RFA-107 XOBJR-238 125 (2 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Haryana State Vinod Kumar Juneja CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) First Appeal of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. 2. laid to the decision dated Additional District Judge, further enhancement of compensation. 3. District Rohtak 107-2016 (O&M) & 238-C1-2016 [1 (2 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** Date of Decision: RFA No. XOBJR Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Versus Vinod Kumar Juneja and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and Ms. Surbhi Rana, Advocate for the appellant Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate, Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocate Ms.Apoorva Kinra, Advocate for the respondents/landowners --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Vide this common order, First Appeal and XOBJR are being decided as of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of By way of filing the present appeal challenge has been laid to the decision dated 22.07.2015 Additional District Judge, Rohtak-cum further enhancement of compensation. Briefly stating, some land District Rohtak was acquired by the Government of 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.01.2026 RFA No. 107 of 2016 (O&M) with OBJR-238-CI-2016 (O&M) Industrial Development Corporation …….Appellant Versus ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and Ms. Surbhi Rana, Advocate for the appellant-HSIIDC and Ms.Apoorva Kinra, Advocate for the respondents/landowners- XOBJRs Vide this common order, the abovementioned Regular are being decided as both have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of way of filing the present appeal challenge has been 22.07.2015 passed by the learned cum-Reference Court, seeking further enhancement of compensation. some land, situated in Village Kharawar, acquired by the Government of Haryana vide with Regular have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of way of filing the present appeal challenge has been passed by the learned ourt, seeking Village Kharawar, vide SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.13 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-107 XOBJR-238 notifications dated Sections 4 and 6 of respectively, for Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award 30.11.2009 Rs.16,00,000/ under the Act. 4. landowners which came to be disposed of by the learned determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. per acre and additional amount @ 12% per annum assessed market value, 5. Court, the present appeal HSIIDC and the XOBJR at the instance of respondents/ 6. respondents/ landowners determination in respect of the market value in the wake of decision rendered by 02.12.2021 in RFA No.3240 Haryana 107-2016 (O&M) & 238-C1-2016 [2 notifications dated 13.02.2008 and 31.12.2008 Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for setting up of Industrial Model Town, Rohtak Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award 30.11.2009 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land 16,00,000/- per acre, besides granting all other statutory benefits under the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, landowners filed reference petition invoking which came to be disposed of by the learned determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. per acre along with all statutory benefits including solatium and additional amount @ 12% per annum assessed market value, as granted by t Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeal was preferred at the instance of appellant HSIIDC and the XOBJR at the instance of respondents/ As a matter of record, learned counsel for the ondents/ landowners-XOBJRs determination in respect of the market value in the wake of decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.12.2021 in RFA No.3240-2015, titled as Haryana and another, whereby the market 2] 13.02.2008 and 31.12.2008, issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ setting up of Industrial Model Town, Rohtak. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated assessed market value in respect of the acquired land besides granting all other statutory benefits Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the respondents invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court while determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.27,00,000/ along with all statutory benefits including solatium @ 30% and additional amount @ 12% per annum on the above mentioned as granted by the LAC. Award passed by the learned Reference preferred at the instance of appellant HSIIDC and the XOBJR at the instance of respondents/ landowners As a matter of record, learned counsel for the OBJRs has not disputed the final determination in respect of the market value in the wake of decision a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2015, titled as Satpal Vs. State of , whereby the market value pertaining to the issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ The dated assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ besides granting all other statutory benefits, respondents/ Section 18 of the Act, Reference Court while 27,00,000/- @ 30% on the above mentioned Award passed by the learned Reference preferred at the instance of appellant- landowners. As a matter of record, learned counsel for the has not disputed the final determination in respect of the market value in the wake of decision a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated Satpal Vs. State of value pertaining to the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.13 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-107 XOBJR-238 same acquisition land located upto the depth of 1 acre on the National Highway Rs.41,47,214/ to other statutory benefits as provided under the Act. 7. position to Rs.46,43,116/ on the National Highway located in the interior 8. decision dated appeal filed at the XOBJRs filed at the instance of respondents/ landowners/ are allowed. entitled for award of damages to the tune of Rs.60,000/ provisions of Clause IV of Section 23 of the Act as detailed in para 25 of the Reference Court Award. 9 disposed of. 12.01.2026 sanjay 107-2016 (O&M) & 238-C1-2016 [3 same acquisition was assessed @ Rs. land located upto the depth of 1 acre on the National Highway Rs.41,47,214/- per acre for the land located in the interior to other statutory benefits as provided under the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant HSIIDC position to dispute the factum of grant of market value @ Rs.46,43,116/- per acre for the land located upto the depth of 1 acre e National Highway and @ Rs.41,47,214/ located in the interior in Satpal’s case (supra). Since the matter in hand is squarely covered by the decision dated 02.12.2021 passed in filed at the instance of appellant HSIIDC is dismissed and the OBJRs filed at the instance of respondents/ landowners/ are allowed. In addition, the landowners/ cross entitled for award of damages to the tune of Rs.60,000/ provisions of Clause IV of Section 23 of the Act as detailed in para 25 of the Reference Court Award. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 12.01.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? 3] was assessed @ Rs.46,43,116/- per acre for the land located upto the depth of 1 acre on the National Highway and @ located in the interior, in addition to other statutory benefits as provided under the Act. for the appellant HSIIDC is even not in a dispute the factum of grant of market value @ per acre for the land located upto the depth of 1 acre and @ Rs.41,47,214/- per acre for the same case (supra). Since the matter in hand is squarely covered by the passed in Satpal’s case (supra), thus, the instance of appellant HSIIDC is dismissed and the OBJRs filed at the instance of respondents/ landowners/ XOBJRs landowners/ cross-objectors shall also be entitled for award of damages to the tune of Rs.60,000/- in terms of provisions of Clause IV of Section 23 of the Act as detailed in para Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No per acre for the and @ ition is even not in a dispute the factum of grant of market value @ per acre for the land located upto the depth of 1 acre same Since the matter in hand is squarely covered by the , thus, the instance of appellant HSIIDC is dismissed and the OBJRs objectors shall also be in terms of provisions of Clause IV of Section 23 of the Act as detailed in para Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.13 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document