IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 116+101 RFA-1786-2013 Date of Decision: 07.08.2026 DEVENDER ANAND & ORS. ...Appellants Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ...Respondents And Sr. No. Case No. Appellants(s) Respondent(s) 2. RFA-1663-2013 Mamesha State of Haryana & Ors. 3. RFA-2353-2013 Om Parkash & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors. 4. RFA-240-2014 (O&M) Bhoop Singh State of Haryana & Anr. 5. RFA-2831-2014 (O&M) State of Haryana & Ors. Mahender 6. RFA-2832-2014 (O&M) State of Haryana & Ors. Bhoop Singh 7. RFA-2833-2014 (O&M) State of Haryana & Ors. Rajbir 8. RFA-2834-2014 (O&M) State of Haryana & Ors. Om Parkash 9. RFA-2835-2014 (O&M) State of Haryana & Ors. Devender Anand 10. RFA-2836-2014 (O&M) State of Haryana & Ors. Mamesha 11. RFA-6618-2014 (O&M) Mahender Singh State of Haryana & Ors. 12. RFA-3059-2014 State of Haryana Sugreev 13. RFA-3060-2014 State of Haryana & Ors. Rambir 14. RFA-3061-2014 State of Haryana Preet Pal Singh 15. RFA-3062-2014 State of Haryana Mangal Singh 16. RFA-3063-2014 State of Haryana Nahar Singh 17. RFA-3064-2014 State of Haryana & Ors. Vijay Kumar 18. RFA-3065-2014 State of Haryana & Ors. Dharambir 19. RFA-4675-2014 Sugreev State of Haryana & Anr. 20. RFA-4676-2014 Dharambir State of Haryana & Anr. 21. RFA-4677-2014 Rambir State of Haryana & Anr. 22. RFA-4678-2014 Preet Pal Singh State of Haryana & Anr. 23. RFA-4679-2014 Vijay Kumar State of Haryana & Anr. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.08.10 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-1786-2013 and connected cases -2- 24. RFA-4680-2014 Mangal Singh State of Haryana & Anr. 25. RFA-5291-2014 Nahar Singh State of Haryana & Anr. 26. RFA-2539-2014 Bhombir Singh & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate, Mr. Anshuman Sethi, Advocate Mr. Arun Biriwal, Advocate for appellant (in RFA-1786-2013) Mr. Deepam Raghav, Advocate for respondent-landowners (in RFA-3059-2014 and RFA-3060-2014) Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Advocate for landowners (in RFA-3065-2014 and RFA-4676-2014) Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate and Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Advocate For appellant (in RFA-1786-2013 and RFA-6618-2014) for respondent (in RFA-2833-2014 and RFA-2835-2014) Mr. Abhinash Jain, Addl. A.G. Haryana Mr. Abhishek Yadav, DAG Haryana *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. These appeals under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) are directed against Awards passed by Ld. Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, hereinafter referred as ‘Reference Court’. The appellants-landowners are seeking enhancement of market value of acquired land assessed by Reference Court whereas State is claiming otherwise. 2. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from RFA-1786-2013. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.08.10 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-1786-2013 and connected cases -3- 3. The State Government issued notification dated 03.10.2006 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) for acquisition of land situated within the revenue estate of Khandsa Tehsil & District Gurugram for setting up of Badshapur Nalla (waste water choe), Phase-I from Sohna Road up to NH-8, Gurugram. The said notification was followed by notification dated 04.10.2006 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act. Another notification dated 14.02.2007 under Section 4 for acquisition of 2.61 acre land was issued with respect to land of same revenue estate i.e. Khandsa, Tehsil and District Gurugram. 4. The Collector vide award dated 10.09.2007, in terms of provisions of 1894 Act, determined compensation payable to landowners. Market value of the acquired land was determined as ₹42,00,000/- per acre. Total land acquired of Village Khandsa was 7.625 acres. Landowners were held entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits. Feeling dis-satisfied from aforesaid award, landowners preferred petitions before the Collector which were referred to Court under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. 5. The landowners as well as State, in support of their contentions, led their evidence. The State attempted to justify market value determined by Collector, however, landowners vehemently pleaded that value of their land has been assessed on lower side. 6. The Reference Court, appreciating evidence led by both sides, by impugned award adjudicated reference petition. The Reference Court has assessed market value of acquired land @ ₹65,00,000/- per acre. In this way, the Reference Court has enhanced market value from DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.08.10 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-1786-2013 and connected cases -4- ₹42,00,000/- per acre (determined by Collector) to ₹65,00,000/- per acre. The landowners as well as State are in appeal before this Court. 7. Tabulated status of market value assessed till date is as below:- Date of notification under Section 4 03.10.2006 14.02.2007 Date of notification under Section 6 04.10.2006 15.02.2007 Purpose of acquisition Development and utilisation of land for Badshahpur Nalla Phase-I from Sohna Road Development and utilisation of land for Badshahpur Nalla Phase-II Location Villages -, Khandsa Tehsil - Gurugram, District - Gurugram Villages - Khandsa Tehsil - Gurugram, District - Gurugram Area of land acquired 7.625 Acre 2.61 Acre Date of order of Collector (LAC) 10.09.2007 12.02.2009 Market value as per LAC (per acre) ₹42,00,000/- ₹42,00,000/- Date of Reference Court (RC) order 19.11.2012 02.12.2013 Market value as per RC (per acre) ₹65,00,000/- ₹67,38,329/- 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-landowners submit that Reference Court has not appreciated exemplar sale deeds in true spirit. The distance between acquired land and exemplar sale deeds was not more than 600 meters. The Reference Court has incorrectly considered size/area of exemplar sale deeds. There were three transactions on the same date between the same vendor and vendee. The total area sold was 1.29 acre. As transactions were between the same parties, the total area was required to be considered. The area acquired was 7.625 acres and exemplar sales were comprising 1.29 acres area. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.08.10 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-1786-2013 and connected cases -5- There was no evidence of development of land comprised in the exemplar sales. The exemplar sale deeds were disclosing true and at arms-length transaction between two independent parties, thus, there was no question to impose cut @40% towards development charges. The Reference Court was supposed to impose cut @15% as was imposed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of acquisition of land of same village vide notification dated 29.01.2003. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that State has furnished sale deed dated 31.10.2005 (Ex. R-1). Land of aforesaid sale deed was falling in between the acquired land and the land forming part of sale deeds furnished by landowners. The sale deed furnished by State could not be ignored. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, with respect to land acquired vide notification dated 29.01.2003 with respect to the village in question, has determined market value @ ₹57,08,000/- per acre. The sale deeds relied upon by landowners relate to transactions between a limited company and an individual. Purchase of land by a limited company may be at higher price. They have to incur expenses on development. They subsequently sell land at higher prices, thus, cut of 50% is justified. 10. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 11. From the perusal of record, it is evident that 1779.40 acre land comprising villages Khandsa, Narsinghpur, Jharsa Mohammadpur Jhasra was acquired for setting up Special Economic Zone (for short ‘SEZ’). Matter reached to Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to determination of value of aforesaid land. The Apex Court applying cut of 15% finally determined value of acquired land @ ₹57,08,000/- per acre. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.08.10 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-1786-2013 and connected cases -6- On account of setting up of SEZ, there were all probabilities of steep growth in the prices of adjoining land. 12. The respondent is trying to claim that value of land in question should be determined on the basis of award passed in the case of land acquired vide notification dated 29.01.2003. The respondent’s contention is misconceived because prior to issuance of notification dated 29.01.2003, the acquired land was pure agricultural land. The moment SEZ was set up, value of adjoining land was bound to increase. There is no question to apply doctrine of escalation @10% or 12% p.a. The Court is bound to determine value as per available exemplar sale deeds and ignore previous awards. It is apposite to mention here that State has always pleaded that value should not be determined on the basis of previous awards and relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2018) 13 SCC 96. Accordingly, value in the present is determined as per available exemplar sale deeds. 13. The Reference Court has imposed cut of 10% considering that size of land comprised in exemplar sale deeds was smaller than acquired land. It is factually incorrect. The area of acquired land was 7.625 acres whereas area comprised in exemplar sales was 1.29 acre. As noticed hereinabove, there were three sale deeds between the same parties and on the same day. On account of some commercial issues, the parties might have executed three sale deeds instead of one sale deed. As exemplar sale deeds comprised 1.29 acres land and acquired land was 7.625 acres, there was no question to impose cut on the basis of size, therefore, cut of 10% is hereby set aside. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.08.10 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-1786-2013 and connected cases -7- 14. Now the question remains of imposition of cut of 40% qua development expenses. The findings recorded by Reference Court qua this aspect reads as:- “……However, the land of the exemplar sale deeds appears to be located in the developed area as the same was purchased by the corporate company apparently for its use of commercial purpose while the acquired land was admittedly undeveloped and was being used for agricultural purpose at the time of its acquisition. Therefore, the deductions on account of development are required to be made on the base price of the exemplar sale deeds in order to balance the sale price of the sold land with the acquired land. Further deductions on account of sale of smaller pieces of land through the exemplar sale deeds than the acquired land are also required to be applied in order to balance the price of sold and the acquired land for determining the market value of the acquired land. Thus, the average of the sale prices of these exemplar sale deeds (Ex.PW1/A to Ex. PW1/C) can safely be taken as base price and the deductions are to be applied thereon. In the present case, the deductions towards development which include keeping aside the area/space for providing development infrastructure, developmental expenditure and the waiting period cumulatively @ 40% and for balancing the sale consideration of comparatively small area sold in the exemplar sale deeds in comparison to the acquired land @ 10% on the base price would be appropriate.” 15. A perusal of site plan produced by both sides reveals that land comprised in exemplar sale deeds is located at outskirts of village in question. The land comprised in sale deed produced by State falls in between the acquired land and land comprised in sale deed produced by landowners. The price disclosed in sale deed produced by State comes to DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.08.10 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-1786-2013 and connected cases -8- ₹31,13,514/- per acre. The area comprised in sale deed relied upon by State comes to 46 marla. The said area in view of area of acquired land cannot be considered as small piece of land. The said sale deed cannot be ignored especially when it was executed after setting up of SEZ in 2003-04. The price disclosed in sale deed dated 31.10.2005 (Ex.R-1) represents market price post acquisition made vide notification dated 29.01.2003 for the purpose of setting up of SEZ. The land depicted in sale deeds relied upon by landowners was not urban land and it had not been developed by anyone, thus, it is incorrect to hold that there are development expenses. The buyer i.e. M/s Triveni Advertising Private Limited was supposed to incur further expenses on the development of purchased piece of land, thus, it cannot be concluded that there should be cut of 40% on account of development charges. The sale deed furnished by State is disclosing substantially lower price than sale deeds furnished by landowners. It is settled law that sale deeds disclosing higher value should be considered but Court cannot ignore the fact that aforesaid transaction must have been executed keeping in mind that adjoining land is going to be acquired. There were all possibilities of purchase of land at higher price which is further vindicated from the fact that notification under Section 4 was issued on 03.10.2006 and exemplar sale deeds were executed on 18.09.2006. There is need to rationalize market price disclosed in aforesaid sale deeds especially in the light of sale deeds furnished by respondents. The landowners are claiming that cut should not be more than 15%. The land disclosed in exemplar sale deeds produced by landowners is located at outskirts of the village, thus, there was certainly benefit of location. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.08.10 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-1786-2013 and connected cases -9- 16. Considering the factual position and evidence submitted by both sides, this Court finds that cut of 25% over the value disclosed in exemplar sale deeds is justified. Accordingly, market value is assessed @ 75% of value disclosed in exemplar sale deeds dated 18.09.2006. The value disclosed in exemplar sale deeds is ₹1,30,00,000/- per acre. The market value of acquired land applying cut of 25% comes to ₹97,50,000/- per acre. Therefore, market value of land in question is assessed @ ₹97,50,000/- per acre. The landowners shall be entitled to statutory benefits granted under 1894 Act. 17. Appeals of landowners are allowed in above terms and appeals of State are hereby dismissed. 18. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE August 07, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.08.10 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment