(s) have been compulsorily acquired for development purposes. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State that the Government of Haryana issued policies from time to time whereby the minimum compensation for acquisition of the land in the As per the policy dated 28.04.2005, ned award was passed by the learned Reference Court after appreciation of material available on record, thus the same calls for no interference as the appellants/ landowners were not able to produce on record any substantial evidence to prove owards enhancement of market value. He thus submits that the appeals preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone that no of sale deed pertaining to the land Khanpur proximate placed on record by the appellants/ ds enhancement of policy with the object of granting to the landowners whose land(s) have been It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State that to time whereby the minimum compensation for acquisition of the land in the 4.2005, SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.18 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-4383 every landowner announced on or after compensation of Rs. notification under Section 4 of the Act. notification under Section 4 of the Act. Further, p 28.04.2005 was revised on dated 06. 4383-2013 (O&M) & other connected cases landowner, in whose case the award of the announced on or after 05.03.2005, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre notification under Section 4 of the Act. Further, p .2005 was revised on 06.04.2007. The relevant extract of policy 6.04.2007 is as under:- “Sub: Fixation of floor r for public purpose in the State of Haryana. Ref: This Department Memo No. 2025 dated 28.4.2005. Vide this Department Memo. under reference, minimum floor rates for acquiring land for public purposes for var well as other State Haryana Government as follows: i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Gurgaon ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Haryana Sub-Region of NCR including Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State (These floor rates did not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894). 2. Now it has been observed that with the passage of time market rates of the land have increased substantially. Therefore, Harya 2013 (O&M) & other connected cases [5] in whose case the award of the LAC was 3.2005, was entitled to minimum per acre irrespective of the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Further, policy dated 4.2007. The relevant extract of policy Fixation of floor rates for the acquisition of land for public purpose in the State of Haryana. This Department Memo No. 2025-R-5-2005/4299, dated 28.4.2005. Vide this Department Memo. under reference, minimum floor rates for acquiring land for public purposes for various Departments as well as other State Agencies were fixed by the Haryana Government as follows: i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable Rs.15.00 lacs per acre ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Region of NCR Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana Rs.12.50 lacs per acre iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of Rs. 05.00 lacs per acre (These floor rates did not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894). Now it has been observed that with the passage of time market rates of the land have increased substantially. Therefore, Harya was itled to minimum irrespective of the date of olicy dated 4.2007. The relevant extract of policy ates for the acquisition of land 2005/4299, Vide this Department Memo. under reference, minimum floor rates for acquiring land ious Departments as Agencies were fixed by the Rs.15.00 lacs Rs.12.50 lacs Rs. 05.00 lacs (These floor rates did not include the solatium and interest payable under the Now it has been observed that with the passage of time market rates of the land have increased substantially. Therefore, Haryana SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.18 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-4383 10.1 minimum floor rate in the State Rs.16,00,000/ present acquisition applicable to all acquisitions was announced on or after 22. notification under Section 4 of the was announced by the Collector on dated 06. 4383-2013 (O&M) & other connected cases Government has re has decided to re i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Gurgaon ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Haryana Sub-Region of NCR including Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State 3. These floor rates do not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. These revised rates will be applicable on all those acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894." As per the aforesaid policy dated minimum floor rate in the State ,00,000/- per acre which was admittedly made a present acquisition. Further, the rates applicable to all acquisitions in respect of which the Collector’s award announced on or after 22.03.2007 notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the present case, the award was announced by the Collector on 6.04.2007 came into force with effect from 22. 2013 (O&M) & other connected cases [6] Government has re-considered this matter and has decided to re-fix these floor rates as follows: i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable Rs.20.00 lacs per acre ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Region of NCR nchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana Rs.16.00 lacs per acre iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of Rs.08.00 lacs per acre These floor rates do not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. These revised rates will be applicable on all those acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007 irrespective of the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894." As per the aforesaid policy dated 06.04.2007, the minimum floor rate in the State of Haryana was fixed @ which was admittedly made applicable to the the rates prescribed therein were in respect of which the Collector’s award 3.2007, irrespective of the date of Act. In the present case, the award 25.06.2008 whereas the policy 4.2007 came into force with effect from 22.03.2007. The considered this matter and fix these floor rates as follows:- Rs.20.00 lacs Rs.16.00 lacs Rs.08.00 lacs These floor rates do not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land These revised rates will be applicable on all those acquisitions where awards have been announced irrespective of the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land the was fixed @ to the were in respect of which the Collector’s award date of Act. In the present case, the award whereas the policy 3.2007. The SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.18 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-4383 policy dated relevant extract of the pol under:- Sr. No. Particulars 1. Land situated within the notified limits of Gurgaon Municipal Corporation 2. Land situated within (i) the notified limits of Faridabad Municipal Corporation, (ii) the notified limits of Panchkula Municipal Corporation as on 07.09.2010, (iii) Development Plans of (a) Gurgaon Manesar Urban Complex (excluding the areas within the limits of Municipal Corporation Gurgaon) (b) Sohna, and (c) Sonepat 3. Areas situated within the Development Plans of Bahadurgarh, Rohtak, Rewari, Dharuhera, Bawal and Panipat towns 4. Rest of the National Capital Region, areas situated out side the limits of Panchkula Municipal Corporation (as on 07.09.2010) in Panchkula District, and the land situated within the Development Plans of all other district he 5. Remaining parts of the State 4383-2013 (O&M) & other connected cases policy dated 06.04.2007 was further relevant extract of the policy dated 09.11.2010 Particulars Land situated within the notified limits of Gurgaon Municipal Corporation Land situated within (i) the notified limits of Faridabad Municipal Corporation, (ii) the notified limits of Panchkula Municipal Corporation as on 07.09.2010, (iii) Development Plans of (a) Gurgaon Manesar Urban Complex (excluding the areas falling within the limits of Municipal Corporation Gurgaon) (b) Sohna, and (c) Sonepat-Kundli Urban Complex Areas situated within the Development Plans of Bahadurgarh, Rohtak, Rewari, Dharuhera, Bawal and Panipat towns Rest of the National Capital Region, areas situated out side the limits of Panchkula Municipal Corporation (as on 07.09.2010) in Panchkula District, and the land situated within the Development Plans of all other district headquarters outside the NCR Remaining parts of the State 2013 (O&M) & other connected cases [7] further revised on 09.11.2010. The dated 09.11.2010 is reproduced Floor rates per acre of land (pre- revision) Floor Rates per acre as revised w.e.f. 07.09.2010 Land situated within the notified limits Rs. 20.00 Lakh Rs. 40.00 Lakh Land situated within (i) the notified limits of Faridabad Municipal Corporation, (ii) the notified limits of Panchkula Municipal Corporation as on 07.09.2010, (iii) Development Plans of (a) Gurgaon Manesar Urban falling within the limits of Municipal Corporation Gurgaon) (b) Sohna, and Rs. 16.00 Lakh Rs. 30.00 Lakh Areas situated within the Development Plans of Bahadurgarh, Rohtak, Rewari, Dharuhera, Bawal Rs. 16.00 Lakh Rs. 25.00 Lakh Rest of the National Capital Region, areas situated out side the limits of Panchkula Municipal Corporation (as on 07.09.2010) in Panchkula District, and the land situated within the Development Plans of all other district Rs. 16.00 Lakh Rs.8.00 Lakh Rs. 20.00 Lakh Rs. 8.00 Lakh Rs. 12.00 Lakh 9.11.2010. The reproduced as Floor Rates per acre as revised w.e.f. 40.00 Lakh Rs. 30.00 Lakh Rs. 25.00 Lakh Rs. 20.00 Lakh Rs. 12.00 Lakh SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.18 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-4383 10.2. period 2007 between 50% and 100%. acquired land of the Government dated 28. Rs.12,50,000/ 06.04.2007 and per acre that State has in principle, accepted the gradual increase in the price of land. Further, t Collector on into force with effect from hereinabove, it is evident that the policies of the State indicate a steady rise in land pr infrastructural development. 11. period from 22.03.2007 till 07.09.2010 (the effective dates of two policies providing for minimum rates), the land Rs.16,00,000/ per day. Further, taking into account the fact that assessed by the respondents correspondent to the date of passed by the LAC; the same in the on 25.06.2008 4383-2013 (O&M) & other connected cases As per the policy dated 0 period 2007-2010 were fixed on regional basis, between 50% and 100%. The value of the land in acquired land was fixed @ Rs.12,50,000/ of the Government dated 28.0 Rs.12,50,000/- to Rs.16,00,000/- 06.04.2007 and the same was further vide policy dated 09.11.2010. The aforesaid position reflects that State has in principle, accepted the gradual increase in the price Further, the award in the present case was announced by the Collector on 25.06.2008 whereas the policy dated into force with effect from 07.09.2010. hereinabove, it is evident that the policies of the State indicate a steady rise in land prices due to growing demand for urbanization and infrastructural development. Accordingly, calculating increase in price for period from 22.03.2007 till 07.09.2010 (the effective dates of two policies providing for minimum rates), the land Rs.16,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- per acre, which comes to Rs.316.20 per day. Further, taking into account the fact that assessed by the respondents correspondent to the date of passed by the LAC; the same in the presen 25.06.2008, the market value thus 2013 (O&M) & other connected cases [8] 09.11.2010, land prices for the 2010 were fixed on regional basis, the increase varying The value of the land in the vicinity of the was fixed @ Rs.12,50,000/- per acre, as per the policy 04.2005. It increased from per acre vide policy dated further enhanced to Rs.20,00,000/ vide policy dated 09.11.2010. The aforesaid position reflects that State has in principle, accepted the gradual increase in the price present case was announced by the the policy dated 09.11.2010 came 9.2010. From the discussion made hereinabove, it is evident that the policies of the State indicate a ices due to growing demand for urbanization and Accordingly, calculating increase in price for the time period from 22.03.2007 till 07.09.2010 (the effective dates of two policies providing for minimum rates), the land prices went from per acre, which comes to Rs.316.20 per day. Further, taking into account the fact that the increase assessed by the respondents correspondent to the date of award present case(s) was announced thus needs to be computed by for the varying the vicinity of the , as per the policy 4.2005. It increased from de policy dated 00,000/- vide policy dated 09.11.2010. The aforesaid position reflects that State has in principle, accepted the gradual increase in the price present case was announced by the 9.11.2010 came From the discussion made hereinabove, it is evident that the policies of the State indicate a ices due to growing demand for urbanization and time period from 22.03.2007 till 07.09.2010 (the effective dates of two prices went from per acre, which comes to Rs.316.20 increase award, was announced needs to be computed by SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.18 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-4383 adding Rs.316.20 per day 22.03.2007 i.e. the date of latest notification respondent Government for LAC i.e. 2 aforesaid amount is added, the compensation comes out to Rs.17,45,76 12. landowners are allow modified to the extent of value of the acquired land appellants/ landowners are held entitled to the market value Rs.17,45,768 the statutory benefits including the interest on solatium as well. 13. unfortunately expired in the appeal thereof and the legal heirs 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. 14. disposed of. 10.03.2026 sanjay 4383-2013 (O&M) & other connected cases Rs.316.20 per day on Rs.16 22.03.2007 i.e. the date of latest notification respondent Government for fixing price, ti LAC i.e. 25.06.2008 (461 days) which comes to Rs.1,45,768/ aforesaid amount is added, the compensation comes out to 45,768/- per acre. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals of landowners are allowed. The award of modified to the extent of value of the acquired land appellants/ landowners are held entitled to the market value 5,768/- per acre. The landowners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits and interest available to them under the Act; including the interest on solatium as well. Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs 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. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? 2013 (O&M) & other connected cases [9] Rs.16,00,000/- with effect from 22.03.2007 i.e. the date of latest notification-policy framed by the price, till the date of award by the which comes to Rs.1,45,768/-. If the aforesaid amount is added, the compensation comes out to For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals of the ed. The award of the learned Reference Court is modified to the extent of value of the acquired land. Therefore, the appellants/ landowners are held entitled to the market value per acre. The landowners shall also be entitled to all vailable to them under the Act; including the interest on solatium as well. Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have (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 application(s) before the learned Executing Court. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No with effect from policy framed by the of award by the If the aforesaid amount is added, the compensation comes out to the Court is . Therefore, the @ per acre. The landowners shall also be entitled to all vailable to them under the Act; Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have 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 application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.18 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-4383 Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 10.03.2026 sanjay 4383-2013 (O&M) & other connected cases Sr. No. Case No. 1. RFA-5035-2015 (O&M) 2. RFA-5036-2015 (O&M) 3. RFA-5037-2015 (O&M) 4. RFA-5038-2015 (O&M) 5. RFA-5039-2015 (O&M) 6. RFA-5040-2015 (O&M) 7. RFA-5041-2015 (O&M) 8. RFA-5042-2015 (O&M) 9. RFA-5043-2015 (O&M) 10. RFA-5044-2015 (O&M) 11. RFA-5045-2015 (O&M) 12. RFA-5046-2015 (O&M) 13. RFA-5047-2015 (O&M) 14. RFA-5048-2015 (O&M) 15. RFA-5049-2015 (O&M) 16. RFA-5050-2015 (O&M) 17. RFA-6359-2015 (O&M) 18. RFA-6360-2015 (O&M) 19. RFA-220-2016 (O&M) 20. RFA-2400-2016 (O&M) .2026 2013 (O&M) & other connected cases [10] 2015 (O&M) 2015 (O&M) 2015 (O&M) 2015 (O&M) 2015 (O&M) 2015 (O&M) 2015 (O&M) 2015 (O&M) 2015 (O&M) 2015 (O&M) 2015 (O&M) (O&M) 2015 (O&M) 2015 (O&M) 2015 (O&M) 2015 (O&M) 2015 (O&M) 2015 (O&M) 2016 (O&M) 2016 (O&M) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.03.18 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document