IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** 104 CM-3-CI-2022 in/and RFA-7567-2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.07.2026 GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY …Appellant Versus SUSHIL KUMAR ATTRI & OTHERS …Respondents And Sr. No. Case No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) 2. RFA-7568-2013 (O&M) Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Sonu Chabbra & Others 3. RFA-387-2014 Sonu Chabbra & Another State of Punjab & Others 4. RFA-6691-2014 Sushil Kumar and Another State of Punjab & Others 5. RFA-8169-2013 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Surjit Singh and Others 6. XOBJR-27-CI- 2014 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Surjit Singh etc. 7. RFA-8170-2013 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Jarnail Singh and Others 8. RFA-8171-2013 (O&M) Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Achhar Singh & Others 9. XOBJR-13-CI- 2017 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Achhar Singh and Others 10. RFA-8172-2013 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Harchand Singh and Others 11. XOBJR-40-CI- 2018 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Harchand Singh and Others 12. RFA-8173-2013 (O&M) Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Bal Krishan Goyal and Another 13. XOBJR-16-CI- 2017 (O&M) Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Bal Krishan Goyal etc. 14. RFA-5512-2014 (O&M) Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Surinderjit Singh & Another DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.06 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -2- 15. RFA-4311-2014 Gagandeep Singh State of Punjab and Anr. 16. RFA-4312-2014 Surinderjit Singh State of Punjab and Another 17. RFA-1111-2022 Malwinder Kaur and Another State of Punjab and Another 18. RFA-1217-2023 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Malwinder Kaur and Others Present:- Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate and Mr. Munish, Advocate for the appellant (in RFA-7567-2013) Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant (in RFA-8169-2013, RFA-8170-2013, RFA-8171-2013, RFA-8172-2013, RFA-8173-2013 and RFA-5512-2014) Mr. V.G. Jauhar, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Poonia, Advocate for the appellant (in RFA-1217-2023) Mr. Puru Jarewal, DAG Punjab Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate and Mr. Nitish Kaushal, Advocate for the respondent-landowners Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Singh Dhiman, Advocate for respondent No.1 (in RFA-7567-2013) Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the appellant (in RFA-387-2014 & RFA-6691-2014) and for the remaining respondents (in RFA-7567-2013) and for respondents (in RFA-7568-2013) *** 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-7567-2013. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.06 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -3- 2. The appellant-Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) through instant appeal is seeking setting aside of award dated 07.05.2013 whereby Ld. Addl. Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali has enhanced market value of land from ₹99 lacs to ₹2.58 crore per acre for the purpose of determination of compensation payable to landowners with respect to 208.95 acre land acquired by appellant for widening/constructing 200 ft. wide road. 3. The Government of State of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development issued notification dated 24.12.2008 under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) for acquisition of 245.5 acre land situated in 6 villages namely Kishanpura, Chhaju Majra, Bakarpur, Pappri, Chhat and Chilla. The aforesaid notification was followed by notification dated 13.02.2009 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act. The appellant finally acquired 208.95 acre land comprised in 4 villages namely Kishanpura, Chhaju Majra, Bakarpur and Chhat. Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 25.05.2009 determined compensation of ₹1.50 crore per acre which included 30% solatium, 12% additional amount from 24.12.2008 till 25.05.2009 and 10% incentive for non-institution of Court proceedings. The landowners filed reference petitions under Section 18 and matter came to be referred to Reference Court which vide order dated 07.05.2013 enhanced the market value from ₹99 lacs to ₹2.58 crore per acre. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Reference Court has failed to consider 3 sale deeds i.e. Exhibits R-5 to R-7 which related to Village Chhaju Majra. The Reference Court has relied upon DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.06 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -4- one sale deed i.e. Exhibit P-5 which comprised 6 kanal 10 marla 7 sarsai land. Land of Exhibit P-5 of Village Bakarpur was located at a distance of 1.2564 km from the acquired land and reflects 850% increase in value than the sale deeds relied upon by appellant vide Annexures A-8, A-9, A- 13, A-19 to A-21. Said land was further close to International Airport, Mohali, thus, it has a special adaptability. The appellant has collected and placed on record 28 more sale deeds and there are many sale deeds which relate to acquired land. It is settled proposition of law that if sale deed of acquired land itself is available, the same is the best evidence for determination of market value and sale deed of any other land cannot be relied upon and at least given preference. The relevant date for considering sale deeds was 24.12.2008 (date of notification under Section 4). Exhibit P-5 is sale deed dated 10.04.2008 whereas sale deeds of 10.12.2008, 15.12.2008 and April’ 2008 onwards were available still Reference Court relied upon sale deed of 10.04.2008. Thus, Reference Court has made grave mistake while placing reliance upon one sale deed i.e. Annexure P-5 without corroboration with any other evidence of villages of which land is under acquisition. The consideration disclosed in more than 28 sale deeds produced by appellant discloses that average market price of acquired land was not more than ₹40 lacs per acre. Despite said fact, District Land Price Fixation Committee constituted under Finance Commissioner’s standing order No.28, keeping in mind chhant rate and collector rate of different villages, determined market price of acquired land @ ₹99 lacs per acre. The matter was put up before Cabinet Sub-Committee which approved recommendations of District DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.06 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -5- Land Price Fixation Committee regarding market rate of the acquired land. The landowners were paid ₹13,63,636/- for not instituting Court proceedings. The landowners accepted aforesaid amount still filed reference petitions and impugned orders came to be passed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents who are also appearing for few landowners-appellants submit that application under Order XLI Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) needs to be rejected because conditions of aforesaid order are not complied with. The appellant-GMADA is custodian of record and was well-aware of other sale deeds still did not produce before Reference Court. The sale deeds, produced as additional evidence, at this belated stage, should not be considered. 6. They further submit that it is settled proposition of law that highest available price should be considered as market price. The landowners produced sale deed Exhibit P-5 which discloses sale consideration at ₹3.41 crore per acre. The Reference Court imposed cut of 25% despite the fact that land was acquired for construction/widening of road. Cut is inapplicable in case of roads. Exhibit P-5 relates to same revenue estate which was subject matter of acquisition. The sale deed (Exhibit P-5) produced by landowners was never doubted by GMADA or Court, thus, there is no reason to discard Exhibit P-5 and rely upon any other sale deed disclosing lower sale consideration. The respondent has acquired land of adjoining villages. One notification under Section 4 was issued in 2004 with respect to adjoining village. The Collector awarded compensation at ₹1.08 crore per acre and Reference Court enhanced to DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.06 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -6- ₹2.30 crore per acre. Appeals against order determining compensation at ₹2.30 crore per acre are pending before this Court. There are more similar examples. 7. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that delay in filing appeal in any case which is part of the present bunch may be condoned. Accordingly, delay, if any, in any case stands condoned. 9. From the perusal of record, it is evident that landowners before Reference Court produced different documents in support of their contention that market price of their land was more than ₹3 crore per acre. The Reference Court rejected all the sale deeds and awards, however, considered and relied upon Exhibit P-5 i.e. sale deed dated 10.04.2008. Notification under Section 4 was issued on 24.12.2008, thus, sale deed dated 10.04.2008 could be relied upon especially when it related to revenue estate which was under consideration. The appellant- GMADA produced three sale deeds i.e. Exhibits R-5 to R-7. All the sale deeds related to Village Chhaju Majra i.e. one of the villages under consideration. Reference Court rejected all the sale deeds produced by GMADA. The appellant during the pendency of present appeals along with application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC has placed on record more than 20 sale deeds relating to villages Bakarpur and Chhat. Details of sale price disclosed in sale deeds produced by landowners and GMADA, in tabulated form, are reproduced as below:- DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.06 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -7- Sale deeds relied upon by landowners/respondent:- Sr. No. Exh. Date of Sale Area (K- M-S) Sale Consideration (₹) Rate Per Acre (₹) Revenue Estate 1. P-4 11.07.2006 26- 12 193025000 58052632 Ballo Majra 2. P-5 Relied upon 10.04.2008 Prior to DON: 24.12.2008 6-10- 7 27731250 33947972 Bakarpur Note: Of the same village, a parcel of which is under acquisition 3. P-6 31.03.2006 46-3 88261875 15300000 Dhol 4. P-7 23.05.2007 0-17 35000 32941176 Lakhnaur 5. P-8 20.09.2006 12- 15 22312500 14627451 Mauli Baidwan 6. P-9 02.11.2006 21-9 42900000 16000000 Dhurali Sale deeds relied upon by appellant before Reference Court:- Sr No. Exhibits Dated Area (K- M-S) Sale Consideration (₹) Rate Per Acre (₹) Village 1. R-5 15.10.2008 8-0 3000000 3000000 Chhaju Majra 2. R-6 03.12.2008 8-0 3000000 3000000 Chhaju Majra 3. R-7 19.01.2009 8-0 3000000 3000000 Chhaju Majra Sale deeds of Villages Bakarpur and Chhat produced before this Court:- Anne xures Date of Sale Area Sold Price per acre Vendor Vendee A-5 24.12.2007 4K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Mann Singh Achhar Singh etc. A-6 01.01.2008 2K-19.5M ₹40,33,613/- Lalkar Singh Satnam Singh Dua A-7 11.01.2008 3K-0.6M ₹40,21,978/- Jai Singh etc. Davinder Kaur A-8 30.01.2008 9K-18.7M ₹40,24,595/- Narinder Kaur etc. Sukhraj Kaur etc. A-9 22.01.2008 5K-10M ₹40,00,000/- Gurbaksh Singh Inderjeet Singh etc. A-10 31.01.2008 4K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Jaswinder Singh Surjit Kaur etc. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.06 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -8- A-11 06.02.2008 4K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Narinder Kaur etc. Gurpreet Singh A-12 12.02.2008 3K-18M ₹40,00,000/- Sonu Chhabra Gurbachan Singh Mehar etc. A-13 12.03.2008 28K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Sucha Singh etc. Gian Chand Aggarwal A-14 14.03.2008 24K-0M ₹45,00,000/- Harinder Kaur Tejbir Singh A-15 10.04.2008 7K-11M ₹40,00,000/- Swaranjit Kaur etc. Kirpal Kaur etc. A-16 16.04.2008 4K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Gurmail Singh etc. Rupinderjit Singh A-17 05.05.2008 8K-3M ₹44,17,178/- Rajinder Singh Gurpreet Singh A-18 30.05.2008 2K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Sushil Kumar Soma Bati A-19 02.06.2008 2K-9M ₹40,48,980/- Swaranjit Kaur etc. Gurpreet Singh etc. A-20 07.07.2008 15K-6M ₹40,00,000/- Gurmeet Singh Surjit Singh etc. A-21 07.07.2008 7K-3M- 1S ₹40,24,845/- Jaswinder Singh Parveen Gupta etc. A-22 07.07.2008 3K-2M ₹40,00,000/- Gurmeet Singh Gurjit Kaur A-23 15.07.2008 4K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Kulwinder Singh Babeeta Goyal etc. A-24 15.07.2008 4K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Bhag Singh Hardeep Singh A-25 15.07.2008 4K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Bhag Singh Gurjant Singh etc. A-26 06.08.2008 3K-0M- 4S ₹41,02,941/- Gurmeet Singh Raghbir Singh etc. A-27 12.09.2008 5K-10M ₹40,00,000/- Jai Pal Singh Neena Garg A-28 22.09.2008 9K-2M- 5S ₹40,31,649/- Baljinder Singh Harchand A-29 15.10.2008 8K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Mahinder Singh etc. Dr. Vasu Gupta etc. A-30 10.12.2008 10K-2M ₹40,00,000/- Balwinder Singh etc. Gurinder Singh A-31 15.12.2008 2K-17M ₹40,00,000/- Gurmail Singh Gurmeet Singh etc. A-32 19.06.2008 7B-7B Vill.Chhat ₹66,61,224/- Simranpreet Singh Gill Sunil Gupta etc. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.06 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -9- 10. It appears that GMADA officials either due to negligence or under wrong belief that sale deeds Exhibits R-5 to R-7 are sufficient in support of their contention, did not produce sale deeds which are produced before this Court as Annexure A-5 to A-32. GMADA is a public authority and public money is involved. The landowners are strongly claiming that additional evidence led by appellant should not be considered and its application should be rejected because it does not comply with conditions of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. Order XLI Rule 27 CPC reads as:- “27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.—(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if — (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.” DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.06 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -10- 11. From the perusal of above-quoted provision, it is evident that party seeking to produce additional evidence requires to establish that despite due diligence such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced when the decree was passed. The Appellate Court may also require any document to be produced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any substantial cause. Sale deeds as per Section 51 A of 1894 Act read with Sections 74(2), 76 and 77 of Evidence Act, 1872 are per se admissible in evidence. These are part of official record. The respondents are not doubting genuineness of these sale deeds. Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has liberally condoned delay even of more than 20 years in filing RFA before this Court. Section 28A of 1894 Act has also been liberally interpreted in favour of landowners. The appellant-GMADA ought to be given same treatment because interest of no individual employee is involved and huge financial burden is involved. The appellant is a public authority and public money is involved, thus, it would not be just and fair to ignore additional evidence. Sale deeds submitted by appellant in the form of additional evidence need to be considered. The objection raised by the respondent-landowners seeking rejection of the appellant’s application to lead additional evidence deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. Application seeking permission to file additional evidence is allowed and enclosed Annexures are taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place. 12. The landowners are claiming that Reference Court has wrongly imposed cut of 25%. The land was acquired for construction of DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.06 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -11- road, thus, there was no occasion to impose cut of 25%. The price declared in sale deed (Exhibit P-5) should be considered as market price for determining compensation. The appellants are further claiming that LAC as well as Reference Court, with respect to adjoining villages, have granted compensation equal to compensation in question or higher than that. The appellant-GMADA is claiming that as per sale deeds, the average sale price comes to ₹40 lacs. Exhibit P-5 is a stray evidence and should not be relied upon. Law does not provide that one exceptional sale deed should be relied upon ignoring multiple other sale deeds disclosing one pattern of market price. The appellant is further claiming that sale deed of acquired land is the best piece of evidence in comparison to sale deed of any other land may be adjoining to acquired land. 13. The appellant itself constituted a Land Price Fixation Committee which determined market price of ₹99 lakh per acre. The said committee was well aware of sale deeds of period in question. Despite said fact, committee as well as sub-committee of Cabinet approved market price of ₹99 lacs per acre. By accepting price of ₹99 lacs per acre, the appellant itself accepted that sale landowners should be paid more than declared disclosed in the sale deeds. In 1894 Act, there is no provision of constituting such a committee and determine price ignoring sale deeds. It appears that to avoid litigation, the State Government determined market price which was more than two times of consideration disclosed in sale deeds. Reference Court has ignored this fact and relied upon one sale deed. Once value determined by Committee which comprised senior revenue officials was ignored, it was inevitable to DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.06 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -12- consider all available sale deeds especially relating to part of land in question. One sale deed disclosing exorbitant consideration i.e. 850% of average sale consideration could not be blindly relied upon. Area of land involved, distance from acquired land and consideration disclosed in Exhibit P-5 vis-à-vis Exhibit R-5 to R-7 and sale deeds produced before this Court need to be considered. 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh (2010) 11 SCC 581; Haryana State Agricultural Market Board v. Krishan Kumar (2011) 15 SCC 297; Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769; Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona 1998 (3) SCC 751; Trishala Jain & another v. State of Uttaranchal & another (2011) 6 SCC 47; Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board v. K.S. Gangadharappa, (2009) 11 SCC 164 has held that deduction on account of development charges has to be considered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. The purpose of acquisition is also a relevant factor for applying cut. The Court has permitted deduction for development cost ranging from 20% to 75% of price of small flats. In the case in hand, land was acquired for road, thus, no development cost like residential or commercial complex was involved, however, sale deed relied upon by Reference Court comprised less than 1 acre land whereas acquired land was 208 acres. 15. The Reference Court did not get opportunity to consider sale deeds produced before this Court as additional evidence. The respondent-landowner deserves to be given opportunity to rebut said DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.06 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -13- evidence as well as lead any other evidence. The appellant has acquired land of adjoining villages for the same purpose i.e. widening of road or setting up of new sectors. Many awards have been passed by different Collectors as well as Reference Courts. All these evidence need to be reconsidered because Reference Court has considered only one sale deed i.e. Exhibit P-5. Public money is involved, thus, compensation needs to be determined strictly in accordance with law. In the obtained facts and circumstances, instead of adjudicating itself, this Court finds it more appropriate to remand the matter to the adjudication of Reference Court. Accordingly, matter is remanded to Ld. Reference Court for fresh adjudication. 16. Learned counsel for respondent-landowners submit that till the re-adjudication of reference petitions, the enhanced amount already paid may not be recovered from them. It may be made subject to fresh order of Reference Court. The appellant is claiming that few landowners have filed reference despite acceptance of non-litigation incentive. 17. The landowners have already been paid 50% of enhanced compensation. It is made clear that till the passing of fresh order by Reference Court no recovery of amount already paid would be affected from landowners and it would be subject to outcome of fresh order passed by Reference Court. The said Court would consider evidence led by appellant-GMADA as well as landowners. The landowners/GMADA would be free to lead evidence besides evidence already on record. 18. Needless to mention that Reference Court shall pass fresh order in accordance with law. The Reference Court is further requested DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.06 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -14- to adjudicate the matter expeditiously and preferably within 1½ year from today. 19. All the appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in above terms. 20. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) July 02,2026 JUDGE Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.06 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment