IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 103 RFA-191-2016 Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 RANDHIR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS. ...Appellants Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ...Respondents And Sr. No. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s) 2. RFA-2011-2015 (O&M) State of Haryana & Anr. Sujani Devi & Ors. 3. RFA-2012-2015 (O&M) State of Haryana & Anr. Sarti Devi & Ors. 4. RFA-2013-2015 (O&M) State of Haryana & Anr. Saroj Bala 5. RFA-2037-2017 State of Haryana & Ors. Bir Singh & Anr. 6. RFA-2038-2017 State of Haryana & Ors. Jagdish & Ors. 7. RFA-2439-2017 Bir Singh & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors. 8. RFA-2825-2017 Jagdish & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors. 9. RFA-5353-2015 Gopi Chand & Ors. State of Haryana & Anr. 10. RFA-5571-2014 Sujani Devi & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors. 11. RFA-5572-2014 Saroj Bala State of Haryana & Ors. 12. RFA-701-2016 State of Haryana & Anr. Randhir Deceased through LRs & Ors. 13. RFA-8971-2014 Sarti Devi & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate for appellant(s) (in RFA-191-2016 and RFA-2439-2016) for respondent(s) (in RFA-2037-2016 and RFA-2038-2016) Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for appellants (in RFA-5571-2014 and RFA-5572-2014) Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for appellants (in RFA-8971-2014) Ms. Indu Bala, Advocate for Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate and Mr. Kaanan Jain, Advocate for appellants (in RFA-5353-2015) Mr. Abhinash Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana *** DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.22 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-7247-2012 and connected cases -2- JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, 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-191-2016. 2. The appellants through instant appeal are seeking modification of award dated 16.10.2015 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon has not awarded compensation as claimed by them. 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 three Villages namely Fazilpur Jharsa, Khandsa and Tikri, Tehsil & District Gurugram for setting up of Badhapur Nalla (waste water choe), Phase-I from Sohana Road to NH-8, Gurugram. The said notification was followed by notification dated 04.10.2006 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act. 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 Tikri was 12.052 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 DEEPAK BISSYANcontentions, led their evidence. The State attempted to justify market 2026.07.22 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-7247-2012 and connected cases -3- 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 @ ₹67,49,580/- per acre. In this way, the Reference Court has enhanced market value from ₹42,00,000/- per acre (determined by Collector) to ₹67,49,580/- per acre. The landowners as well as State are in appeal before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for appellants-Landowners submit that in the same Village i.e. Tikri, District Gurugram, land was acquired vide notification dated 27.11.2003. Market value of said land has been determined by this Court @ ₹70,28,650/- per acre. Order of this Court stands upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Reference Court in the present case has determined market value on the basis of market value of land which was acquired vide notification dated 27.11.2003. At the time of passing of impugned award, this Court had not assessed the value, thus, value assessed by Reference Court was available. Accordingly, value @ ₹67,49,580/- was assessed. This Court vide order dated 10.03.2025 passed in RFA-7223-2013 has assessed value of land belonging to Village Tikri and acquired vide notification dated 27.11.2003 @ ₹70,28,650/-. Supreme Court in Ram Kishan v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine 715 has approved escalation and de- escalation @ 12% per annum. Applying the said principal, value of land in question comes to ₹94.88 lakh per acre. 8. Learned State counsel expressed his inability to controvert afore-stated factual and legal position, however, submits that as per DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.22 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-7247-2012 and connected cases -4- judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2018) 13 SCC 96 award passed with respect to another piece of land cannot be mechanically applied. The land in question was passing through villages and it was utilized for nalla, thus, escalation of not more than 6% should be granted. 9. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 10. Concededly, value of land acquired in 2006 was determined ₹42,00,000/-. Supreme Court in Ram Krishan (supra) has applied formula of 12% escalation and de-escalation to determine market value of the acquired land. Land in question falls within the same village which was subject matter of acquisition in October’ 2006. Applying the aforesaid principal, market value of land in question comes to ₹94.88 lakh per acre. 11. In the backdrop, this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned award order deserves to be modified. Accordingly, impugned award stands modified to the extent that market value of the land in question is assessed @ ₹94.88 lakh per acre. The appellants shall be entitled to statutory benefits as provided under 1894 Act. 12. Allowed in above terms. 13. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE July 21, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.22 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment