IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** 116-1 RFA-3335-2017 Reserved on : 08.07.2026 Pronounced on : 15.07.2026 SURESH & ORS. …Appellants Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. …Respondents And Sr. No. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s) 2. RFA-3942-2017 Sunita & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors. 3. RFA-3943-2017 Ravinder & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors. 4. RFA-3944-2017 Sunita & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors. 5. RFA-3945-2017 Prem Singh through LRs State of Haryana & Anr. 6. RFA-4554-2017 Satbir Singh & Ors. State of Haryana & Anr. 7. RFA-2122-2017 State of Haryana & Anr. Suresh & Others 8. RFA-2123-2017 State of Haryana & Anr. Satbir Singh & Ors. 9. RFA-2124-2017 State of Haryana & Anr. Prem Singh through LRs 10. RFA-2126-2017 State of Haryana & Anr. Sunita & Ors. 11. RFA-2125-2017 State of Haryana & Anr. Ravinder & Ors. 12. RFA-2127-2017 State of Haryana & Anr. Sunita & Ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate with Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate for appellants (in RFA-3942-2017, RFA-3943-2017, RFA-3944-2017, RFA-3945-2017 and RFA-4554-2017) Mr. Abhinash Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana *** 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-3335-2017. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.17 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-3335-2017 and connected cases -2- 2. The appellants through instant appeal are seeking modification of award dated 23.02.2017 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani (hereinafter called as ‘Reference Court’) has not awarded amount of compensation as claimed by them. 3. The State Government issued notification dated 08.01.2008 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) for acquisition of 8 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Dadri, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani with intent to construct a bypass from Dadri-Bhiwani Road to Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. The said notification was followed by notification dated 09.09.2008 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act. On demarcation, actual area of acquired land was found 9.66 acres. 4. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’) vide Award dated 18.06.2009, in terms of provisions of 1894 Act, determined compensation payable to landowners at the rate of ₹ 30 lakh per acre. 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, adjudicated the petition. The Reference Court has assessed market value of acquired land ₹ 40 lakh per acre. The landowners as well as State are in appeal before this Court. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.17 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-3335-2017 and connected cases -3- 7. Learned Counsel for appellants submits that Reference Court has wrongly rejected evidence Exhibit P-1 to P-11 and P-18. Evidence led by appellants disclose that value of land during 2007-08 was ranging from ₹48,40,000/- to ₹2,48,00,000/- per acre. The Reference Court has rejected their evidence on the sole ground that area of land disclosed in relied upon sale deeds is very small. The Reference Court could impose cut to determine value of acquired land, however, there was no occasion to reject evidence led by appellants. The Court has determined market value @ ₹40 lakh per acre, however, ordered to deduct ₹5,00,000/- per acre on account of rehabilitation policy launched by the State Government. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that Reference Court has rightly rejected sale deeds relied upon by landowners. All the sale deeds relate to area ranging from 150 sq. yards to 500 sq. yards. The size of land acquired was more than 9 acres. The relied upon sale deeds are transactions of plots whereas land in question was agricultural land. Value of agricultural land cannot be determined on the basis of sales of plots. The site map does not disclose location of aforesaid plots which indicate that these plots fall within Municipal limits and in any case does not relate to agricultural land. 9. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 10. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that delay in filing any appeal which is part of present bunch may be condoned. Accordingly, delay, if any, in any case, stands condoned. 