RFA-793 147 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) Through Estate Officer Amrik Singh and ors. CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CM-2132 present in Court, accepts notice on their behalf. allowed. record. 793-2019 (O&M) & other connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA No. XOBJR Date of Decision: Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) Through Estate Officer Versus Amrik Singh and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. V.G. Jauhar, Advocate for the appellants/ landowners. Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate Mr. Nitish Kaushal, Advocate Mr. Surbhi Rana, Advocate for Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the landowners/ XOBJRs -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 2132-CI-2026 IN CMS-4005-4006 Notice of the application to non Learned counsel representing the non present in Court, accepts notice on their behalf. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Documents appended thereto are permitted to be taken on connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 793-2019 (O&M) and XOBJR-55-2019 Date of Decision: 13.05.2026 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) …….Appellant(s) Versus ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. V.G. Jauhar, Advocate for the appellants/ landowners. Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate Mr. Nitish Kaushal, Advocate Mr. Surbhi Rana, Advocate for Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the landowners/ XOBJRs 4006-CI-2023 IN RFA-793-2019 Notice of the application to non-applicant/appellant. Learned counsel representing the non-applicant, who is present in Court, accepts notice on their behalf. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is Documents appended thereto are permitted to be taken on applicant, who is For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is Documents appended thereto are permitted to be taken on SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-793 CMS-4006 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 appellant seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the form of Minutes of Meetings, Site Plan, Sale Deeds, Plan, Plan, marked as Annexures A filed on behalf of the landowners. through the contents of the application as well as reply Annexures A appellant, are merely photostat copies countersigned by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Sub deeds have as to enable it to take advantage of the provisions of Section 51 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Act"). available to the applicant being recorded before the learned Reference Court. No reasonable explanation has been offered for the failure to produce the documents at that stage, nor any diligence been demonstrated on the 793-2019 (O&M) & other connected cases 4006-CI-2023 IN RFA-793-2019 The present application has been filed Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 appellant seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the form of Minutes of Meetings, Site Plan, Sale Deeds, Plan, Plan, marked as Annexures A-1 to A-15. Upon issuance of notice of the application, reply stands filed on behalf of the landowners. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the application as well as reply A perusal of the record Annexures A-4 to A-13, sought to be produced by the applicant appellant, are merely photostat copies countersigned by the Joint Registrar, Sub-Tehsil Majra. Certified copies of the deeds have not been placed on record by the applicant as to enable it to take advantage of the provisions of Section 51 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as It is further noted that the said sale deeds were evidently available to the applicant-appellant at the time when its evidence was being recorded before the learned Reference Court. No reasonable explanation has been offered for the failure to produce the documents at that stage, nor any diligence been demonstrated on the connected cases [2] 2019 The present application has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 on behalf of the applicant appellant seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the form of Minutes of Meetings, Site Plan, Sale Deeds, Plan, and Master 15. Upon issuance of notice of the application, reply stands I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the application as well as reply filed thereto. A perusal of the record shows that the sale deeds at 13, sought to be produced by the applicant appellant, are merely photostat copies countersigned by the Joint ertified copies of the said sale been placed on record by the applicant-appellant so as to enable it to take advantage of the provisions of Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 It is further noted that the said sale deeds were evidently appellant at the time when its evidence was being recorded before the learned Reference Court. No reasonable explanation has been offered for the failure to produce the said documents at that stage, nor any diligence been demonstrated on the under Order 41 on behalf of the applicant- appellant seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the form and Master Upon issuance of notice of the application, reply stands I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone filed thereto. that the sale deeds at 13, sought to be produced by the applicant- appellant, are merely photostat copies countersigned by the Joint said sale appellant so A of "the 1894 It is further noted that the said sale deeds were evidently appellant at the time when its evidence was being recorded before the learned Reference Court. No reasonable said documents at that stage, nor any diligence been demonstrated on the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-793 part of the applicant additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill up the gaps in evidence or to make up for the lack of diligence circumstances, the photostat copies of the sale deeds at Annexures A-4 to A additional evidence at this belated stage. A-1 to A- Minutes of the Meeting of the District Land Price Fixation Committee, Minutes of the Meeting of the Cabinet Sub Plan and Master Plan. The authenticity of the said do be disputed by the respondents public records, are admissible in evidence. In such circumstances, Annexures A taken on record as additional evidence, with lib respondents desire. however, states that no rebuttal evidence is required their behalf. hereby The application stands 793-2019 (O&M) & other connected cases part of the applicant-appellant in that regard. It is well settled that additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill up the gaps in evidence or to make up for the lack of diligence circumstances, the photostat copies of the sale deeds at Annexures 4 to A-13 cannot be permitted to be taken on record by way of additional evidence at this belated stage. Insofar as the remaining documents, namely, Annexures -3 and A-14 to A-15 are concerned, the same comprise Minutes of the Meeting of the District Land Price Fixation Committee, Minutes of the Meeting of the Cabinet Sub and Master Plan. The authenticity of the said do be disputed by the respondents-landowners, and the same, being public records, are admissible in evidence. In such circumstances, Annexures A-1 to A-3 and A-14 to A taken on record as additional evidence, with lib respondents-landowners to lead evidence in rebuttal, if they so Learned counsel for the respondents however, states that no rebuttal evidence is required their behalf. Accordingly, annexures A hereby taken on record as additional evidence. The application stands disposed of connected cases [3] appellant in that regard. It is well settled that additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill up the gaps in evidence or to make up for the lack of diligence at the trial stage. In such circumstances, the photostat copies of the sale deeds at Annexures 13 cannot be permitted to be taken on record by way of additional evidence at this belated stage. Insofar as the remaining documents, namely, Annexures 15 are concerned, the same comprise of Minutes of the Meeting of the District Land Price Fixation Committee, Minutes of the Meeting of the Cabinet Sub-Committee, Site Plan, and Master Plan. The authenticity of the said documents cannot landowners, and the same, being public records, are admissible in evidence. In such circumstances, 14 to A-15 are hereby allowed to be taken on record as additional evidence, with liberty reserved to the landowners to lead evidence in rebuttal, if they so Learned counsel for the respondents-landowners, however, states that no rebuttal evidence is required to be lead nnexures A-1 to A-3 and A-14 to A-15 are as additional evidence. disposed of accordingly. appellant in that regard. It is well settled that additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill up the gaps in evidence at the trial stage. In such circumstances, the photostat copies of the sale deeds at Annexures 13 cannot be permitted to be taken on record by way of Insofar as the remaining documents, namely, Annexures the Minutes of the Meeting of the District Land Price Fixation Committee, Committee, Site Plan, not landowners, and the same, being public records, are admissible in evidence. In such circumstances, 15 are hereby allowed to be erty reserved to the landowners to lead evidence in rebuttal, if they so landowners, to be lead on 15 are SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-793 MAIN CASE Appeals this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving identical facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from 2019 and XOBJR 2. the Award dated 2 Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali ‘Reference Court’ 3. 161.2541 Mullanpur Garibdass and Ferozepur Banghar District SAS Nagar, Mohali 17.05.2013 Act, respectively for the public purpose, namely, “ Meidcity Phase II Health Facility) in the area of Mullanpur under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1 besides award of all other statutory benefits a under the 1894 Act. 793-2019 (O&M) & other connected cases MAIN CASE: Vide this common order, a and 32 XOBJRs, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving identical facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from 2019 and XOBJR-55-CI-2019. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the Award dated 20.11.2018 passed by the learned Addl. District SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’). Briefly stating, in the present case(s), land measuring 161.2541 acres situated within the revenue estate of Village Mullanpur Garibdass and Ferozepur Banghar SAS Nagar, Mohali was acquired vide Notifications dated 17.05.2013 and 13.09.2013 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the respectively for the public purpose, namely, “ Meidcity Phase II Health Facility) in the area of Mullanpur under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on 31.12.2013 the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1 besides award of all other statutory benefits a under the 1894 Act. connected cases [4] Vide this common order, a bunch of 36 Regular First , details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving identical facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No. 793 By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to passed by the learned Addl. District (hereinafter to be referred as the ng, in the present case(s), land measuring acres situated within the revenue estate of Village Mullanpur Garibdass and Ferozepur Banghar, Tehsil Kharar and was acquired vide Notifications dated issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the 1894 respectively for the public purpose, namely, “for setting up of Meidcity Phase II Health Facility) in the area of Mullanpur”. Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition 31.12.2013, thereby determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,36,00,000/- per acre besides award of all other statutory benefits and interests provided First , details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving identical facts and question of 793- By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to passed by the learned Addl. District (hereinafter to be referred as the ng, in the present case(s), land measuring acres situated within the revenue estate of Village and was acquired vide Notifications dated 1894 setting up of . Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition , thereby determining per acre nd interests provided SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-793 4. appellants/landowners invoked References under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to be partly allowed by the learned Reference Court vide its decision dated value to a uniform rate of all other statutory benefits/interest in their favour under the 1894 Act. 5. at the instance of by the respondents 6. through the paper 7. acquired from the revenue estate of Village Mullanpur Garibdass along with 42.7125 acres from the revenue estate of Village Ferozepur Bangar vide notification dated 17.05.2013 issued under Section 4 of the Act for public purp Medicity Phase Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali” 7.1. 10.08.2009 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act respectively Ferozepur, purpose, namely, “ 793-2019 (O&M) & other connected cases Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the LAC, appellants/landowners invoked References under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to be partly allowed by the learned Reference Court vide its decision dated 20.11.201 value to a uniform rate of Rs.3,86,86,925 all other statutory benefits/interest in their favour under the 1894 Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal at the instance of appellant-GMADA and cross objections were filed by the respondents-landowners. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book as well as records of the case. In the present case(s), 118.5416 acres of land was acquired from the revenue estate of Village Mullanpur Garibdass along with 42.7125 acres from the revenue estate of Village Ferozepur Bangar vide notification dated 17.05.2013 issued under Section 4 of the Act for public purp Medicity Phase-II (Health Facility) in the area of Mullanpur Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali”. Prior thereto, vide notification dated 20.02.2009 and 10.08.2009 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act respectively, the land forming part of Villages Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol, Hoshiarpur and Majra purpose, namely, “for construction of Road from Mullanpur Garibdass connected cases [5] Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the LAC, appellants/landowners invoked References under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to be partly allowed by the learned Reference .2018, while enhancing the market 3,86,86,925/- per acre besides awarding all other statutory benefits/interest in their favour under the 1894 Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal(s) were preferred GMADA and cross objections were filed I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book as well as records of the case. ), 118.5416 acres of land was acquired from the revenue estate of Village Mullanpur Garibdass along with 42.7125 acres from the revenue estate of Village Ferozepur Bangar vide notification dated 17.05.2013 issued under Section 4 of the Act for public purpose, namely, “for setting up of II (Health Facility) in the area of Mullanpur Tehsil Prior thereto, vide notification dated 20.02.2009 and 10.08.2009 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act , the land forming part of Villages Mullanpur Garibdass, Parol, Hoshiarpur and Majra was acquired for the public for construction of Road from Mullanpur Garibdass Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the LAC, appellants/landowners invoked References under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to be partly allowed by the learned Reference enhancing the market per acre besides awarding all other statutory benefits/interest in their favour under the 1894 Act. were preferred GMADA and cross objections were filed I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone ), 118.5416 acres of land was acquired from the revenue estate of Village Mullanpur Garibdass along with 42.7125 acres from the revenue estate of Village Ferozepur Bangar vide notification dated 17.05.2013 issued under setting up of II (Health Facility) in the area of Mullanpur Tehsil Prior thereto, vide notification dated 20.02.2009 and 10.08.2009 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act , the land forming part of Villages Mullanpur Garibdass, was acquired for the public for construction of Road from Mullanpur Garibdass SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-793 to Kurali Sistan T 27.01.2026 passed in Mohali Area Development Authority, SAS Nagar (Mohali) Vs. Baldev Singh (Deceased) th. His LRs and ors. assessed the market va to the said acquisition. being relevant, Details Section 4 Section 6 Revenue Estate of Village(s) involved Public Purpose Award passed by the LAC Award passed by the learned Reference Court. 793-2019 (O&M) & other connected cases to Kurali Sistan T-Junction” and this Court vide its decision dated 27.01.2026 passed in RFA No.7762 Mohali Area Development Authority, SAS Nagar (Mohali) Vs. Baldev Singh (Deceased) th. His LRs and ors. assessed the market value @ Rs.3,38,40 to the said acquisition. A comparative being relevant, is extracted hereunder Details Previous Acquisition Section 4 20.02.2009 Section 6 10.08.2009 Revenue Estate of Village(s) involved Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol, Hoshiarpur and Majra Public Purpose Construction of road from Mullanpur Garib Dass to Kurali-Siswan T-Junction Award passed by the LAC Dated 31.03.2010 Mullanpur Garibdass: Rs. 1,45,00,000/- per Ferozepur and Parol: Rs.1,31,00,000/- per acre. Hoshiarpur: Rs.1,35,00,000/- per acre Majra: Rs.1,29,00,000/- per acre Award passed by the learned Reference Court. Dated: 22.07.2013 At a uniform rate of Rs.2,32,00,000/-. connected cases [6] ” and this Court vide its decision dated RFA No.7762-2013 titled as “The Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, SAS Nagar (Mohali) Vs. Baldev Singh (Deceased) th. His LRs and ors.”, finally re lue @ Rs.3,38,40,000/- per acre with respect A comparative table of the two acquisitions under:- Previous Acquisition Present Acquisition 17.05.2013 13.09.2013 Mullanpur Garibdass, Hoshiarpur and Majra Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur Bangar Construction of road from Mullanpur Garib Dass to Junction Setting up of Medicity Phase-II (Health Facility) in the area of Mullanpur Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. Mullanpur Garibdass: r acre. Ferozepur and Parol: per acre. per acre per acre Dated 31.12.2013 Rs.1,36,00,000/- per acre Dated: 20.11.2018 At a uniform rate of Rs.3,86,86,925/-. ” and this Court vide its decision dated The Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, SAS Nagar (Mohali) Vs. finally re- per acre with respect of the two acquisitions Present Acquisition II (Health Facility) in the area of Mullanpur Tehsil Kharar, District SAS per acre SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-793 Determination b this Court 8. A-15 produced on record by the appellant, it is evident that the major portion of the revenue estates of Villages Mullanpur Garibdass and Ferozepur Bangar are located on the 200 ft. wide master plan r leading from boundary of UT Chandigarh to Siswan T Furthermore, as evident from the above chart, since estates of Mullanpur Garibdass and Ferozepur Bangar are both acquisitions and in close geographical proximity of the land acquired under the previous acquisition , it would be appropriate for this Court to place reliance upon the decision dated Singh’s record. 9. the form of Master Plan of New Chandigarh site plan ( 15), it is evident that under the previous acquisition HR-2 Road leading from Mullanpur Garibdass to Kurali Junction, acquired chunk. Major portion of Eco City 793-2019 (O&M) & other connected cases Determination by this Court Dated: 27.01.2026 RFA-7762-2013 titled as GMADA vs. Baldev Singh (Deceased) through his LRs and ors. At a uniform rate of Rs.3,38,40,000/-. A conjoint perusal of the site plans Annexures A 15 produced on record by the appellant, it is evident that the major portion of the revenue estates of Villages Mullanpur Garibdass and Ferozepur Bangar are located on the 200 ft. wide master plan r leading from boundary of UT Chandigarh to Siswan T Furthermore, as evident from the above chart, since of Mullanpur Garibdass and Ferozepur Bangar are both acquisitions and the land acquired in the present case in close geographical proximity of the land acquired under the previous acquisition , it would be appropriate for this Court to place reliance upon the decision dated 27.01.2026 ’s case (supra) being the best evidence available on the Furthermore, from the evidence available on record in the form of Master Plan of New Chandigarh site plan ( 15), it is evident that under the previous acquisition 2 Road leading from Mullanpur Garibdass to Kurali , substantially added to the potential value of the present acquired chunk. Major portion of Eco City connected cases [7] 2013 titled as GMADA vs. Baldev Singh (Deceased) through his LRs ------ A conjoint perusal of the site plans Annexures A-14 and 15 produced on record by the appellant, it is evident that the major portion of the revenue estates of Villages Mullanpur Garibdass and Ferozepur Bangar are located on the 200 ft. wide master plan road leading from boundary of UT Chandigarh to Siswan T-Junction. Furthermore, as evident from the above chart, since the revenue of Mullanpur Garibdass and Ferozepur Bangar are involved in the land acquired in the present case is located in close geographical proximity of the land acquired under the previous acquisition , it would be appropriate for this Court to place 27.01.2026 passed in Baldev (supra) being the best evidence available on the Furthermore, from the evidence available on record in the form of Master Plan of New Chandigarh site plan (Annexure 15), it is evident that under the previous acquisition, the carving out of 2 Road leading from Mullanpur Garibdass to Kurali-Siwan T to the potential value of the present acquired chunk. Major portion of Eco City-II is infact, located exactly 14 and 15 produced on record by the appellant, it is evident that the major portion of the revenue estates of Villages Mullanpur Garibdass and oad Junction. the revenue involved in is located in close geographical proximity of the land acquired under the previous acquisition , it would be appropriate for this Court to place Baldev (supra) being the best evidence available on the Furthermore, from the evidence available on record in Annexure A- the carving out of Siwan T- to the potential value of the present II is infact, located exactly SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-793 on the said road. acquired land in the case(s) in hand are located in close proximity to Union Territory of Chandigarh. 9.1. value attached to the acquired land in the present case(s), for the time gap betwe 17.05.2013 which is 04 years and 03 months, an appreciation @ 15% per annum needs to be awarded on the market value assessed (Rs.3,38,40,000/ Rs.5,54,13,000/ percentage of appreciation @ 15 percent is placed upon the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan Dist. Badaun Thr. Its Secretary vs. Bipin Kumar & Another, Etc, 2004 (2) SCC 283 Relevant paragraph No.8 in this regard is 10. 793-2019 (O&M) & other connected cases on the said road. Nonetheless that the revenue estate acquired land in the case(s) in hand are located in close proximity to Union Territory of Chandigarh. Thus, taking into account the locational and potential value attached to the acquired land in the present case(s), for the time gap between the two notifications dated 20.02.2009 and 17.05.2013 which is 04 years and 03 months, an appreciation @ 15% per annum needs to be awarded on the market value assessed (Rs.3,38,40,000/- per acre) which comes to Rs.5,54,13,000/- per acre. The rel percentage of appreciation @ 15 percent is placed upon the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan Dist. Badaun Thr. Its Secretary vs. Bipin Kumar & Another, Etc, 2004 (2) SCC 283 Relevant paragraph No.8 in this regard is “8. However there is evidence of high potentiality. The increase of 15% given by the High Court cannot therefore be said to be unreasonable. Of course, the 15% increase has to be on Rs.15.40 which is the figure shown in the sale deed wrongly taken by the High Court. The High Court also erred in considering only three years increase whereas in fact there is four years difference between the respondent's sale deed and the acquisition proceedings. Thus taking a price of Rs.15.40 per sq. yard the value comes to Rs.24.64 per sq. yard. We accordingly set aside the order of the Reference Court and the High Court and fix value at the rate of Rs.24.64 per sq. yard. The respondent will also to statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.” Insofar as the deductions on account of development cut connected cases [8] Nonetheless that the revenue estates of the acquired land in the case(s) in hand are located in close proximity to Thus, taking into account the locational and potential value attached to the acquired land in the present case(s), for the en the two notifications dated 20.02.2009 and 17.05.2013 which is 04 years and 03 months, an appreciation @ 15% per annum needs to be awarded on the market value already per acre) which comes to per acre. The reliance with respect to the percentage of appreciation @ 15 percent is placed upon the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan Dist. Badaun Thr. Its Secretary vs. Bipin Kumar & Another, Etc, 2004 (2) SCC 283 Relevant paragraph No.8 in this regard is reproduced hereunder:- However there is evidence of high potentiality. The increase of 15% given by the High Court cannot therefore be said to be unreasonable. Of course, the 15% increase has to be on Rs.15.40 which is the figure shown in the sale deed. It cannot be on Rs.120 as wrongly taken by the High Court. The High Court also erred in considering only three years increase whereas in fact there is four years difference between the respondent's sale deed and the acquisition proceedings. Thus taking an increase of 60% over the price of Rs.15.40 per sq. yard the value comes to Rs.24.64 per sq. yard. We accordingly set aside the order of the Reference Court and the High Court and fix value at the rate of Rs.24.64 per sq. yard. The respondent will also to be entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, Insofar as the deductions on account of development cut s of the acquired land in the case(s) in hand are located in close proximity to Thus, taking into account the locational and potential value attached to the acquired land in the present case(s), for the en the two notifications dated 20.02.2009 and 17.05.2013 which is 04 years and 03 months, an appreciation @ 15% already per acre) which comes to iance with respect to the percentage of appreciation @ 15 percent is placed upon the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan Dist. Badaun Thr. Its Secretary vs. Bipin Kumar & Another, Etc, 2004 (2) SCC 283. However there is evidence of high potentiality. The increase of 15% given by the High Court cannot therefore be said to be unreasonable. Of course, the 15% increase has to be on Rs.15.40 which is the figure . It cannot be on Rs.120 as wrongly taken by the High Court. The High Court also erred in considering only three years increase whereas in fact there is four years difference between the respondent's sale deed and the acquisition n increase of 60% over the price of Rs.15.40 per sq. yard the value comes to Rs.24.64 per sq. yard. We accordingly set aside the order of the Reference Court and the High Court and fix value at the rate of Rs.24.64 per sq. yard. The be entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, Insofar as the deductions on account of development cut SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-793 and the extent thereof are concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sajan v. State of Maharashtra reaffirmed that the if the valuation of a large extent of agricultural or undeveloped land is to be based on the sale price of a small developed plot in a private layout, then the percentage of deduction may however vary betwee circumstances. The relevant paragraph No. 16 is reproduced hereunder: 793-2019 (O&M) & other connected cases and the extent thereof are concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sajan v. State of Maharashtra repor reaffirmed that the if the valuation of a large extent of agricultural or undeveloped land is to be based on the sale price of a small developed plot in a private layout, then the percentage of deduction may however vary between 20% to 75% depending on several circumstances. The relevant paragraph No. 16 is reproduced hereunder:- “16. Rule of one-third deduction towards development is the general rule. But depending upon the purpose of acquisition and taking note of well planned any, the deduction for development cost may vary from 20% to 75%. Observing that deduction towards development can range from 20% to 75% of the price of the plot, in Lal Chand v. Union of India and Another (2009) 15 SCC 769, the Supreme Court "19. If the acquired land is in a semi area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.) ...... 22. Some of the layouts formed by the statutory development authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show connected cases [9] and the extent thereof are concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in reported as 2020(14) SCC 139 has reaffirmed that the if the valuation of a large extent of agricultural or undeveloped land is to be based on the sale price of a small developed plot in a private layout, then the percentage of deduction n 20% to 75% depending on several circumstances. The relevant paragraph No. 16 is reproduced third deduction towards development is the general rule. But depending upon the purpose of acquisition and taking note of well planned layouts, if any, the deduction for development cost may vary from 20% to 75%. Observing that deduction towards development can range from 20% to 75% of the price of the plot, in Lal Chand v. Union of India and Another (2009) 15 SCC 769, the Supreme Court held as under: "19. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The centages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.) 22. Some of the layouts formed by the statutory development authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water al substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show and the extent thereof are concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in has reaffirmed that the if the valuation of a large extent of agricultural or undeveloped land is to be based on the sale price of a small developed plot in a private layout, then the percentage of deduction n 20% to 75% depending on several circumstances. The relevant paragraph No. 16 is reproduced third deduction towards development is the general rule. But depending upon the purpose of layouts, if any, the deduction for development cost may vary from 20% to 75%. Observing that deduction towards development can range from 20% to 75% of the price of the plot, in Lal Chand v. Union of India and Another held as under:- developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The centages mentioned above are tentative standards 22. Some of the layouts formed by the statutory development authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water al substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-793 11. 2003(1) SCC 354 where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the development charges required maybe less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment o towards development charges, maybe in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. Therefore, taking into consideration the potential of the acquired land for the construction of residential and commercial buildings, a applied. The relevant portions of the paragraphs are extracted hereunder: 793-2019 (O&M) & other connected cases that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage an being very wide from 20% to 75%.” Also, in Kasturi v. State of Haryana 2003(1) SCC 354, it was observed that in cases of land acquisition where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the development charges required maybe less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment o towards development charges, maybe in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. Therefore, taking into consideration the potential of the acquired land for the construction of residential and commercial buildings, a applied. The relevant portions of the paragraphs are extracted hereunder:- “5. The emphasis and thrust of the argument made on behalf of the appellants was that the cut of 20% on the amount of compensation was not at all justified having regard to the fact that the acquired land was in a fully developed area. 6. The learned Single Judge, dealing with the question of location and potentiality of the acquired land, has observed that there is really not mush dispute between the part regard; documents clearly show that the land in question is adjacent to the land already acquired connected cases [10] that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%.” Kasturi v. State of Haryana, reported as , it was observed that in cases of land acquisition where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the development charges required maybe less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards development charges, maybe in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. Therefore, taking into consideration the potential of the acquired land for the construction of residential and commercial buildings, a deduction of only 20% was applied. The relevant portions of the paragraphs are extracted The emphasis and thrust of the argument made on behalf of the appellants was that the cut of 20% on the amount of compensation was not at d having regard to the fact that the acquired land was in a fully developed area. The learned Single Judge, dealing with the question of location and potentiality of the acquired land, has observed that there is really not mush dispute between the parties in that regard; documents clearly show that the land in question is adjacent to the land already acquired that the "deduction for development" factor is a d the range of percentage itself , reported as , it was observed that in cases of land acquisition area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the development charges required maybe less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into f compensation towards development charges, maybe in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. Therefore, taking into consideration the potential of the acquired land for the construction of deduction of only 20% was applied. The relevant portions of the paragraphs are extracted The emphasis and thrust of the argument made on behalf of the appellants was that the cut of 20% on the amount of compensation was not at d having regard to the fact that the The learned Single Judge, dealing with the question of location and potentiality of the acquired land, has observed that there is really ies in that regard; documents clearly show that the land in question is adjacent to the land already acquired SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-793 793-2019 (O&M) & other connected cases for developing Sectors 13 and 23; on one side of the acquired land, there is a city railway station while on the other, there is 100 ft. wide road there is overwhelming documentary evidence to show that the land in question is surrounded by developed areas and the land has a commercial and residential potentiality. ……… However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of t developed area around, may help in deducting the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cu of compensation towards development charges, may be in some cases it is more than some cases less than that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for d purpose. ……… 14. On facts and in the light of the legal position emerging from the various decisions referred to above, it is not possible for us to say that cut of 20% adopted by the learned Single Judge as connected cases [11] for developing Sectors 13 and 23; on one side of the acquired land, there is a city railway station while on the other, there is 100 ft. wide road there is overwhelming documentary evidence to show that the land in question is surrounded by developed areas and the land has a commercial and residential potentiality. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, may help in deducting the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards development charges, may be in some cases it is more than ⅓ and in some cases less than ⅓. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which eveloped. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development On facts and in the light of the legal position emerging from the various decisions referred to above, it is not possible for us to say that cut of 20% adopted by the learned Single Judge as for developing Sectors 13 and 23; on one side of the acquired land, there is a city railway station while on the other, there is 100 ft. wide road; there is overwhelming documentary evidence to show that the land in question is surrounded by developed areas and the land has a commercial However, in cases of some land where he developed area around, may help in deducting the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into t in payment of compensation towards development charges, ⅓ and in ⅓. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which eveloped. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are evelopment On facts and in the light of the legal position emerging from the various decisions referred to above, it is not possible for us to say that cut of 20% adopted by the learned Single Judge as SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-793 12. account the fact that the acquisition in the present case has been carried out for the public purpose of (Health Facility) in the area of Mullanpur Nagar, Mohali” towards the expenditure incurred by the appellant providing all basic infrastructural amenities to the allottees. However, keeping in view the fact th vicinity of Union Territory of Chandigarh and is geographically located on the HR Garibdass to Kurali surroundings at the Altus etc. thereby, carrying all basic infrastructural civic amenities in the area, in the humble opinion of this Court, a suitable deduction @ 25% over the base price of Rs.5,54,13,000/ as against the development cost(s). The market value with respect to the acquired land, per acre as on the date of issuance of notification under section 4 of 793-2019 (O&M) & other connected cases affirmed by the Division Bench in the judgment is wrong or unsustainable. It appears to us having regard to facts and circumstances of the case that the High Court has applied cut of 20% as against the normal find that the High Court was right and justified in doing so.” From the discussion made hereinabove, and taking into account the fact that the acquisition in the present case has been carried out for the public purpose of (Health Facility) in the area of Mullanpur Nagar, Mohali”, a suitable development cut needs to be applied towards the expenditure incurred by the appellant providing all basic infrastructural amenities to the allottees. However, keeping in view the fact that the acquired land is situated in the close vicinity of Union Territory of Chandigarh and is geographically located on the HR-2 Road (Horizontal Road) leading from Mullanpur Garibdass to Kurali-Siswan T-Junction with already developed surroundings at the hands of private Colonizers namely Omaxe and Altus etc. thereby, carrying all basic infrastructural civic amenities in the area, in the humble opinion of this Court, a suitable deduction @ 25% over the base price of Rs.5,54,13,000/ as against the development cost(s). The market value with respect to the acquired land, in the case in hand per acre as on the date of issuance of notification under section 4 of connected cases [12] affirmed by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment is wrong or unsustainable. It appears to us having regard to facts and circumstances of the case that the High Court has applied cut of 20% as against the normal ⅓ deduction. We find that the High Court was right and justified in From the discussion made hereinabove, and taking into account the fact that the acquisition in the present case has been carried out for the public purpose of setting up of Medicity Phase (Health Facility) in the area of Mullanpur, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS , a suitable development cut needs to be applied towards the expenditure incurred by the appellant-authority for providing all basic infrastructural amenities to the allottees. However, at the acquired land is situated in the close vicinity of Union Territory of Chandigarh and is geographically located 2 Road (Horizontal Road) leading from Mullanpur Junction with already developed hands of private Colonizers namely Omaxe and Altus etc. thereby, carrying all basic infrastructural civic amenities in the area, in the humble opinion of this Court, a suitable deduction @ 25% over the base price of Rs.5,54,13,000/- per acre would suffice as against the development cost(s). The market value with respect to in the case in hand thus comes to Rs.4,15,59,750/ per acre as on the date of issuance of notification under section 4 of impugned judgment is wrong or unsustainable. It appears to us having regard to facts and circumstances of the case that the High Court has applied cut ⅓ deduction. We find that the High Court was right and justified in From the discussion made hereinabove, and taking into account the fact that the acquisition in the present case has been setting up of Medicity Phase-II Tehsil Kharar, District SAS , a suitable development cut needs to be applied authority for providing all basic infrastructural amenities to the allottees. However, at the acquired land is situated in the close vicinity of Union Territory of Chandigarh and is geographically located 2 Road (Horizontal Road) leading from Mullanpur Junction with already developed hands of private Colonizers namely Omaxe and Altus etc. thereby, carrying all basic infrastructural civic amenities in the area, in the humble opinion of this Court, a suitable deduction @ per acre would suffice as against the development cost(s). The market value with respect to thus comes to Rs.4,15,59,750/- per acre as on the date of issuance of notification under section 4 of SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-793 the 1894 Act dated 17.05.20 13. Reference Court, the argument raised on behalf of the respondents/landowners that the determination of market value was required to be done under the provisions of 2013 Act, however in the present appeals/cro behalf of the respondents/landowner adjudication/determination. 14. Mullanpur Garibdass and Ferozepur Bangar Rs.4,15,59,750/ entitled for award of all statutory benefits and interest as provided under the provisions of the 1894 Act (amended upto date). The landowners shall also be entitled for solatium @ 30% bes of interest thereupon. 15. above, the appeals preferred at the instance of appellant(s) are hereby dismissed and the cross landowners are partly allowed in the 16. expired in the appeal(s)/cross legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by m 793-2019 (O&M) & other connected cases the 1894 Act dated 17.05.2013. It may be noticed here that though before the learned Reference Court, the argument raised on behalf of the respondents/landowners that the determination of market value was required to be done under the provisions of 2013 Act, however in the present appeals/cross-objections, no such argument was raised on behalf of the respondents/landowner adjudication/determination. Accordingly, the market value for the land acquired in Mullanpur Garibdass and Ferozepur Bangar Rs.4,15,59,750/-per acre. In addition, the landowners shall also be entitled for award of all statutory benefits and interest as provided under the provisions of the 1894 Act (amended upto date). The landowners shall also be entitled for solatium @ 30% bes of interest thereupon. Consequently, in view of the discussion made herein above, the appeals preferred at the instance of appellant(s) are hereby dismissed and the cross landowners are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by m connected cases [13] be noticed here that though before the learned Reference Court, the argument raised on behalf of the respondents/landowners that the determination of market value was required to be done under the provisions of 2013 Act, however in the objections, no such argument was raised on behalf of the respondents/landowners, thus the same needs no Accordingly, the market value for the land acquired in Mullanpur Garibdass and Ferozepur Bangar is re-assessed @ . In addition, the landowners shall also be entitled for award of all statutory benefits and interest as provided under the provisions of the 1894 Act (amended upto date). The landowners shall also be entitled for solatium @ 30% besides award Consequently, in view of the discussion made herein above, the appeals preferred at the instance of appellant(s)-GMADA are hereby dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the aforesaid terms. Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate be noticed here that though before the learned Reference Court, the argument raised on behalf of the respondents/landowners that the determination of market value was required to be done under the provisions of 2013 Act, however in the objections, no such argument was raised on , thus the same needs no Accordingly, the market value for the land acquired in assessed @ . In addition, the landowners shall also be entitled for award of all statutory benefits and interest as provided under the provisions of the 1894 Act (amended upto date). The ides award Consequently, in view of the discussion made herein GMADA objections filed by the Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek oving appropriate SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-793 application(s) before the learned Executing Court. 17. disposed of. 13.05.2026 sanjay Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 793-2019 (O&M) & other connected cases application(s) before the learned Executing Court. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .05.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Sr. No. Case No. RFA-794-2019 (O&M) & XOBJR-79-2019 RFA-795-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-42-2019 RFA-796-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-47-2019 RFA-797-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-52-2019 RFA-798-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-87-2019 RFA-799-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-83-2019 RFA-800-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-60-2019 RFA-801-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-61-2019 RFA-802-2019(O&M) 10. RFA-803-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-45-2019 11. RFA-804-2019(O&M) 12. RFA-805-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-48-2019 13. RFA-806-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-49-2019 14. RFA-807-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-88-2019 15. RFA-808-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-65-2019 16. RFA-809-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-64-2019 17. RFA-810-2019(O&M) & connected cases [14] application(s) before the learned Executing Court. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No 2019 (O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-793 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 13.05.2026 sanjay 793-2019 (O&M) & other connected cases XOBJR-129-2019 18. RFA-842-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-50-2019 19. RFA-843-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-59-2019 20. RFA-844-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-43-2019 21. RFA-845-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-68-2019 22. RFA-846-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-58-2019 23. RFA-847-2019(O&M) 24. RFA-848-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-57-2019 25. RFA-849-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-41-2019 26. RFA-850-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-106-2019 27. RFA-851-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-46-2019 28. RFA-852-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-86-2019 29. RFA-853-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-54-2019 30. RFA-854-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-53-2019 31. RFA-855-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-124-2019 32. RFA-856-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-44-2019 33. RFA-857-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-40-2019 34. RFA-858-2019(O&M) & XOBJR-51-2019 35. RFA-859-2019(O&M) .05.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) connected cases [15] 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) & 2019(O&M) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.20 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document