133 (67 case IN TH Ram Kishan State of Har CORAM: Present: HARKESH (67) appea 2924, 2925 3458, 3459 3680, 3681 4109, 4110 2016; 63, 6 2664, 2682 5500 of 20 common ac [2] further enha common qu cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RFA and Date ishan Suhag Versus of Haryana and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate for the appellant(s)-landowner( Mr. Abhinash Jain, Deputy Adv for the respondent(s). **** KESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose off appeals bearing RFA Nos. 2320 , 2925, 2926, 2927, 2928, 2929, , 3459, 3460, 3461, 3462, 3463, , 3681, 3682, 3708, 3709, 3710, , 4110, 4111, 4112, 4113, 4115, 41 ; 63, 64, 65, 66, 1936, 1937, 1938, , 2682, 3373, 3374, 3375, 3414, 3 2017; 2019 & 2352 of 2019; on acquisition / award. In all appeals, the appellant(s r enhancement of compensation for th on question of law and facts are i UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH RFA No. 2320 of 2016 (O&M) and “66” connected cases Date of Decision: 18.02.2026 ...Appellant ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA ocate; wner(s). ty Advocate General, Haryana se off the present sixty-seven 320 (lead case), 2350, 2923, 929, 3089, 3455, 3456, 3457, 463, 3464, 3465, 3466, 3679, 710, 3711, 3742, 4107, 4108, 5, 4116, 4314, 4320 & 4818 of 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 2588, 14, 3415, 3477, 3532, 3883 & ; as the same arise out of llant(s)-landowner(s) are seeking n for the acquired land. Since the are involved in these appeals, DINESH KUMAR 2026.02.26 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -2-      therefore, for the sake of convenience, facts are being culled out from RFA No. 2320 of 2016, the appeal filed by landowner-Ram Kishan Suhag. [3] The appellant-landowner, having instituted the aforesaid appeal, preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “1894 Act”), sought modification of the award dated 20.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”), for enhancement of compensation amount. FACTS [4] Briefly stating, certain land owned by the appellant situated within the revenue estate of Village Sunaria Kalan, Hadbast No. 101, Tehsil and District Rohtak, came to be acquired vide notifications dated 24.12.2007 and 23.12.2008 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act respectively, for the public purpose, namely, “Special Zone–Sector-21, Rohtak”. Vide Award No. 11, dated 23.06.2010, the Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak (for short “LAC’) determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.25 lakhs per acre for all types of land alongwith other statutory benefits. [5] Aggrieved of the aforesaid Award dated 23.06.2010, landowners / interested persons filed reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which were party allowed vide decision dated 20.01.2016 by the learned Reference Court, whereby the market value of the entire land was assessed/enhanced at the rate of Rs.27,88,000/- per acre alongwith other statutory benefits. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision of the learned Reference DINESH KUMAR 2026.02.26 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -3-      Court, the present appeal(s) were preferred at the instance of appellant(s)-landowner(s). CONTENTION(S): ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S)-LANDOWNER(S) [6] Impugning the aforesaid Reference Court’s award dated 20.01.2016, learned counsel(s) for the appellant(s)-landowner(s) submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having discarded the sale instances Exhibits P-1 to P-16 and P-18 vide which different parcels of land pertaining to the same revenue estate of Village Sunaria Kalan were sold with the base price per acre ranging from Rs. 31 lakhs to Rs. 1,22,00,000/- between February 2006 till December 2007. [6.1] Learned counsel further submits that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs and others Versus State of Haryana and others”, reported as 2024 (4) RCR (Civil) 758, out of the sale instances Exhibits P-1 to P-18 pertaining to the same revenue estate of Village Sunaria Kalan, the sale exemplar fetching the highest sale price was required to be taken into account for the purpose of determination of market value by applying suitable deduction thereupon towards smallness of area involved in such sale exemplar besides application of deduction towards development cost. [6.2] Learned counsel for the appellant(s)-landowner(s) thus submit(s) that the market value of the acquired land in the present case was required to be re-assessed and enhanced accordingly. DINESH KUMAR 2026.02.26 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -4-      ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT(S)-STATE OF HARYANA [7] On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents-State of Haryana submits that the sale deeds Exhibits P- 1 to P-16 & P-18 though pertained to the same revenue estate of Village Sunaria Kalan, however, the same being of small land parcels were rightly discarded by the learned Reference Court. Learned State Counsel further submits that there being no site plan produced on record so as to prove the comparative location of the land parcel forming part of such sale deeds as compared to the acquired land, thus, no illegality was committed by the learned Reference Court by not relying upon the same. [7.1] Learned State Counsel also submits that as per the sale transactions Exhibits R-7 to R-15 produced by the respondents, the sale price per acre for the revenue estate of Village Sunaria Kalan was around Rs. 6 lakhs to Rs. 20 lakhs, however, the appellants have been awarded market value at the rate of Rs. 27,88,000/- per acre by the learned Reference Court, which is significantly higher than that of the aforementioned sale deeds, thus, the landowner(s) have already been adequately compensated and no interference is warranted with the same. [7.2] Learned State Counsel further contends that though the sale deeds pertaining to the small land parcels, produced by the appellant(s)-landowner(s) were rightly discarded by the learned Reference Court, however, in case those were to be taken into account, a suitable cut of 70% was required to be applied towards smallness of area. He thus submits that no further enhancement in DINESH KUMAR 2026.02.26 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -5-      favour of the appellants was called for and as such, the present appeals were liable to be dismissed. DISCUSSION AND REASONING [8] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the paper-book / records, I find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant(s)-landowner(s). [9] Before proceeding in the matter, it may be relevant to take note of the sale exemplars produced by both the parties in order to support their respective claim:- (i) Sale-deeds produced by the appellant(s)- landowner(s):- Sr. No. Exhibit Vasika No. Date Land Area Total Sale Consideration (in Rs.) Price Per Acre (in Rs.) Revenue Estate 1 P-1 2707 8.6.2007 193.33 Sq. yds 4,83,500/- 1,21,04,381.10 Mauja Sunaria Kalan 2 P-2 8916 28.12.2007 200 Sq. yds. 5,00,000/- 1,21,00,000.00 Mauja Sunaria Kalan 3 P-3 3514 29.6.2007 110 Sq. yds. 2,75,000/- 1,21,00,000.00 Mauja Sunaria Kalan 4 P-4 11518 14.3.2007 200 Sq. yds. 2,00,000/- 48,40,000.00 Mauja Sunaria Kalan 5 P-5 6289 20.10.2006 315 Sq. yds. 6,30,000/- 96,80,000.00 Mauja Sunaria Kalan 6 P-6 5044 6.9.2006 200 Sq. yds. 4,00,000/- 96,80,000.00 Mauja Sunaria Kalan 7 P-7 5529 31.8.2007 160.41 Sq. yds. 4,02,500/- 1,21,44,504.70 Mauja Sunaria Kalan 8 P-8 4355 23.7.2007 205.88 Sq. yds. 5,15,000/- 1,21,07,052.70 Mauja Sunaria Kalan 9 P-9 5531 31.8.2007 200 Sq. yds. 5,00,000/- 1,21,00,000.00 Mauja Sunaria Kalan 10 P-10 12520 30.3.2007 200.72 Sq. yds. 4,02,000/- 96,93,503.39 Mauja Sunaria Kalan 11 P-11 7231 20.11.2006 250 Sq. yds. 5,00,000/- 96,80,000.00 Mauja Sunaria Kalan DINESH KUMAR 2026.02.26 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -6-      12 P-12 13445 24.2.2006 200 Sq. yds. 1,30,000/- 31,46,000.00 Mauja Sunaria Kalan 13 P-13 1086 30.4.2007 138 Sq. yds. 1,86,500/- 65,41,014.49 Mauja Sunaria Kalan 14 P-14 6405 26.10.2006 155.88 Sq. yds. 2,34,000/- 72,65,588.91 Mauja Sunaria Kalan 15 P-15 9229 17.1.2007 155 Sq. yds. 1,55,000/- 48,40,000.00 Mauja Sunaria Kalan 16 P-16 8930 28.12.2007 150 Sq. yds. 3,75,000/- 1,21,00,000.00 Mauja Sunaria Kalan 17 P-17 3796 6.7.2007 2 Kanal 7 Marla 16,80,000/- 57,19,148.00 Mauja Sunaria Kalan 18 P-18 3224 21.6.2007 119 Sq. yds. 2,97,500/- 1,21,00,000.00 Mauja Sunaria Kalan 19 P-19 8759 4.7.2007 173.33 Sq. yds. 3,47,500/- 96,89,494.03 Mauja Rohtak (ii) Sale-deeds produced by the respondent(s)-State of Haryana:- Sr. No. Exhibit Sale Deed No. Date of sale deed Land Area Total Sale Consideration (Rs.) Revenue Estate Rect./ Killa No. 1 R-7 3194 21.06.2007 1 kanal 2,50,000/- Sunaria Kalan 43/1, 8/2, 9, 10 2 R-8 88 04.04.2007 4 kanal 3,30,000/- Sunaria Kalan 44/5 3 R-9 10241 14.02.2007 6 kanal 4.5 marla 4,69,000/- Sunaria Kalan 24 4 R-10 1454 08.05.2007 11 kanal 27,50,000/- Sunaria Kalan 10 5 R-11 5007 14.08.2007 8 kanal 1 marla 20,12,500/- Sunaria Kalan 57/13/1, 20/2 6 R-12 7320 31.10.2007 2 kanal 5,00,000/- Sunaria Kalan 43, 44 7 R-13 3691 04.07.2007 1 kanal 16 marla 4,50,000/- Sunaria Kalan 37/19, 37/12 8 R-14 5820 11.09.2007 2 kanal 5,00,000/- Sunaria Kalan 41/21/1/2, 42/23/2 9 R-15 3690 04.07.2007 1 kanal 16 marla 4,50,000/- Sunaria Kalan 37/19, 37/12 [9.1] To start with the sale exemplars of respondents in the form of Exhibits R-7 to R-15, it may be noticed here that the per acre price of land there-under ranges between Rs. 6 lakhs to Rs. 20 lakhs in the year 2007 which is significantly lesser than the market value DINESH KUMAR 2026.02.26 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -7-      assessed at the rate of Rs. 25 lakhs per acre by the LAC vide its award dated 23.06.2010 under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, based on the decision made by the Divisional Level Price Fixation Committee, headed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. The report dated 08.04.2009 of the Divisional Level Price Fixation Committee was proved on record as Exhibit R-4. In such circumstances, there was no illegality or perversity with the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court for having discarded the sale instances produced by the respondents in the form of Exhibits R-7 to R-15; those clearly not reflecting the representative market price of the acquired land at the relevant point in time. [9.2] Be that as it may, the aforementioned sale instances produced by the respondents in the form of Exhibits R-7 to R-15 been discarded and not relied upon by the learned Reference Court, however, neither any cross-appeal nor cross-objections were filed by the respondent(s)-State of Haryana, assailing the said findings which thus became final, conclusive and binding between the parties. [10] On the other hand, the appellant(s)-landowner(s) have produced on record the sale instances as Exhibits P-1 to P-19. A perusal of the record shows that the sale deed Exhibit P-19 relates to the revenue estate of Rohtak, whereas the acquired land forms part of Mauja Sunaria Kalan and therefore, the same need not be relied upon. Out of the remaining, the learned Reference Court relied upon the sale deed dated 06.07.2007 (Exhibit P-17) pertaining to land measuring 2 kanals 7 marlas against sale consideration of Rs.16,80,000/- with base price of Rs. 57,19,148/- per acre, while recording that the land parcel therein was located adjacent to the DINESH KUMAR 2026.02.26 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -8-      acquired land. The other sale instances Exhibits P-1 to P-16 & P-18 were discarded by the learned Reference Court for the reason that the same were relating to very small parcels of land. [10.1] At this stage, it may be relevant to take note of the comparative analysis with regard to the rectangle numbers of the land parcels forming part of the sale instances Exhibits P-1 to P-16 & P-18 