11. From the perusal of record and arguments of stakeholders, it is evident that State vide notification dated 08.01.2008 read with notification dated 09.09.2008 acquired 9.66 acres land situated in Village Dadri, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. The land was acquired for the construction DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.17 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-3335-2017 and connected cases -4- of a bypass from Dadri-Bhiwani Road to Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. The relevant date for the determination of market value of the acquired land was 08.01.2008 i.e. date of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act. The Collector determined ₹ 30 lakh per acre market value of the acquired land. The landowners were held entitled to statutory benefits besides market value of the acquired land. The landowners filed reference petitions and Reference Court vide impugned award has determined market value of acquired land as ₹ 40 lakh per acre. 12. The dispute before this court is confined to assessment of market value of the land in question. The Collector determined market value of the land as ₹ 30 lakh per acre whereas Reference Court has determined as ₹ 40 lakh per acre, however withheld ₹5 lakh per acre on the ground of rehabilitation policy. Both sides produced evidence in support of their contentions. Details of documents relied upon by both sides read as: Sale deeds relied upon by the landowners: Sr. No. Exhibits Sale deed No. Date Area Sale Consideraon Rate per acre 1 Ex.P1 2729 10.10.2007 0K-5M ₹7,50,000 ₹2,42,00,000 2 Ex.P2 236 25.4.2007 0K 7½ M ₹6,75,000 ₹1,45,20,000 3 Ex.P3 459 17.5.2007 0K 10 M ₹9,00,000 ₹1,45,20,000 4 Ex.P4 606 31.3.2006 340 Sq. Yd. ₹3,40,000 ₹48,40,000 5 Ex.P5 2420 30.8.2006 250 Sq. Yd. ₹3,75,000 ₹72,60,000 6 Ex.P6 2729 10.10.2007 0K 5M ₹7,50,000 ₹2,42,00,000 7 Ex.P7 625 26.5.2005 0K 7 2/3 M ₹4,62,000 ₹96,80,000 8 Ex.P8 1841 15.2.2006 45 Sq. Yd. ₹1,12,500 ₹1,21,00,000 9 Ex.P9 271 10.10.2007 200 Sq. Yd. ₹3,00,000 ₹72,60,000 10 Ex.P10 2714 10.10.2007 250 Sq. Yd. ₹3,75,000 ₹72,60,000 11 Ex.P11 2422 18.09.2007 500 Sq. Yd. ₹15,00,000 ₹1,45,20,000 12 Ex.P12 1403 13.08.2008 151.50 Sq.Yd. ₹5,00,000 ₹1,59,73,597 13 Ex.P13 1337 6.8.2008 250 Sq. Yd. ₹4,25,000 ₹82,28,000 14 Ex.P14 1336 6.8.2008 250 Sq. Yd. ₹4,25,000 ₹82,28,000 15 Ex.P15 1609 5.9.2008 195 Sq. Yd. ₹3,31,500 ₹82,28,000 16 Ex.P16 1335 6.8.2008 100 Sq. Yd. ₹1,70,000 ₹82,28,000 17 Ex.P17 1881 1.10.2008 310 Sq. Yd. ₹10,23,000 ₹1,59,72,000 18 Ex.P18 52 6.4.2007 200 Sq. Yd. ₹6,00,000 ₹1,45,20,000 DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.17 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-3335-2017 and connected cases -5- Sale deeds relied upon by the State: Sr. No. Exhibit s Sale deed No. Date Area Sale consideraon Rate per acre 1 Ex.R5 273 4.5.2005 0K 5 M ₹30,000 ₹9,60,000 2 Ex.R6 4764 23.1.2006 0K 10 M ₹1,20,000 ₹19,20,000 3 Ex.R7 5792 22.3.2006 0K 11-2/3 M ₹1,40,000 ₹19,06,382 4 Ex.R8 5438 27.2.2006 0K 13-1/3 M ₹1,60,000 ₹19,69,230 5 Ex.R9 1865 10.10.2008 23K 18 M ₹26,89,000 ₹9,00,84 (sic: 9,00,083) 13. The Reference Court weighed veracity of aforesaid documents/sale deeds and rejected sale deeds Exhibit R-5 to R-9 on the ground that value declared in the sale deeds is less than the value determined by Collector i.e. ₹ 30 lakh per acre, however, considered sale deeds Exhibit P-1 to P-18 and judgment of this Court dated 22.09.2015 passed in RFA- 6725-2013. The Court determined market value at the rate of ₹ 40 lakh per acre. 14. For determining market value of a tract of land, based on sale consideration of a small piece of land, cut is imposed on account of any of two or both reasons i.e. cost of development and market value of small piece of land vis-à-vis a tract of land. Value of a developed plot includes cost of roads, electricity, water, sewage, drainage, common facilities area etc. It is a matter of knowledge that ordinarily a small piece of land fetches more value than a big contiguous piece. Thus, value of a big chunk of land cannot be determined on the basis of sale consideration of a small piece of land. 1894 Act has laid down parameters to determine market value of the land and courts/authorities are required to apply their mind and determine market value as accurate as possible. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.17 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-3335-2017 and connected cases -6- 15. A conspectus of judicial precedents and statutory provisions reveals that following factors should be kept in mind while determining value of acquired land: i) Collector rate of land of the acquired land should be considered but not mechanically applied. ii) Collector rate or sale consideration of acquired land should be preferred than any other land irrespective of location. iii) If sale consideration of acquired land is not available, sale consideration of nearest land possessing advantages should be considered. The principle should be lesser the distance more the preference. iv) Capitalization methods by putting its potential value having close to the developed or developing colonies nearest to road etc. v) Sale consideration of a big chunk of land should be preferred than smaller piece of land. vi) In case sale consideration of only small piece of land is available, an appropriate cut should be imposed. vii) In case sale consideration of developed plot is available, appropriate deduction towards cost of development should be made. viii) Market value specified for the purpose of registration of sale deeds or agreements to sale in the area where the acquired land is situated i.e. for the leavy of stamp duty. 16. In the present case, size of land acquired was 9.66 acres. The landowners produced 18 sale deeds in support of their contentions. The appellant-landowners during hearing heavily relied upon Ex. P-1 and P-6 as well as Ex. P-9 and P-10. Exhibit P-1 and P-6 are one and same document, DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.17 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-3335-2017 and connected cases -7- however, were led twice as evidence. Sale deed Ex. P-1 is dated 10.10.2007 and P-9 and P-10 are also dated 10.10.2007. Land comprised in Ex.P-1 is 150 sq. yards and land comprised in P-9 and P-10 is 200 and 250 sq. yards, respectively. On the same date, three sale deeds were registered. Area involved was 150, 200 and 250 sq. yards. Value of 150 sq. yards was ₹5,000/- per sq. yards whereas value of 200 and 250 sq. yards comes to ₹1,500/- per sq. yards. These sale deeds were either prepared just to project maximum market value of the acquired land because survey is conducted prior to date of notification under Section 4 and many people come to know this fact or these deeds disclose exorbitant variation in the price due to size or location. If 150 sq. yards plot fetches ₹5,000/- per sq. yards and 200/250 sq. yards fetch Rs.1500/- sq. yards, there seems no question to rely upon those sale deeds while determining market value of 9 acres agricultural land. It is well known that agricultural land is not sold in the form of small plots. Thus, Reference Court has rightly denied to calculate market value on the basis of aforesaid sale deeds though has formed an opinion that there was growth in market price of land in question during 2007-08. The Court has further rightly rejected sale deeds cited by respondent-State on the ground that value disclosed in aforesaid sale deeds is less than value determined by Collector and as per Section 25 of 1894 Act, Court cannot determine market value less than determined by Collector. It is apt to notice here that Court cannot determine market value less than determined by Collector, however, sales deeds of the relevant period may be noticed/weighed while relying upon sales deeds produced by landowners. 17. The Reference Court has relied upon judgment dated 22.09.2015 passed in RFA-6725-2013. The said judgment was cited by appellants-landowners as Ex.P-19. This Court in the said case has DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.17 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-3335-2017 and connected cases -8- determined market value ₹35 lakh per acre. In the said case, notification was issued on 22.02.2007 and acquired land was falling within the vicinity of Charkhi-Dadri. Land in question is adjoining the land acquired vide aforesaid notification dated 27.02.2007. There is gap of about 10 months between the notification issued under Section 4 in the present case and notification issued in case of relied upon judgment. Considering the growth, the Reference Court has determined market value of land in question at the rate of ₹40 lakh per acre. The Court has deducted ₹5 lakh towards annual annuity granted by State Government as per Rehabilitation Policy. 1894 Act nowhere provides for such a deduction. The Reference Court is supposed to determine market value and in the present case has rightly assessed ₹40 lakh per acre. Deduction of ₹5 lakh towards rehabilitation policy is not justified. The respondent-State is liable to pay ₹40 lakh per acre as market price irrespective of rehabilitation policy. The appellant-landowners are further entitled to 12% p.a. addition as per Section 23(1A), solatium under Section 23(2) and interest under Section 28 as awarded by Reference Court. 18. Landowners’ appeals are allowed in above terms and State appeals are hereby dismissed. 19. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE July 15, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Date of Uploading : 17.07.2026 DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.17 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment