RFA-974 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Smt.Phulo and others State of Haryana and ors. CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Appeals, 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 ta 2. the Award dated Judge, Rohtak 3. 25.68 acres 974-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: Smt.Phulo and others Versus State of Haryana and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Sarvesh Malik, Advocate Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate Mr. Amit Sheoran, Advocate for the appellants/ landowners. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Vide this common order, a Appeals, 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 By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the Award dated 25.01.2016 passed by the learned Addl. District Rohtak (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘ Briefly stating, in the pr 25.68 acres situated within the revenue estate of (O&M) and other connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-974-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.05.2026 …….Appellants Versus ..….Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Sarvesh Malik, Advocate Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate Mr. Amit Sheoran, Advocate for the appellants/ landowners. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Vide this common order, a bunch of 11 Regular First Appeals, 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 ken from RFA No.974 of 2024 By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to passed by the learned Addl. District (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’ Briefly stating, in the present case(s), land measuring situated within the revenue estate of Village Kharawar, First Appeals, 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 4. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to passed by the learned Addl. District Reference Court’). esent case(s), land measuring Village Kharawar, SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-974-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases [2] Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak was acquired vide Notifications dated 20.08.2007 and 24.12.2007 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act’) respectively for the public purpose, namely, “for development of Sector 27 A-B, Rohtak for public and semi-public use”. Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on 20.01.2009, thereby determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.16,00,000/- per acre besides award of all other statutory benefits and interests provided under the 1894 Act. 4. Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the LAC, appellants/landowners invoked References under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which were partly allowed by the learned Reference Court vide its decision dated 25.01.2016, while granting enhanced compensation @ Rs.23,00,000/- per acre for the land abutting National Highway upto depth of one acre and Rs.18,72,000/- per acre for the remaining land besides awarding all other statutory benefits/interests under the 1894 Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellants/landowners. CONTENTION(S): ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S)/LANDOWENRS:- 5. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellants/ landowners submits that though the learned Reference Court rightly placed reliance upon the sale instances Ex.PY and Ex.PZ, it erred in taking the average of the sale SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-974-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases [3] consideration reflected therein. He further submits that instead of taking average of the sale price derived from the two sale instances, the learned Reference Court ought to have considered sale deed Ex.PZ alone, as the same fetched the highest sale price thus, formed the most reliable basis for assessment of market value. 5.1. Learned counsel also points out that the deduction applied at the rate of 61% by the learned Reference Court was wholly excessive in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He asserts that since the area surrounding and adjoining the acquired land was already developed, a deduction of 20% towards development charges would have been adequate and reasonable. He thus prays that in view of the aforesaid submissions, the market value of the acquired land was required to be enhanced/re-assessed and consequently, the appeal(s) preferred at the instance of the appellants/landowners were to be allowed. ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE:- 6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the award passed by the learned Reference Court was based upon proper appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence available on record. He further submits that the learned Reference Court already awarded market value at excessive rates of Rs.23,00,000/- per acre and Rs.18,72,000/- per acre in favour of the appellants/landowners, which calls for no interference and, thus prays for dismissal of the appeal(s). No other argument has been raised on behalf of the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-974-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases [4] respondent/State. DISCUSSION AND REASONING:- 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. 8. Insofar as the sale instances produced by the appellants/landowners are concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the sale instances Exs. P1 to P8 pertained to the revenue estates of Village Gari Bohar and Kheri Sadh whereas the acquisition in the present case(s) pertain to the revenue estate of Village Kharawar, hence, the same need not be taken into account. The only sale exemplars produced by the appellants/landowners relating to the same revenue estate of Village Kharawar are Exs. PX, PY and PZ, however, the sale instance Ex. PX dated 20.10.2009 pertained to the period subsequent to the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act and consequently, is liable to be discarded. 9. In order to decide the issue of re-assessment of market value of the acquired land, the details of the remaining two sale instances Ex. PY and PZ produced and proved on record by the appellants/landowners in furtherance of their claims are thus, reproduced hereunder:- Sale deeds produced by the appellants/landowners: Sr. No. Sale Exhibits Date of sale deed Area Name of village Total Sale consideration (Rs.) Value per acre 1. Ex.PY 16.04.2007 1 Kanal 7 Marlas Kharawar Rs.08,06,400/- Rs. 47,78,667/- SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-974-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases [5] 2. Ex.PZ 25.05.2007 32 Kanals 5 Marlas Kharawar Rs.1,93,49,760/ - Rs. 47,99,941/- 9.1. A perusal of the above chart shows that the sale instances Exs.PY and PZ pertain to the same revenue estate of Village Kharawar as the acquired land. However, Ex.PZ dated 25.05.2007 is in closer temporal proximity to the notification dated 20.08.2007 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case(s) in hand as compared to Ex.PY dated 16.04.2007. 9.2. Moreover, sale instance Ex.PY pertains to a small parcel of land measuring 1 Kanal 7 Marlas, whereas the acquisition in question is of a substantially larger extent measuring 25.68 acres. On the other hand, Ex. PZ pertains to a comparatively larger transaction of 32 Kanals and 5 Marlas and thus, is a more reliable indicator of prevailing market value. Further, the learned Reference Court erred in taking the average of the sale price per acre derived from the aforesaid two sale deeds especially in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Horrmal v. State of Haryana reported as 2024 INSC 797, the sale exemplar fetching the highest sale price i.e. sale deed dated 25.05.2007 (Ex. PZ) in the present case(s), ought to have been relied upon for determination of market value, subject to appropriate deduction towards development charges. Reference in this regard can be made to paras 28 & 29 of the same which is extracted hereunder:- SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-974-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases [6] “28. This view has been reiterated in Sh. Himmat Singh v. State of M.P.,(2013) 16 SCC 392 where a three-judge bench of 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 be 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 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, 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 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.” In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the sale deed Ex.PZ dated 25.05.2007 vide which 32 kanals 5 marlas of land was sold for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,93,49,760/- with base price of Rs.47,99,941/- per acre, being the best suitable exemplar needs to be relied upon for the purpose of determination of market value in the case(s) in hand. 10. Further, a perusal of the site plan Ex. P23 produced on record by the appellants/landowners shows that the entire acquired SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-974-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases [7] land is situated in close proximity to National Highway No. 10 leading from Rohtak to Delhi and, as such, possessed significant locational advantage and potential for being developed for residential, commercial, and institutional purposes. It was also admitted by RW1 Suresh Kumar, Patwari, Office of the LAC, Rohtak, that the acquired land abuts the abadi of Village Kheri Sadh. In such circumstances, having regard to the purpose of acquisition, namely, “for development of Sector 27 A-B, Rohtak for public and semi-public use”, a deduction of 25% towards the development cost would suffice in the case(s) in hand. 11. The total area acquired from the revenue estate of Village Kharawar is 25.68 acres, whereas the land parcel forming part of sale instance Ex. PZ dated 25.05.2007 measures 32 Kanals 5 Marlas (i.e., slightly above 4 acres). In such circumstances, the difference in area is not so significant so as to warrant any deduction on account of the smallness of the transaction reflected in the same instance Ex.PZ. 12. Pertinently, the LAC, at the time of assessing the market value of the revenue estate of Village Kharawar, determined the same at the uniform rate of Rs.16,00,000/- per acre which clearly indicates that the respondent authorities were conscious of the fact that the land parcels of the acquired did not suffer from any material variation in terms of their locational advantage, accessibility, and development potential. Such assessment itself reflects that the entire acquired land formed part of a homogeneous tract possessing similar SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-974-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases [8] characteristics and potentialities, warranting uniform treatment in the matter of valuation. In view of the aforesaid, the appellants/ landowners are held entitled to uniform market value, without adoption of any belting system. 13. Accordingly, the market value is assessed at a uniform rate of Rs. 35,99,960/- per acre on the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in case(s) in hand as per the calculation below:- Calculation:- Sale deed dated 25.05.2007 (Ex.PZ) Base Price = Rs. 47,99,941/- per acre Deduction of 25% on account of development 47,99,941 - 11,99,985.25 (Price – 25% of Price) = 35,99,955.75 Net Value Rs. 35,99,960/- (rounded off) 14. In addition, the appellants/landowners shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits and interest under the 1894 Act, especially solatium and interest thereupon. 15. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present appeals preferred at the instance of landowners are partly allowed with the aforesaid modification. 16. 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 SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-974-2024 (O&M) and other connected cases [9] liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. 17. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 12.05.2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) sanjay JUDGE Sr. No. Case No. 1. RFA-757-2022 (O&M) 2. RFA-762-2022 (O&M) 3. RFA-1730-2023 (O&M) 4. RFA-1731-2023 (O&M) 5. RFA-1195-2024 (O&M) 6. RFA-2360-2016 (O&M) 7. RFA-2502-2016 (O&M) 8. RFA-2503-2016 (O&M) 9. RFA-2504-2016 (O&M) 10. RFA-2967-2016 (O&M) 12.05.2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) sanjay JUDGE SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.18 18:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document