and also the rectangle numbers of the acquired land, as under:- Rectangle Number sale instances Exhibits P-1 to P-16 & P-18 Rectangle Number of the acquired land Sr. No. Exhibit Vasika No. Date Rectangle Number 1 P-1 2707 8.6.2007 33, 34 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 32, 33, 46, 47, 63 2 P-2 8916 28.12.2007 33 3 P-3 3514 29.6.2007 34 4 P-4 11518 14.3.2007 34 5 P-5 6289 20.10.2006 28, 10 6 P-6 5044 6.9.2006 28, 10, 10, 11 7 P-7 5529 31.8.2007 43, 44 8 P-8 4355 23.7.2007 43, 44 9 P-9 5531 31.8.2007 43, 44 10 P-10 12520 30.3.2007 43, 44 11 P-11 7231 20.11.2006 43 12 P-12 13445 24.2.2006 43 13 P-13 1086 30.4.2007 17, 37 14 P-14 6405 26.10.2006 35 15 P-15 9229 17.1.2007 18 16 P-16 8930 28.12.2007 41, 42 17 P-17 3796 6.7.2007 77, 78 18 P-18 3224 21.6.2007 35 DINESH KUMAR 2026.02.26 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -9-      A perusal of the above clearly reflects that all the sale deeds Exhibits P-1 to P-16 & P-18 formed part of the same revenue estate of Village Sunaria Kalan and were located in close vicinity of the acquired land and as such, undoubtedly were of similar nature and potential. [11] Furthermore, the fact that all the 17 sale deeds proved on record by the appellant(s)-landowner(s) pertained to small parcles of land, itself established that the surroundings of the acquired land were having locational and potential advantage for being used as residential and commercial purposes. Moreover, even the Divisional Level Price Fixation Committee in its report dated 08.04.2009 also noticed this fact that the land under acquisition was near Rohtak Town and its surrounding area was already developed. The aforesaid report dated 08.04.2009 (Ex. R-4) submitted by the Divisional Level Committee held under the Chairmanship of Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, being relevant is extracted hereunder:- “ MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF DIVISIONAL LEVEL COMMITTEE, HELD UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF SH. S.P. GUPTA, I.A.S., COMMISSIONER, ROHTAK DIVISION, ROHTAK ON 8-4-2009 AT ROHTAK The meeting was attended by the following officers:- Sh. S.P. Gupta, I.A.S., Chairman Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak Sh. P.C. Meena, I.A.S., Member Secretary Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak Sh. M.S. Mann, Member District Revenue Officer, Rohtak Sh. Sanjay Rai, Member representative Estate Officer, HUDA of the Acquiring Deptt. Rohtak. The committee considered the matter of fixation of rates of land measuring 231.52 Acre under acquisition for construction of Sector-21 in Village Sunari Kalan, as per notification dated 24-12-07 U/S 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Tehsildar, Rohtak has DINESH KUMAR 2026.02.26 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -10-      inspected the site and reported that the land under acquisition is situated in village Sunari Kalan. The land under acquisition is in 1.00 KM away from village Sunari Kalan, all kind of land. Collector rates for the purpose of registration of documents is Rs. 20,00,000/- in village Sunari Kalan. One year average of Nehri/Chahi land in village Sunari Kalan is Rs.4087000/- per acre. But these average rates are for developed colony, i.e. residential area and the land under acquisition is agricultural. The Govt. of Haryana, Revenue Department vide memo no. 1298-R-5-2007/4174, Chandigarh dated 6-4-2007 have been decided minimum floor rate is Rs. 16,00,000/- per acre with in sub region of NCR. This rate will not include solatium and interest payable under the provision of Land Acquisition Act. The land which is being acquired is near Rohtak Town and the surrounding area of this land is already developed and the market rate of this land is very high and Rs. 2500000/- per acre for village Kutana has been fixed earlier but it is submitted that the land of village Sunari Kalan is near to land of village Kutana. So keeping in view of the latest Govt. directions and location of the land the committee fully agrees and recommends the rate of Rs. 25,00,000/- per acre for the land to be acquired for the development of Sector-21. -sd- -sd- -sd- -sd- Sanjay Rai, M.S. Mann, P.C.Meena, I.A.S., Commissioner Estate Officer D.R.O. Deputy Commissioner Rohtak Division, Rohtak Rohtak Rohtak Rohtak ” [12] In view of the aforesaid, once it was established on record that the land under acquisition and its surroundings was having locational and potential advantage attached to it on account of its geographical proximity to Rohtak Town, in view of the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Horrmal’s case (supra), the learned Reference Court was required to rely upon all the sale instances produced by the appellant(s)-landowner(s) as Exhibits P-1 to P-18, irrespective of the fact of the extent of area alienated there-under. However, in the humble opinion of this Court, so as to balance the equities and to take a homogeneous and representative view, reliance needs to be placed upon the top 12 sale deeds fetching the DINESH KUMAR 2026.02.26 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -11-      highest sale price and then taking average thereof. Applying the same, the market value of the land comes to Rs. 1,12,99,120.16 per acre, as per calculation made hereunder:- Sr. No. Exhibit Vasika No. Date of Sale Deed Total Sale Consideration (Rs.) Rate per acre (Rs.) 1 P-1 2707 8.6.2007 4,83,500/- 1,21,04,381.10 2 P-2 8916 28.12.2007 5,00,000/- 1,21,00,000.00 3 P-3 3514 29.6.2007 2,75,000/- 1,21,00,000.00 4 P-5 6289 20.10.2006 6,30,000/- 96,80,000.00 5 P-6 5044 6.9.2006 4,00,000/- 96,80,000.00 6 P-7 5529 31.8.2007 4,02,500/- 1,21,44,504.70 7 P-8 4355 23.7.2007 5,15,000/- 1,21,07,052.70 8 P-9 5531 31.8.2007 5,00,000/- 1,21,00,000.00 9 P-10 12520 30.3.2007 4,02,000/- 96,93,503.39 10 P-11 7231 20.11.2006 5,00,000/- 96,80,000.00 11 P-16 8930 28.12.2007 3,75,000/- 1,21,00,000.00 12 P-18 3224 21.6.2007 2,97,500/- 1,21,00,000.00 Total 13,55,89,441.89 Average (Rs. 13,55,89,441.70 / 12) 1,12,99,120.16 [13] Further, admittedly the sale instances produced by the appellant(s)-landowner(s) are of small land parcels and the acquisition in the present case has been carried out for the public purpose, namely, “Special Zone – Sector-21, Rohtak”, as such, the respondent-State definitely suffered loss of land as well as cost towards providing of basic/additional infrastructural amenities; therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, a cut of 50% needs to be applied over the base price per acre of Rs.1,12,99,120.16. Accordingly, the market price for the acquired land as on the date of DINESH KUMAR 2026.02.26 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -12-      notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case at hand comes to Rs. 56,49,560.00 per acre, as per calculation below:- Description Amount per acre (in Rs.) Base price of the land (as per average of 12 sale deeds) 1,12,99,120.16 Less: 50% development cut (Rs. 1,12,99,120.14 x 50/100) 56,49,560.08 Total 56,49,560.08 Net Compensation 56,49,560.00 (Round Off) DECISION [14] In view of the aforesaid discussion, impugned award dated 20.01.2016 passed by the learned Reference Court is modified and the appellants-landowners are held entitled for award of market value at the rate of Rs. 56,49,560.00 per acre. The appellant(s)- landowner(s) are also awarded consequential / statutory benefits and interest as provided in the 1894 Act (as amended up-to-date), especially the interest on solatium as well. [15] Also, wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately died in the appeal(s) / cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal representatives 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. [16] All the appeals are disposed off accordingly. [17] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off.
February 18, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE

    
    DINESH KUMAR 2026.02.26 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document