RFA-592 179 (24 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), Mohali Swaran Singh Kahlon CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Appeals 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 of 2024 and XOBJR 46 2. 592-2024 (O&M);XOBJR-46-2024 179 (24 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA XOBJR Date of Decision: 12.05.2026 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), Mohali Versus Swaran Singh Kahlon and anr. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Karan Gupta, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr.Naresh Kaushal, Advocate and Mr. Nitish Kaushal, Advocate for the landowners. Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Vide this common order, a and 08 XOBJRs, 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 2024 and XOBJR 46-2024. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to 2024 & other connected cases [1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-592-2024 (O&M) & XOBJR-46-2024 Date of Decision: 12.05.2026 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), Mohali …….Appellant Versus ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Karan Gupta, Advocate Mr.Naresh Kaushal, Advocate and Mr. Nitish Kaushal, Advocate Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab. Vide this common order, a bunch of 16 Regular First , 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 RFA No.592 By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to 1] Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), Mohali First , 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 592 By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.21 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-592 the Award dated Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali ‘Reference Court’ 3. situated within the revenue estate Parol and Hoshiarpur, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali acquired vide Notifications dated under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act construction/ upgradation of road from Punjab/ UT Border (near Mullanpur) to Siswan T Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘ besides granting landowners under the 1894 Act acquired land 4. appellants/ Act, which decision dated 592-2024 (O&M);XOBJR-46-2024 the Award dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Addl. District SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’). Briefly stating, in the present case(s), situated within the revenue estates of Parol and Hoshiarpur, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali acquired vide Notifications dated 21.05.2010 and 15.11.2010 under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 1894 Act’) respectively for the public purpose, namely, “ construction/ upgradation of road from Punjab/ UT Border (near Mullanpur) to Siswan T-Junction in Local Planning Area, Mull Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’ besides granting all other statutory benefits/interest available to the landowners under the 1894 Act, determin acquired land as under:- “Village(s) Mullanpur Garib Dass Ferozepur and Parol Hoshiarpur Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the LAC, appellants/landowners filed objections Act, which was partly allowed by the learned Reference Court vide its decision dated 31.01.2024, while granting enhanced compensation 2024 & other connected cases [2 passed by the learned Addl. District (hereinafter to be referred as the Briefly stating, in the present case(s), certain land of Villages Mullanpur Garibdas, Parol and Hoshiarpur, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali was 21.05.2010 and 15.11.2010 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ’) respectively for the public purpose, namely, “ construction/ upgradation of road from Punjab/ UT Border (near Junction in Local Planning Area, Mullanpur” Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land the LAC’) on 13.05.2011, thereby all other statutory benefits/interest available to the determined the market value of the Compensation Rs.1,45,00,000/-per acre Rs.1,31,00,000/- per acre Rs.1,35,00,000/- per acre” Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the LAC, filed objections under Section 18 of the 1894 partly allowed by the learned Reference Court vide its , while granting enhanced compensation 2] passed by the learned Addl. District (hereinafter to be referred as the certain land Villages Mullanpur Garibdas, was issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ’) respectively for the public purpose, namely, “for construction/ upgradation of road from Punjab/ UT Border (near anpur”. Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land , thereby all other statutory benefits/interest available to the arket value of the ” Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the LAC, under Section 18 of the 1894 partly allowed by the learned Reference Court vide its , while granting enhanced compensation at SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.21 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-592 the uniform rate of other statutory benefits/interest in their favour under the 1894 Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal(s) were preferred at the instance of respondent(s)/lando objections. CONTENTION(S): ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT 5. for the appellants/GMADA submits that the learned Reference Court erred having discarded the sale instances produced by the