RFA-495 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Dayal Singh and ors. Sub Divisional Magistrate Kharar CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CM-3610 appellants following two sale deeds: Sr. No. 1. 2. 2. respondents on 13.01.2023, however, till date, no reply has been filed. 495-2013 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: 03.02.2026 Dayal Singh and ors. Versus Sub Divisional Magistrate -cum-Land Acquisition Collector, CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Sandeep Dhiman, Advocate for the appellants/landowners Mr.Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 3610-CI-2022 Present is an application appellants for permission to lead additional evidence in the shape of following two sale deeds:- Land Village 4K-13M dated 15.04.1999 Soonk 2K-14 ¼ M dated 27.06.2001 Soonk Notice of the aforesaid application was issued to the respondents on 13.01.2023, however, till date, no reply has been IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-495-2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.02.2026 …….Appellants Versus Land Acquisition Collector, ..….Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Sandeep Dhiman, Advocate /landowners. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab. an application moved on behalf of applicants/ for permission to lead additional evidence in the shape of Consideration Per Acre Rs.4,66,250/- Rs.8,02,150/ Rs.3,81,250/- Rs.11,24,423/ Notice of the aforesaid application was issued to the respondents on 13.01.2023, however, till date, no reply has been moved on behalf of applicants/ for permission to lead additional evidence in the shape of Rs.8,02,150/- Rs.11,24,423/- Notice of the aforesaid application was issued to the respondents on 13.01.2023, however, till date, no reply has been SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-495 3. through the 4. pertains to acquisition of 5.15 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Soonk. Although, three sale deeds Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 pertaining to the revenue estate of Village S produced on record by the appellants/ landowners, however, they have sought permission to le aforementioned two sale deeds by placing on record certified copies thereof. 5. in the present case, which requires adjudication about grant of just and fair compensation to the appellants/ landowners compulsory acquisition of their land sale deeds i.e. a pre-notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, in the case in hand, shall help this Court to adjudicate the matter in 6. to the prayer made on behalf of the appellants/ landowners so as to raise any kind of doubt or dispute transaction 7. 495-2013 (O&M) [2] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. A perusal of the record shows that the present appeal pertains to acquisition of 5.15 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Soonk. Although, three sale deeds Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 pertaining to the revenue estate of Village S produced on record by the appellants/ landowners, however, they have sought permission to lead additional evidence in the form of aforementioned two sale deeds by placing on record certified copies thereof. Taking into account the nature of the controversy involved in the present case, which requires adjudication about grant of just and fair compensation to the appellants/ landowners compulsory acquisition of their land, the documents in the form of sale deeds i.e. annexures A-1 and A- notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, in the case in hand, shall help this Court to adjudicate the matter in a more effective manner. More than that, the respondents have not filed any reply to the prayer made on behalf of the appellants/ landowners so as to raise any kind of doubt or dispute about transactions in the form of Annexures A In such circumstances, taking the aid of Section 51 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone A perusal of the record shows that the present appeal pertains to acquisition of 5.15 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Soonk. Although, three sale deeds Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 pertaining to the revenue estate of Village Soonk have been produced on record by the appellants/ landowners, however, they d additional evidence in the form of aforementioned two sale deeds by placing on record duly attested unt the nature of the controversy involved in the present case, which requires adjudication about grant of just and fair compensation to the appellants/ landowners against , the documents in the form of -2, which pertained to the period notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, in the case in hand, shall help this Court to adjudicate more effective manner. More than that, the respondents have not filed any reply to the prayer made on behalf of the appellants/ landowners so as to about the genuineness of sale Annexures A-1 and A-2. cumstances, taking the aid of Section 51-A I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone A perusal of the record shows that the present appeal pertains to acquisition of 5.15 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Soonk. Although, three sale deeds Ex.P3 to oonk have been produced on record by the appellants/ landowners, however, they d additional evidence in the form of attested unt the nature of the controversy involved in the present case, which requires adjudication about grant of just against , the documents in the form of period notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, in the case in hand, shall help this Court to adjudicate More than that, the respondents have not filed any reply to the prayer made on behalf of the appellants/ landowners so as to the genuineness of sale A of SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-495 the Act, both the sale deeds are taken on record being part of evidence as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. 8. MAIN CASE laid to the Court-cum referred to as ‘Reference Court’) 2. estate of Village vide notifications dated Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for colony area of Jainty Dam in Village Soonk Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs. acre for Barani Pahar, along with all 3. landowners filed which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Co decision dated acquired land 495-2013 (O&M) [3] the Act, both the sale deeds are taken on record being part of evidence as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. MAIN CASE: By way of filing the present appeal challenge has been laid to the Award dated 29.08.2012, passed by the learned cum-Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as ‘Reference Court’). Briefly stating, some land, situated within the revenue estate of Village Soonk, was acquired by the Government of vide notifications dated 17.05.2002 and 29 Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for lony area of Jainty Dam in Village Soonk Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs. Barani, Abadi land and Rs.35,000/ along with all other statutory benefits under the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ landowners filed reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Co decision dated 29.08.2012 while determining the market value of the acquired land at a uniform rate of Rs.5,4 the Act, both the sale deeds are taken on record being part of Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. way of filing the present appeal challenge has been passed by the learned Reference SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter land, situated within the revenue , was acquired by the Government of Punjab 17.05.2002 and 29/31.05.2002, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for “construction of residential lony area of Jainty Dam in Village Soonk”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 06.06.2005 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.1,20,000/- per , Abadi land and Rs.35,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin other statutory benefits under the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide while determining the market value of the at a uniform rate of Rs.5,49,897/- per acre besides all the Act, both the sale deeds are taken on record being part of way of filing the present appeal challenge has been Reference SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter land, situated within the revenue Punjab , issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ construction of residential The Land Acquisition assessed per air Mumkin Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ reference petition invoking Section 18 of the Act, urt vide while determining the market value of the per acre besides all SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-495 other statutory benefits under the Act. 4. Court, the present appeal landowners. 5. for the appellants/ landowners submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having applied deduction of 1/3 price per acre derived from sale instances Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Learned counsel contends cumulative basis was applied over the base price per acre derived from Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, however, in the given facts, land acquired was merely 5.15 acres and the sale deeds Exs. P3 & P4 were ranging between 5 to 6 kanal of revenue estate of Village Soonk, no deduction towards smallness of land parcel forming part of such sale i applied. 6. 15.04.1999 and 27.06.2001 additional evidence in the form of sale instance Ex.A2 fetching the highes taken into account for the purpose of re by applying 15% appreciation for the time gap between the date of sale instance i.e. 27.06.2001 and the date of notification under 495-2013 (O&M) [4] other statutory benefits under the Act. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference the present appeal was preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners. Impugning the aforementioned Award, learned counsel for the appellants/ landowners submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having applied deduction of 1/3 price per acre derived from sale instances Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Learned contends that though an appreciation of 12% per annum on cumulative basis was applied over the base price per acre derived from Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, however, in the given facts, land acquired was merely 5.15 acres and the sale deeds Exs. P3 & P4 were ranging between 5 to 6 kanal of revenue estate of Village Soonk, no deduction towards smallness of land parcel forming part of such sale i He further submits that the 15.04.1999 and 27.06.2001 having additional evidence in the form of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 sale instance Ex.A2 fetching the highes taken into account for the purpose of re by applying 15% appreciation for the time gap between the date of sale instance i.e. 27.06.2001 and the date of notification under other statutory benefits under the Act. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference preferred at the instance of appellants/ Impugning the aforementioned Award, learned counsel for the appellants/ landowners submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having applied deduction of 1/3rd over the sale price per acre derived from sale instances Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Learned that though an appreciation of 12% per annum on cumulative basis was applied over the base price per acre derived from Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, however, in the given facts, where the total land acquired was merely 5.15 acres and the sale deeds Exs. P3 & P4 were ranging between 5 to 6 kanal of land pertaining to the same revenue estate of Village Soonk, no deduction towards smallness of land parcel forming part of such sale instances was required to be He further submits that the two sale deeds dated having been taken on record Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, respectively, the sale instance Ex.A2 fetching the highest sale price was required to be taken into account for the purpose of re-assessment of market value by applying 15% appreciation for the time gap between the date of sale instance i.e. 27.06.2001 and the date of notification under Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference preferred at the instance of appellants/ Impugning the aforementioned Award, learned counsel for the appellants/ landowners submits that the learned Reference e sale price per acre derived from sale instances Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Learned that though an appreciation of 12% per annum on cumulative basis was applied over the base price per acre derived where the total land acquired was merely 5.15 acres and the sale deeds Exs. P3 & the same revenue estate of Village Soonk, no deduction towards smallness of was required to be two sale deeds dated been taken on record as , the t sale price was required to be assessment of market value by applying 15% appreciation for the time gap between the date of sale instance i.e. 27.06.2001 and the date of notification under SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-495 Section 4 of the Act counsel thus submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be modified by granting enhancement of market value 7. of the respondents submits that taking into account the public purpose of acquisition which was for construction of residential colony area of Jainty Dam in Village Soonk, there was no illegality or perversity with the discretion exe Court for having applied deduction of 1/3 price derived from sale instances Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Learned State counsel further submits that the sale instance Ex.A2 dated 27.06.2001 pertained to area meas relatively smaller land of 41K purposes of determination of market value in the case in hand. Learned counsel on record to establish annual appreciation the revenue estate of Village Soonk and as such there was no illegality in the award passed by the learned Reference Court whereby appreciation @ 12% per annum was applied learned Reference Court calls for no interference and prays for 495-2013 (O&M) [5] Section 4 of the Act i.e. 17.05.2002 counsel thus submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be modified by granting enhancement of market value in favour of the appellants. On the other hand, learned couns of the respondents submits that taking into account the public purpose of acquisition which was for construction of residential colony area of Jainty Dam in Village Soonk, there was no illegality or perversity with the discretion exercised by the learned Reference Court for having applied deduction of 1/3 price derived from sale instances Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Learned State counsel further submits that the sale instance Ex.A2 dated 27.06.2001 pertained to area measuring 2K 14 ½ M and thus being relatively smaller parcel of land in comparison to the total acquired land of 41K-4M, the same was not be taken into consideration for the purposes of determination of market value in the case in hand. Learned counsel also contends that there was no evidence available on record to establish annual appreciation the revenue estate of Village Soonk and as such there was no illegality in the award passed by the learned Reference Court whereby appreciation @ 12% per annum applied. He thus submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court calls for no interference and prays for 17.05.2002 in the case in hand. Learned counsel thus submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be modified by granting enhancement in favour of the appellants. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that taking into account the public purpose of acquisition which was for construction of residential colony area of Jainty Dam in Village Soonk, there was no illegality or rcised by the learned Reference Court for having applied deduction of 1/3rd over the average sale price derived from sale instances Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Learned State counsel further submits that the sale instance Ex.A2 dated uring 2K 14 ½ M and thus being parcel of land in comparison to the total acquired 4M, the same was not be taken into consideration for the purposes of determination of market value in the case in hand. that there was no evidence available on record to establish annual appreciation @ 15% of the land price in the revenue estate of Village Soonk during the relevant time period and as such there was no illegality in the award passed by the learned Reference Court whereby appreciation @ 12% per annum e thus submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court calls for no interference and prays for in the case in hand. Learned counsel thus submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be modified by granting enhancement el appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that taking into account the public purpose of acquisition which was for construction of residential colony area of Jainty Dam in Village Soonk, there was no illegality or rcised by the learned Reference over the average sale price derived from sale instances Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Learned State counsel further submits that the sale instance Ex.A2 dated uring 2K 14 ½ M and thus being parcel of land in comparison to the total acquired 4M, the same was not be taken into consideration for the purposes of determination of market value in the case in hand. that there was no evidence available e in during the relevant time period and as such there was no illegality in the award passed by the learned Reference Court whereby appreciation @ 12% per annum e thus submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court calls for no interference and prays for SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-495 dismissal of the appeals filed at the instance of landowners. 8. through the paper 9. produced on record the following four sale instances pe same revenue estate of Village Soonk for the purpose of seeking re assessment of the market value: Ex. A1 A2 P3 P4 sale deed dated 27.06.2001 (Ex.A2) fetching the highest sale price and thus, needs to be taken into account for the purposes of determination of market value especially in Supreme Court i and others Vs. State of Haryana and ors. (Civil) 758 highest sale price needs to be taken into account for the purpose of determination of market value of the acquired land and 495-2013 (O&M) [6] ismissal of the appeals filed at the instance of landowners. I have head learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. A perusal of the record shows that the appellants have produced on record the following four sale instances pe same revenue estate of Village Soonk for the purpose of seeking re assessment of the market value:- Land Village 4K-13M dated 15.04.1999 Soonk 2K-14 ¼ M dated 27.06.2001 Soonk 6K-17M dated 06.04.1999 Soonk 5K-7M dated 22.04.1999 Soonk A perusal of the abovementioned table shows that the sale deed dated 27.06.2001 (Ex.A2) fetching the highest sale price and thus, to be taken into account for the purposes of determination of market value especially in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Horrmal and others Vs. State of Haryana and ors. (Civil) 758, whereby it was held that highest sale price needs to be taken into account for the purpose of determination of market value of the acquired land and ismissal of the appeals filed at the instance of landowners. I have head learned counsel for the parties and gone A perusal of the record shows that the appellants have produced on record the following four sale instances pertaining to the same revenue estate of Village Soonk for the purpose of seeking re Consideration Per Acre Rs.4,66,250/- Rs.8,02,150/ Rs.3,81,250/- Rs.11,24,423/ Rs.4,98,000/- Rs.5,81,605/ Rs.4,13,273/- Rs.6,17,978/ A perusal of the abovementioned table shows that the pertains to the sale transaction fetching the highest sale price and thus, being the best sale exemplar to be taken into account for the purposes of determination of view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Horrmal (deceased) through his LRs and others Vs. State of Haryana and ors., reported as 2024 (4) RCR that the sale instance fetching the highest sale price needs to be taken into account for the purpose of determination of market value of the acquired land and relevant I have head learned counsel for the parties and gone A perusal of the record shows that the appellants have rtaining to the same revenue estate of Village Soonk for the purpose of seeking re- Rs.8,02,150/- Rs.11,24,423/- Rs.5,81,605/- Rs.6,17,978/- A perusal of the abovementioned table shows that the pertains to the sale transaction the best sale exemplar to be taken into account for the purposes of determination of view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble through his LRs 2024 (4) RCR the sale instance fetching the highest sale price needs to be taken into account for the purpose of relevant SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-495 paragraph Nos. 27 to 29 495-2013 (O&M) [7] paragraph Nos. 27 to 29 in this regard “27. In the instant case, deeds of smaller plots, and these represent the best available evidence for estimating compensation. Since there is no legal impediment to considering such sale deeds, the logical progression in the compensation estimation process w be to identify the most suitable sale deed(s) for determining the market value and subsequently, to apply adequate deductions on the same. The solution to this state of flux may thus be found in the case of Mehrawal of Punjab Court laid down as follows: "....It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing pur and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition." [Emphasis supplied] 28. This view has been reiterated in Sh. Himmat Singh v. State of M.P., (2013) 16 SCC 392 where a three in this regard are reproduced hereunder:- In the instant case, there are multiple sale deeds of smaller plots, and these represent the best available evidence for estimating compensation. Since there is no legal impediment to considering such sale deeds, the logical progression in the compensation estimation process would be to identify the most suitable sale deed(s) for determining the market value and subsequently, to apply adequate deductions on the same. The solution to this state of flux may thus be found in the Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab, (2012) 5 SCC 432 where this Court laid down as follows:- "....It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition." [Emphasis supplied] This view has been reiterated in Sh. Himmat Singh v. State of M.P., (2013) 16 SCC 392 where a three-judge bench of there are multiple sale deeds of smaller plots, and these represent the best available evidence for estimating compensation. Since there is no legal impediment to considering such sale deeds, the logical progression in the ould be to identify the most suitable sale deed(s) for determining the market value and subsequently, to apply adequate deductions on the same. The solution to this state of flux may thus be found in the Khewaji Trust v. State his "....It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied , has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction chaser and a willing seller near about the time of This view has been reiterated in Sh. Himmat Singh v. State of M.P., (2013) 16 judge bench of SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-495 495-2013 (O&M) [8] this Court consolidated various precedents to a where there are multiple sale deeds available for consideration, the Court shall rely on the highest valued exemplars unless the prices fall within a narrow range, in which case calculating an average of the values therein may b more congruous. 29. In these extenuating circumstances, there exists significant disparity among the sale exemplars presently under consideration. Amongst these sale exemplars, being Ex. P2-P8 and Ex. P10, the highest sale instance values the land at Ru 1,81,33,867 per acre, whereas the lowest values it at Rupees 16,94,000 per acre. Given this wide range and in light of the judicial precedents cited above, we are of the opinion that we should rely upon the highest sale exemplar, which is Ex. P5, rather than solely depending upon an average of the multiple sale deeds produced before us. Despite the Respondents' vehement contention that Ex. P5 should not be relied upon owing to it being a significantly smaller parcel of land- the detailed analysis condu above indicates no reason why Ex. P5 cannot be utilised to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded to the Appellants for the acquired land. this Court consolidated various precedents to affirm that in circumstances where there are multiple sale deeds available for consideration, the Court shall rely on the highest valued exemplars unless the prices fall within a narrow range, in which case calculating an average of the values therein may b more congruous. In these extenuating circumstances, there exists significant disparity among the sale exemplars presently under consideration. Amongst these sale exemplars, being Ex. P8 and Ex. P10, the highest sale instance values the land at Rupees 1,81,33,867 per acre, whereas the lowest values it at Rupees 16,94,000 per acre. Given this wide range and in light of the judicial precedents cited above, we are of the opinion that we should rely upon the highest sale exemplar, which is Ex. P5, er than solely depending upon an average of the multiple sale deeds produced before us. Despite the Respondents' vehement contention that Ex. P5 should not be relied upon owing to it being a significantly smaller parcel of the detailed analysis conducted above indicates no reason why Ex. P5 cannot be utilised to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded to the Appellants for the acquired land.” this Court consolidated various ffirm that in circumstances where there are multiple sale deeds available for consideration, the Court shall rely on the highest valued exemplars unless the prices fall within a narrow range, in which case calculating an average of the values therein may be In these extenuating circumstances, there exists significant disparity among the sale exemplars presently under consideration. Amongst these sale exemplars, being Ex. P8 and Ex. P10, the highest sale pees 1,81,33,867 per acre, whereas the lowest values it at Rupees 16,94,000 per acre. Given this wide range and in light of the judicial precedents cited above, we are of the opinion that we should rely upon the highest sale exemplar, which is Ex. P5, er than solely depending upon an average of the multiple sale deeds produced before us. Despite the Respondents' vehement contention that Ex. P5 should not be relied upon owing to it being a significantly smaller parcel of cted above indicates no reason why Ex. P5 cannot be utilised to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded to SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-495 10. sale deed dated 27.06.2001 is village Soonk of Union Territory, Chandigarh site plan prepared by the Department of Town and Country Planning, Chandigarh as Ex.P1 by PW1 Surinder Singh, Selection Grade, Planning Draftsman, Office of Sr. Town Planner, UT, Chandi examination, no proximity limit of UT Chandigarh. The deposition made by PW1 is extracted hereunder: 10.1 of Village Soonk abuts the boundary of UT Chandigarh, an 495-2013 (O&M) [9] Further, in the given case sale deed dated 27.06.2001 is situated in the same revenue estate of village Soonk and the said revenue estate of Union Territory, Chandigarh. This fact site plan prepared by the Department of Town and Country Planning, Chandigarh Administration. The said site plan as Ex.P1 by PW1 Surinder Singh, Selection Grade, Planning Draftsman, Office of Sr. Town Planner, UT, Chandi examination, no doubt was ever put to him so as to proximity of revenue estate of Village Soonk with the outer boundary limit of UT Chandigarh. The deposition made by PW1 is extracted hereunder:- “PW1 Surinder Singh, Selection Grade, Planing Draftsman, Office of Sr. Town Planner, UT Chandigarh. I have brought the summoned record. The copy of the site plan of study plan working group No.2, which shows its location in respect of different villages of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. Copy of which is Ex.P1. xxxxx by G.P. for the State. Nil. Opportunity giv RO&AC Sd/-18.08.2010 In such facts and circumstances, once the revenue estate of Village Soonk abuts the boundary of UT Chandigarh, an case, 2K-14 ½ M of land sold vide situated in the same revenue estate of and the said revenue estate touches the outer boundary . This fact is duly established from site plan prepared by the Department of Town and Country Planning, . The said site plan was proved on record as Ex.P1 by PW1 Surinder Singh, Selection Grade, Planning Draftsman, Office of Sr. Town Planner, UT, Chandigarh. In his cross was ever put to him so as to question of revenue estate of Village Soonk with the outer boundary limit of UT Chandigarh. The deposition made by PW1 is extracted Surinder Singh, Selection Grade, Planing Draftsman, Office of Sr. Town Planner, UT On S.A. brought the summoned record. The copy of the site plan of study plan working group No.2, which shows its location in respect of different villages of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. Copy of which is xxxxx by G.P. for the State. Nil. Opportunity given. Sd/-ADJ/ Mohali 18.08.2010” In such facts and circumstances, once the revenue estate of Village Soonk abuts the boundary of UT Chandigarh, an sold vide situated in the same revenue estate of outer boundary from the site plan prepared by the Department of Town and Country Planning, was proved on record as Ex.P1 by PW1 Surinder Singh, Selection Grade, Planning arh. In his cross- question the of revenue estate of Village Soonk with the outer boundary limit of UT Chandigarh. The deposition made by PW1 is extracted Surinder Singh, Selection Grade, Planing Draftsman, Office of Sr. Town Planner, UT brought the summoned record. The copy of the site plan of study plan working group No.2, which shows its location in respect of different villages of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. Copy of which is ADJ/ Mohali In such facts and circumstances, once the revenue estate of Village Soonk abuts the boundary of UT Chandigarh, an SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-495 appreciation of 15% over the base price derived from the sale instance Ex. the appellants/ landowners for the time gap between such sale instance 17.05.2002 taking into account the locational and potential advantage attached to the already developed area in an around Union Territory of Chandigarh the time gap between the date of sale exemplar Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, reliance can be placed upon the case of Badaun Thr. Its Secretary vs. Bipin Kumar & Another SCC 283. Relevant paragraph No.8 in this regard is hereunder. 495-2013 (O&M) [10] appreciation of 15% over the base price derived from the sale instance Ex.A2 dated 27.06.2001 needs to be awarded in favour of the appellants/ landowners for the time gap between such sale instance dated 27.06.2001 (Ex.A2) till the date of notification dated 17.05.2002 under Section 4 of the Act in the taking into account the locational and potential advantage attached to the already developed area in an around Union Territory of Chandigarh. With respect to the benefit of appreciation @ 15% for the time gap between the date of sale exemplar Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, reliance can be placed upon the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan Dist. Badaun Thr. Its Secretary vs. Bipin Kumar & Another SCC 283. Relevant paragraph No.8 in this regard is hereunder.- "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 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 taki over the price of Rs.15.40 per sq. yard the value comes to Rs.24.64 per sq. yard. We accordingly appreciation of 15% over the base price derived from the sale needs to be awarded in favour of the appellants/ landowners for the time gap between such sale till the date of notification dated under Section 4 of the Act in the present case especially taking into account the locational and potential advantage attached to the already developed area in an around Union Territory of With respect to the benefit of appreciation @ 15% for the time gap between the date of sale exemplar Ex.A-2 and the Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, reliance can be placed Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan Dist. Badaun Thr. Its Secretary vs. Bipin Kumar & Another, 2004 (2) SCC 283. Relevant paragraph No.8 in this regard is reproduced 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 appreciation of 15% over the base price derived from the sale needs to be awarded in favour of the appellants/ landowners for the time gap between such sale till the date of notification dated especially taking into account the locational and potential advantage attached to the already developed area in an around Union Territory of With respect to the benefit of appreciation @ 15% for 2 and the Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, reliance can be placed Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan Dist. , 2004 (2) reproduced 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 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 ng 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 SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-495 12. exemplar Ex.A2 pertains to 2K land is around 41K exemplar Ex.A2 thus cannot be termed to be small in comparison to the land acquired in the present case. However, that the acquisition was carried out for public purpose, namely, for construction of Soonk, the respondent State providing of basic infrastructural amenities for development of area therefore, applied. 13. applying the aforesaid, the market value for the acquisition in hand comes to 20% deduction under the Act. 14. unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at 495-2013 (O&M) [11] 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 als to be entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894." Further, taking into account the fact that the sale exemplar Ex.A2 pertains to 2K-14 ½ M of land and the total acquired land is around 41K-4M, the land p exemplar Ex.A2 thus cannot be termed to be small in comparison to the land acquired in the present case. However, that the acquisition was carried out for public purpose, namely, for construction of residential colony area of Jainty Dam in Village the respondent State suffered some loss of land towards providing of basic infrastructural amenities for development of area therefore, a deduction of 20% towards development As such, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, applying the aforesaid, the market value for the acquisition in hand comes to Rs.10,34,469/- per acre (Rs. 20% deduction), besides all other statutory benefits as provided nder the Act. Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at 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 als to be entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894." Further, taking into account the fact that the sale 14 ½ M of land and the total acquired 4M, the land parcel forming part of the sale exemplar Ex.A2 thus cannot be termed to be small in comparison to the land acquired in the present case. However, considering the fact that the acquisition was carried out for public purpose, namely, for residential colony area of Jainty Dam in Village suffered some loss of land towards providing of basic infrastructural amenities for development of area towards development needs to be As such, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, applying the aforesaid, the market value for the acquisition in hand Rs.11,24,423 +15% appreciation besides all other statutory benefits as provided Further, 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 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, 1894." Further, taking into account the fact that the sale 14 ½ M of land and the total acquired arcel forming part of the sale exemplar Ex.A2 thus cannot be termed to be small in comparison to the fact that the acquisition was carried out for public purpose, namely, for residential colony area of Jainty Dam in Village suffered some loss of land towards providing of basic infrastructural amenities for development of area, needs to be As such, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, applying the aforesaid, the market value for the acquisition in hand +15% appreciation - besides all other statutory benefits as provided Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-495 liberty to seek execution of the present decision appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. 16. disposed of. 03.02.2026 sanjay 495-2013 (O&M) [12] liberty to seek execution of the present decision appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 03.02.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable? liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No by moving Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.10 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document