127 (03 case IN TH (1) Vijay Pal an State of Har (2) Satbir State of Har (3) Sube Singh State of Har CORAM: Present: HARKESH CM-5213- CM-5214- CM-5212- the applican main appea cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR CM N RFA Date and another Versus of Haryana and others CM N RFA Versus of Haryana and others AND CM N RFA Singh Versus of Haryana and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR Mr. Rajeshwar Oswal, Advoca Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellant(s)-landowner( Mr. Abhinash Jain, Deputy Adv for the respondent(s)-State of H **** KESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) -CI-2023 in RFA-4827-2011; -CI-2023 in RFA-4826-2011; and -CI-2023 in RFA-4825-2011 Prayer in the present applicat plicants-appellants, is for fixing an a appeal(s), which stood admitted vide UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH CM No. 5213-CI of 2023 in/and RFA No. 4827 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.02.2026 ...Appellants ...Respondents CM No. 5214-CI of 2023 in/and RFA No. 4826 of 2011 (O&M) ...Appellant ...Respondents CM No. 5212-CI of 2023 in/and RFA No. 4825 of 2011 (O&M) ...Appellant ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA dvocate for wner(s). ty Advocate General, Haryana te of Haryana. ; and plication(s), moved on behalf of an actual date of hearing of the vide order dated 05.11.2012. DINESH KUMAR 2026.02.24 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

      ! "! #!#   -2-      Notice of the application(s) stood issued vide order dated 22.11.2023. Learned State Counsel raises no objection against the prayer made in the application(s). In view of the above, instant applications are allowed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main appeals are taken up today itself. MAIN APPEAL(S) This order shall dispose off the present three appeals bearing RFA Nos. 4827, 4826 & 4825 of 2011, as the same arise out of common acquisition / award. [2] The appellants-landowners, by instituting the present appeals, preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “1894 Act”), seek modification of the award dated 25.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”), for enhancement of compensation amount. [3] Briefly stating, certain land owned by the appellants- landowners situated within the revenue estate of Village Ballah, H.B. No. 30, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal, came to be acquired vide notifications dated 10.01.2007 and 10.05.2007 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act respectively, for the public purpose namely “approaches road from Karnal-Munak-Salwan-Assandh to Tehsil Building Ballah”. The total land measuring 0.82 acres was acquired. Vide Award No. 5, dated 23.08.2007, the Land Acquisition Collector, Karnal (for short “LAC’) determined the market value of the acquired DINESH KUMAR 2026.02.24 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

      ! "! #!#   -3-      land at the rate of Rs.10 lakhs per acre alongwith other statutory benefits. [4] Aggrieved of the aforesaid Award dated 23.08.2007, landowners / interested persons filed reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which were partly accepted vide decision dated 25.02.2011 by the learned Reference Court, whereby the market value of the entire land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 19,36,000/- per acre alongwith other statutory benefits. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision of the learned Reference Court, the present appeal(s) have been preferred at the instance of appellant(s)- landowner(s). [5] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the paper-book / records, I am unable to find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant(s)-landowner(s). [6] Upon perusal of record, it has been found that the learned Reference Court while placing reliance upon the sale deed dated 01.08.2006 (Ex. PW-5/B), whereby 11 marla land was sold for a sum of Rs. 1,33,000/-; thus, determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 400/- per square yard in favour of the appellant(s)-landowners. Further, besides sale deed dated 01.08.2006 (Ex. PW-5/B), the other two sale deeds of even date, i.e. 23.08.2007 produced by the appellant(s)-landowner(s) Exhibits PW-4/8 & PW-4/B respectively, both pertain to the period post notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act and thus need not be relied upon. [7] The only relevant piece of evidence is the sale instance dated 01.08.2006 (Ex. PW-5/B) vide which 11 marlas of land forming part of the abadi deh of Village Ballah was sold for a sum of DINESH KUMAR 2026.02.24 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

      ! "! #!#   -4-      Rs.1,33,000/- at the base price per acre of Rs. 19,40,000/-. Besides it, there is no material evidence available on record so as to support the claim of appellant(s)-landowner(s) with respect to any further enhancement towards market value of the acquired land. A perusal of the impugned award shows that while placing reliance upon the sale deed dated 01.08.2006 (Ex. PW-5/B) which pertains to the same revenue estate of Village Ballah, the learned Reference Court had already awarded market value at the rate of Rs. 19,36,000/- per acre alongwith other statutory benefits and as such, the appellant(s)- landowner(s) has already been awarded the benefit in the light of sale deed dated 01.08.2006 (Ex. PW-5/B). Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, no further enhancement of the market value of acquired land is called for in the favour of appellant(s)-landowner(s). [8] Consequently, the present appeals being devoid of merits are hereby dismissed. [9] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off.
February 23, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE

    
    DINESH KUMAR 2026.02.24 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document