-1- RFA-1026-2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** 122 Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 1. RFA-1026-2019 THE PUNJAB STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD …Appellant Versus AMARJIT SINGH AND OTHERS …Respondents And Sr. No. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s) 2. RFA-1027-2019 THE PUNJAB STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD SOM NATH VERMA AND ANOTHER 3. XOBJR-19-2024 THE PUNJAB STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD SOM NATH VERMA AND ANOTHER 4. RFA-1028-2019 THE PUNJAB STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS 5. RFA-1029-2019 THE PUNJAB STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD RAM PAL AND ANOTHER 6. RFA-1030-2019 THE PUNJAB STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD JASPAL SINGH AND OTHERS 7. RFA-1031-2019 THE PUNJAB STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD SANJEEV AND OTHERS 8. RFA-1032-2019 THE PUNJAB STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD SHANTI DEVI AND OTHERS 9. RFA-1042-2025 (O&M) KULWANT KAUR BATH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND OTHERS 10. RFA-1810-2019 JASPAL SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 11. RFA-8494-2018 RAM PAL STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 12. RFA-8496-2018 AMARJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 13. RFA-8497-2018 SANJEEV AND OTHERS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 14. RFA-8498-2018 RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 15. RFA-8499-2018 SHANTI DEVI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 16. RFA-95-2023 (O&M) STATE OF PUNJAB HARBANS SINGH AND OTHERS 17. RFA-1319-2025 (O&M) THE PUNJAB STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD KULWANT KAUR BATH AND ANOTHER 18. RFA-1320-2025 (O&M) THE PUNJAB STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD LATA RATHORE AND OTHERS 19. RFA-1321-2025 THE PUNJAB STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD INDER PAL AND ANOTHER 20. RFA-1033-2019 THE PUNJAB STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD JASPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- RFA-1026-2019 21. XOBJR-20-2026 THE PUNJAB STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD JASPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER 22. RFA-1027-2026 (O&M) THE PUNJAB STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD PARMESH KUMAR AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Ms. Manveen Narang, Advocate for the appellant (in RFA Nos. 1033, 1810 & 1026 to 1031 of 2019 and in RFA Nos. 1319 to 1321 of 2025) Mr. Puru Jarewal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr. Raj Kumar Rathore, Advocate For appellant (in RFA-1810-2019) For cross-objector/respondent No.1 (in XOBJR-20-2026 in RFA-1033-2019) Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate and Mr. Nitish Kaushal, Advocate for landowners Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate For respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (in RFA-1320-2025) Ms. Mona Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate for respondent No.2 (in RFA-1810-2019) *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals and cross objections, 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-1026-2019. 2. The appellant-Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board through instant appeal is seeking modification of award dated 02.08.2018 whereby learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar Mohali (hereinafter called as ‘Reference Court’) has enhanced amount awarded by Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’). The landowners are claiming enhancement of compensation determined by Reference Court, thus, State is SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- RFA-1026-2019 seeking reduction and landowners are seeking increase in compensation determined by Reference Court. 3. The State Government issued notification dated 28.10.2003 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) acquired 21 Acres 16 Marla land situated within the revenue estate of village Charharhi, Hadbast No.120 and village/town Kurali Hadbast No. 121, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar Mohali with intent to set up New Mandi Township. The said notification was followed by notification dated 09.12.2011 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act. 4. The Collector, vide Award dated 15.07.2013, in terms of provisions of 1894 Act, determined compensation payable to landowners. Market value of the acquired land was determined as ₹7.50 lakh per acre upto 2 acres abutting the road and ₹6.50 lakh per acre for remaining piece of land. 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, by impugned common award adjudicated reference petitions. The Reference Court has assessed market value of acquired land @ ₹ 58,22,000/- per acre. The State as well as landowners are in appeal before this Court. SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -4- RFA-1026-2019 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-PSAMB submits that land was acquired vide notification dated 28.10.2003. The notification issued under Section 4 came to be challenged before this Court vide CWP-17704- 2003. This Court vide order dated 11.01.2003 stayed operation of notification issued under Section 4 of 1894 Act. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2006. The landowners filed SLP and Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.09.2006 stayed operation of aforesaid notification. SLP was finally dismissed on 18.01.2011. Because of stay granted by this Court and thereafter Supreme Court, the landowners became entitled to 12% per annum addition as per Section 23(1A) for 980 days i.e. period other than stay. The Reference Court has wrongly relied upon award dated 01.05.2013 passed by learned ADJ, SAS Nagar which was based upon exemplar sale (Ex. P-5). It is settled law that sale subsequent to notification under Section 4 cannot be relied upon. The notification under Section 4 in the present case was issued on 28.10.2003 whereas sale (Ex. P- 5) took place on 10.02.2005. It is further settled law that sale of a small piece of land cannot be considered where a large chunk of land is acquired. It is further apt to notice that sale deed dated 10.02.2005 related to land located near to i.e. half kilometer away from National Highway whereas land in question was agricultural land and area involved was 21 Acres 16 Marlas. The Reference Court has further awarded same amount of compensation to landowners irrespective of location and nature of land. Collector in the award had determined different values as per nature and location of land. Same value cannot be determined ignoring nature and location of land. The Court has made reverse calculation by applying cut of 12% per annum. On the SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -5- RFA-1026-2019 market value determined vide award dated 01.05.2013 passed by Reference Court qua land acquired for railway overbridge. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents who are also representing landowners in the connected appeals submit that land was acquired under notification dated 28.10.2003, however, award was passed by Collector on 15.07.2013. As per Section 11A, award could not be passed after the expiry of 2 years from the date of notification. Even if period of stay is excluded, the award was passed beyond 02 years. At this stage, this argument is irrelevant because land has already been utilized. The respondent passed award in 2013 and thereafter took possession. Value of land during 2003-13 had increased multiple fold. The landowners submitted sale deeds even of 2002 and 2003 disclosing market value ₹ 60 lakhs or more per acre. Exhibit P-5 was not an isolated example whereas other transactions were produced before Reference Court which rejected those transactions on the sole ground that area involved is small in comparison to area acquired. The land was falling within jurisdiction of municipal limits, thus, could not be treated at par with agricultural land. The landowners were utilizing acquired land for residential and business purposes. Part of the acquired land was abutting National Highway. As per deposition of Revenue Officials before Reference Court, at least 1 acre land was abutting National Highway. 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 and applications seeking condonation of delay stand allowed. It is made clear that landowners would not be entitled to interest forming part for the delayed period. SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -6- RFA-1026-2019 11. From the perusal of record and arguments of stakeholders, it is evident that State vide notification dated 28.10.2003 read with notification dated 09.12.2011 acquired 21 Acres 16 Marlas of land situated within the revenue estate of village/town Kurali and Charharhi, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar Mohali. The land was acquired with intent to set up New Mandi Township. The relevant date for the determination of market value of the acquired land was 28.10.2003 i.e. date of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act. The Collector determined market value as ₹ 7.50 lakh per acre upto 2 acres abutting the road and ₹ 6.50 lakh per acre for remaining 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 ₹ 58,22,000/- per acre. 12. The dispute before this Court is confined to assessment of market value of the land in question. The Reference Court has determined market value as ₹ 58,22,000/- per acre. Before the Reference Court, both sides produced their evidence. Details of documents relied upon by landowners read as: Sr. No. Area Date of sale Village Rate per acre (apprx.) Exhibit 1 06 Marlas 30.10.2003 Kurali Rs.64,00,000/- P4 2 8 Kanals-9 2/3 Marlas 10.2.2005 Kurali Rs.94,67,030/- P5 3 8-1/3 Marlas 11.6.2003 Kurali Rs.49,50,000/- P7 4 5 Marlas 3.4.2003 Kurali Rs.67,20,000/- P14 5 5 Marlas 27.8.2002 Kurali Rs.57,60,000/- P15 6 8-2/3 Marlas 27.12.2001 Kurali Rs.52,00,000/- P16 7 5-3/4 Marlas 7.8.2002 Kurali Rs.64,00,000/- P17 8 7-1/2 Marlas 27.4.2001 Kurali Rs.48,00,000/- P18 13. The appellant-State would plead that market value was determined by Price Fixation Committee constituted by State Government. SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -7- RFA-1026-2019 The Committee had considered every aspect and thereafter determined market price. The acquired land was away from National Highway. The entire acquired land was of agriculture nature and there was no Civil Hospital, Police Station, Railway Station, School, College or Bazaar near the acquired land. Kurali is a very small town and there was no development at the time of acquisition. The land in question was not commercial in nature. The Reference Court has wrongly relied upon previous award. 14. Contention of the State that Reference Court has wrongly relied upon award passed in the case of land acquired for ROB, cannot be countenanced. Land in question was located within municipal limits of town Kurali. It was adjoining to relied upon land. It was subjected to notification under Section 4 in 2003, however, award was passed in 2013. The Collector himself, just after one and a half years, in the case of adjoining land assessed market value ₹ 51,18,720/- per acre whereas market value of land in question was assessed ₹ 7,50,000/- per acre. There is no evidence on record justifying aforesaid disparity except the fact that value of land meant for ROB was assessed by a Committee comprising Revenue Officials as well as local MLAs and MPs besides representatives of village. It is settled law that in the absence of contrary evidence, value of adjoining land may be relied upon. Thus, Reference Court has rightly relied upon award of adjoining land. 15. The landowners are claiming that award was passed in 2013, thus, market value of 2013 should be considered. Contention of landowners can neither be mechanically relied upon nor rejected. It needs to be rationalized as well as justified. The landowners in view of stay orders continued to use land from 2003-13, thus, no loss was caused to them. In view of Section 11A, award could not be passed after 2 years. As per Section SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -8- RFA-1026-2019 23(1A), Court is supposed to award addition @ 12% per annum from the date of acquisition to date of award/possession. In view of stay granted by this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court, the landowners were entitled to 12% addition for 980 days. 16. The landowners are claiming that they should be paid at par with landowners whose land was acquired for ROB. They before the Reference Court relied upon sale deeds Ex. P-3, P-5, P-7, P-14 to P-18. They did not press reliance upon aforesaid sale deeds, however, claimed compensation at par with land acquired for ROB. 17. 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. SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -9- RFA-1026-2019 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. 18. The appellant-State vide notification dated 21.03.2005 acquired 10 Kanals 10 Marlas land for the construction of ROB. In the case of land in question, notification was issued on 28.10.2003. The Reference Court determined market value of ₹ 71 lakh per acre qua land for ROB. This Court vide even order dated 09.07.2026 has enhanced market value of aforesaid land from ₹ 71 lakh to ₹ 80,47,000/- per acre. Reference Court has relied upon award dated 01.05.2013 passed with respect to land acquired for ROB. The Reference Court has assessed market value of land in question as ₹58,22,000/- per acre. The value has been determined by making reverse calculation at the rate of 12% per annum. The landowners herein are claiming parity with landowners whose land was acquired for ROB. Foundation of award with respect to land acquired for ROB was sale deed dated 10.02.2005. Market value of land in question cannot be at par with value acquired for ROB. Land in question was adjoining land acquired for ROB, however, it was not utilized for residential/commercial purposes like land acquired for ROB. Land acquired for ROB was having better locational benefit. It was little away from National Highway. As land in question was adjoining land acquired for ROB, market price of land in question can be SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -10- RFA-1026-2019 determined on the basis of adjoining land. The Reference Court has rightly relied upon award passed in the case of adjoining land. As sale deeds produced by landowners were disclosing exorbitant price and size of land was small, thus, those exemplar sales could not be relied upon. Award with respect to land in question was passed after 10 years from the date of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act. The State was not at fault because there was stay order passed by this Court and subsequently Hon’ble Supreme Court in favour of landowners. In view of award after 10 years, reverse calculation by making deduction at the rate of 12% from the market value assessed qua land for ROB was not justified, however, cut on account of location needs to be imposed. Land meant for ROB was not used for agricultural purposes and it was closer to National Highway than land in question. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to impose cut of 20% on the market value of land acquired for ROB. As mentioned hereinabove, this Court has assessed value of land acquired for ROB at the rate of ₹ 80,47,000/- and by applying cut of 20%, the value of land in question comes to ₹ 64,37,600/- per acre. 19. In the wake of above discussion and findings, all the appeals and cross-objections filed by Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board are hereby dismissed and appeals of landowners are allowed to the extent that market value assessed by Reference Court is enhanced from ₹ 58,22,000/- to ₹ 64,37,600/- per acre. 20. Interest contemplated under Section 34 of 1894 Act is statutory and mandatory. Courts and authorities have no discretion. It is in a way automatic. The moment land is acquired and possession is taken away, SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -11- RFA-1026-2019 Collector becomes liable to pay interest on the assessed compensation. However, as per Section 28, Court has discretion to grant interest on enhanced amount of compensation. The Court may or may not grant interest on enhanced amount of compensation. It is not a mandatory provision. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Maj. Gen. Kapil Mehra & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.’, 2015(2) RCR(Civil) 4 in Para 45 has clearly held that award of interest under Section 28 is discretionary power vested in the Court and it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not arbitrarily. In the case in hand, keeping in mind that Reference Court had substantially increased amount of compensation and awarded interest, this Court finds it just, fair and equitable to grant interest @ 15% (rate prescribed under proviso to Section 28) on the enhanced compensation from today i.e. 09.07.2026. 21. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 09.07.2026 SDK Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.13 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document