appellants. He points out that produced o Court upon the previous award the revenue estates of village Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol, Hoshiarpur, and Majra, was 5.1. the appellant that the sale consideration reflected therein was lesser than the market value determined by the LAC especially in the wake of laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India considered for re 592-2024 (O&M);XOBJR-46-2024 uniform rate of Rs.2,68,05,280/- other statutory benefits/interest in their favour under the 1894 Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal(s) were preferred at the instance of appellant/GMADA; whereas the respondent(s)/landowner(s) preferred appeal(s) as well as cross objections. CONTENTION(S): ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT/GMADA Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellants/GMADA submits that the learned Reference Court erred having discarded the sale instances produced by the appellants. He points out that in the wake of produced on record, the reliance placed by the learned Reference Court upon the previous award dated 22.07.2013 the revenue estates of village Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol, Hoshiarpur, and Majra, was wholly misplaced and unwarranted. He further points out that the sale instances produced by the appellant-GMADA were not to be discarded merely on the ground that the sale consideration reflected therein was lesser than the market value determined by the LAC especially in the wake of laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India reported as (2009) 15 SCC 769 considered for re-assessment of the market value in the case(s) in 2024 & other connected cases [3 per acre besides awarding all other statutory benefits/interest in their favour under the 1894 Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal(s) were preferred at the appellant/GMADA; whereas the wner(s) preferred appeal(s) as well as cross /GMADA:- Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellants/GMADA submits that the learned Reference Court erred having discarded the sale instances produced by the in the wake of several sale deeds been the reliance placed by the learned Reference dated 22.07.2013 (Ex.P-1) concerning the revenue estates of village Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol, misplaced and unwarranted. He further points out that the sale instances produced by be discarded merely on the ground that the sale consideration reflected therein was lesser than the market value determined by the LAC especially in the wake of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Chand v. (2009) 15 SCC 769 and thus, need to be assessment of the market value in the case(s) in 3] per acre besides awarding all other statutory benefits/interest in their favour under the 1894 Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal(s) were preferred at the appellant/GMADA; whereas the wner(s) preferred appeal(s) as well as cross- Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellants/GMADA submits that the learned Reference Court erred having discarded the sale instances produced by the several sale deeds been the reliance placed by the learned Reference concerning the revenue estates of village Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol, He further points out that the sale instances produced by be discarded merely on the ground that the sale consideration reflected therein was lesser than the law Lal Chand v. to be assessment of the market value in the case(s) in SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.21 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-592 hand. The relevant para 592-2024 (O&M);XOBJR-46-2024 The relevant para-No. 54 to 59 are extracted “54. The High Court also rejected Exts. R upon by the respondents, solely on the ground that the prices therein were lower than the market value offered by the Land Acquisition Collector and therefore, they had to be excluded un Section 25 provides that the amount of compensation awarded by a Reference Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. 55. We fail to see how the said Section 25 has any relevance in regard to value as contrasted from award of compensation. If the sale deeds relied on by the respondents showed a particular market value, they cannot be ignored merely because the Collector had awarded compensation at a higher rate in regard to the acquired land. 56. All that Section 25 requires is that the courts should not award an amount which is less than what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, even if the evidence may show a lesser market value. So, the bar under Section 25 of the LA Act is determination of a market value, which is less than what was awarded by LAO. The bar is only upon the Reference Court (or any higher court) reducing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. 57. The fact that the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation at a particular rate does not mean that the sale deeds which are otherwise reliable, cannot be relied upon to find out what was the real market value. Further the very assumption that all awards made by the Collector were at a rate higher 2024 & other connected cases [4 No. 54 to 59 are extracted hereunder:- The High Court also rejected Exts. R-3 to R-7 relied upon by the respondents, solely on the ground that the prices therein were lower than the market value offered by the Land Acquisition Collector and therefore, they had to be excluded under Section 25 of the LA Act. Section 25 provides that the amount of compensation awarded by a Reference Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section We fail to see how the said Section 25 has any rd to determination of market as contrasted from award of compensation. If the sale deeds relied on by the respondents showed a particular market value, they cannot be ignored merely because the Collector had awarded compensation at a regard to the acquired land. All that Section 25 requires is that the courts should not award an amount which is less than what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, even if the evidence may show a lesser market value. So, the bar n 25 of the LA Act is not in regard to determination of a market value, which is less than what was awarded by LAO. The bar is only upon the Reference Court (or any higher court) reducing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition fact that the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation at a particular rate does not mean that the sale deeds which are otherwise reliable, cannot be relied upon to find out what was the real market value. Further the very assumption that all ards made by the Collector were at a rate higher 4] 7 relied upon by the respondents, solely on the ground that the prices therein were lower than the market value offered by the Land Acquisition Collector and therefore, they der Section 25 of the LA Act. Section 25 provides that the amount of compensation awarded by a Reference Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section We fail to see how the said Section 25 has any determination of market as contrasted from award of compensation. If the sale deeds relied on by the respondents showed a particular market value, they cannot be ignored merely because the Collector had awarded compensation at a All that Section 25 requires is that the courts should not award an amount which is less than what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, even if the evidence may show a lesser market value. So, the bar in regard to determination of a market value, which is less than what was awarded by LAO. The bar is only upon the Reference Court (or any higher court) reducing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition fact that the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation at a particular rate does not mean that the sale deeds which are otherwise reliable, cannot be relied upon to find out what was the real market value. Further the very assumption that all ards made by the Collector were at a rate higher SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.21 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-592 5.2. sale instances produced by the appellant equivalent to the already XOBJRs by the LAC itself, and therefore, the enhancement awarded by the learned Reference Court was wholly unwarranted and of any basis. preferred at the instance of appellant/GMADA were to be allowed and cross-objection(s) as well as appeal(s) preferred by the landowners were to be dismissed. ON BEHALF OF THE 6. respondents rightly placed reliance upon the award dated 22.07.2013 (Ex.P1) passed in Land Reference No. RT 87/25.05.2011 titled as Singh and respect to the five revenue estates, namely, Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol, Hoshiarpur and Majra was determined in relation to the previous acquisition carried out in terms of notification dated 20.02.2009 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, for public purpose, namely, “ 592-2024 (O&M);XOBJR-46-2024 than what was disclosed by the sale deeds (Exs. R to R-7) is also not correct.” Learned counsel alternatively, submits that sale instances produced by the appellant equivalent to the maximum sale consideration reflected therein stood granted in favour of the respondents/ XOBJRs by the LAC itself, and therefore, the enhancement awarded by the learned Reference Court was wholly unwarranted and of any basis. Learned counsel thus submits that the appeal(s) preferred at the instance of appellant/GMADA were to be allowed and objection(s) as well as appeal(s) preferred by the landowners were to be dismissed. ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-landowners submits that the learned Reference Court rightly placed reliance upon the award dated 22.07.2013 (Ex.P1) passed in Land Reference No. RT 87/25.05.2011 titled as Singh and others Vs. GMADA vide which the market value with respect to the five revenue estates, namely, Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol, Hoshiarpur and Majra was determined in relation to the previous acquisition carried out in terms of notification dated 02.2009 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, for public purpose, namely, “for construction of road from Mullanpur Garib Dass 2024 & other connected cases [5 than what was disclosed by the sale deeds (Exs. R 7) is also not correct.” Learned counsel alternatively, submits that as per the sale instances produced by the appellant-GMADA, the amount maximum sale consideration reflected therein granted in favour of the respondents/ landowners/ XOBJRs by the LAC itself, and therefore, the enhancement awarded by the learned Reference Court was wholly unwarranted and devoid Learned counsel thus submits that the appeal(s) preferred at the instance of appellant/GMADA were to be allowed and objection(s) as well as appeal(s) preferred by the landowners RESPONDENTS/LANDOWNERS:- Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landowners submits that the learned Reference Court rightly placed reliance upon the award dated 22.07.2013 (Ex.P1) passed in Land Reference No. RT 87/25.05.2011 titled as Baldev vide which the market value with respect to the five revenue estates, namely, Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol, Hoshiarpur and Majra was determined in relation to the previous acquisition carried out in terms of notification dated 02.2009 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, for public for construction of road from Mullanpur Garib Dass 5] than what was disclosed by the sale deeds (Exs. R-3 as per the amount maximum sale consideration reflected therein landowners/ XOBJRs by the LAC itself, and therefore, the enhancement awarded devoid Learned counsel thus submits that the appeal(s) preferred at the instance of appellant/GMADA were to be allowed and objection(s) as well as appeal(s) preferred by the landowners Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landowners submits that the learned Reference Court rightly placed reliance upon the award dated 22.07.2013 (Ex.P1) Baldev vide which the market value with respect to the five revenue estates, namely, Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol, Hoshiarpur and Majra was determined in relation to the previous acquisition carried out in terms of notification dated 02.2009 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, for public for construction of road from Mullanpur Garib Dass SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.21 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-592 to Kurali- 6.1. 22.07.2013 (Ex.P1) was assailed befo landowners decision dated 27.01.2026 passed in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, SAS Nagar (Mohali) Vs. Baldev Singh (Deceased) th. enhanced the market value of acquired land to the tune of Rs.3,38,40,000/ present case(s), the market value was required to be re favour of the respondents/lando them appreciation @ 15% per annum for the time gap between the two notification i.e. from 20.02.2009 upto 21.05.2010 the market value determined by this Court in (supra). No other argument has been raised. DISCUSSION AND REASONING: 7. through the paper 8. revenue estates of Villages Mullanpur Garibd Hoshiarpur and Majra was initially acquired vide notification dated 20.02.2009 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, for public purpose, namely, “ 592-2024 (O&M);XOBJR-46-2024 -Siswan T-Junction”. Learned counsel also points out that the award dated 22.07.2013 (Ex.P1) was assailed befo landowners therein as well as GMADA. In decision dated 27.01.2026 passed in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, SAS Nagar (Mohali) Vs. Baldev Singh (Deceased) th. h enhanced the market value of acquired land to the tune of Rs.3,38,40,000/- per acre. Learned counsel thus submits that in the present case(s), the market value was required to be re favour of the respondents/landowners/cross them appreciation @ 15% per annum for the time gap between the two notification i.e. from 20.02.2009 upto 21.05.2010 the market value determined by this Court in No other argument has been raised. DISCUSSION AND REASONING: - I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. A perusal of the record shows that revenue estates of Villages Mullanpur Garibd Hoshiarpur and Majra was initially acquired vide notification dated 20.02.2009 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, for public purpose, namely, “for construction of road from Mullanpur Garib Dass 2024 & other connected cases [6 Learned counsel also points out that the award dated 22.07.2013 (Ex.P1) was assailed before this Court, at the instance of as well as GMADA. In those proceedings, vide decision dated 27.01.2026 passed in RFA-7762-2013 titled as “The Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, SAS Nagar (Mohali) his LRs and ors.” this Court, enhanced the market value of acquired land to the tune of per acre. Learned counsel thus submits that in the present case(s), the market value was required to be re-assessed in wners/cross-objectors after granting them appreciation @ 15% per annum for the time gap between the two notification i.e. from 20.02.2009 upto 21.05.2010 over and above the market value determined by this Court in Baldev Singh’s case No other argument has been raised. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone A perusal of the record shows that land forming part of 05 revenue estates of Villages Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol, Hoshiarpur and Majra was initially acquired vide notification dated 20.02.2009 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, for public for construction of road from Mullanpur Garib Dass 6] Learned counsel also points out that the award dated re this Court, at the instance of proceedings, vide The Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, SAS Nagar (Mohali) this Court, enhanced the market value of acquired land to the tune of per acre. Learned counsel thus submits that in the assessed in objectors after granting them appreciation @ 15% per annum for the time gap between the over and above Baldev Singh’s case I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone land forming part of 05 ass, Ferozepur, Parol, Hoshiarpur and Majra was initially acquired vide notification dated 20.02.2009 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, for public for construction of road from Mullanpur Garib Dass SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.21 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-592 to Kurali acquisition” 3 months, some additional land forming part of four revenue estates of Villages Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol and Hoshiarpur was sought to be acqui Section 4 of the 1894 Act for the public purpose, namely, construction/ upgradation of road from Punjab/ UT Border (near Mullanpur) to Siswan T (hereinafter referred to as apparent that the present acquisition which commenced vide subsequent upgradation of the road from Punjab/ UT Border to Siswan T in continuation of the previous acquisition carried out vide notification dated 20.02.2009 under Section 4 of the 1894 Act from the same revenue estates. For convenience, a comparative chart of the two acquisitions is extracted hereunder: Details Section 4 Section 6 Revenue Estate of Village(s) involved Public Purpose 592-2024 (O&M);XOBJR-46-2024 to Kurali-Siswan T-Junction” (hereinafter referred to as acquisition”) Subsequently, after a gap of approximately 1 year and 3 months, some additional land forming part of four revenue estates of Villages Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol and Hoshiarpur was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 21.05.2010 under Section 4 of the 1894 Act for the public purpose, namely, construction/ upgradation of road from Punjab/ UT Border (near Mullanpur) to Siswan T-Junction in Local Planning Area, Mullanpur” (hereinafter referred to as “present acquisition” apparent that the present acquisition which commenced vide subsequent notification dated 21.05.2010 was in fact, carried out for upgradation of the road from Punjab/ UT Border to Siswan T in continuation of the previous acquisition carried out vide notification dated 20.02.2009 under Section 4 of the 1894 Act from the same revenue estates. For convenience, a comparative chart of two acquisitions is extracted hereunder: Details Previous Acquisition 20.02.2009 10.08.2009 Revenue Estate of Village(s) involved Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol, Hoshiarpur and Majra Public Purpose Construction of road from Mullanpur Garib Dass to Kurali-Siswan T-Junction 2024 & other connected cases [7 inafter referred to as “previous Subsequently, after a gap of approximately 1 year and 3 months, some additional land forming part of four revenue estates of Villages Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol and Hoshiarpur red vide notification dated 21.05.2010 under Section 4 of the 1894 Act for the public purpose, namely, “ construction/ upgradation of road from Punjab/ UT Border (near Junction in Local Planning Area, Mullanpur” “present acquisition”) Thus, it is apparent that the present acquisition which commenced vide notification dated 21.05.2010 was in fact, carried out for upgradation of the road from Punjab/ UT Border to Siswan T-Junction in continuation of the previous acquisition carried out vide previous notification dated 20.02.2009 under Section 4 of the 1894 Act from the same revenue estates. For convenience, a comparative chart of two acquisitions is extracted hereunder:- Previous Acquisition Present Acquisition 21.05.2010 15.11.2010 Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol, Hoshiarpur and Majra Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol and Hoshiarpur Construction of road from Mullanpur Garib Dass to Junction. Construction/ upgradation of road from Punjab/ UT Border (near Mullanpur) to Siswan T-Junction in Local Planning Area, Mullanpur 7] “previous Subsequently, after a gap of approximately 1 year and 3 months, some additional land forming part of four revenue estates of Villages Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol and Hoshiarpur red vide notification dated 21.05.2010 under “for construction/ upgradation of road from Punjab/ UT Border (near Junction in Local Planning Area, Mullanpur” ) Thus, it is apparent that the present acquisition which commenced vide notification dated 21.05.2010 was in fact, carried out for tion previous notification dated 20.02.2009 under Section 4 of the 1894 Act from the same revenue estates. For convenience, a comparative chart of Present Acquisition Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol and Construction/ upgradation of road from Punjab/ UT Border (near Mullanpur) to Junction in Local Planning Area, Mullanpur. SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.21 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-592 Award passed by the LAC Award passed by the learned Reference Court. Determination b this Court now proceed to parties. 9. that the sale instances produced by it ought to be considered for re assessment of market value opinion of this Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of (supra) only held consideration of sale instances reflecting lesser consideration for the purpose of determining market value. The said decision any manner, mandate that every sale instance produced on record 592-2024 (O&M);XOBJR-46-2024 Award passed by Dated 31.03.2010 Mullanpur Garibdass: Rs. 1,45,00,000/- per acre. Ferozepur and Parol: Rs.1,31,00,000/- per acre. Hoshiarpur: Rs.1,35,00,000/- per acre Majra: Rs.1,29,00,000/- per acre Award passed by the learned Reference Court. Dated: 22.07.2013 At a uniform rate of Rs.2,32,00,000/-. Determination by this Court Dated: 27.01.2026 RFA-7762-2013 titled as GMADA vs. Baldev Singh (Deceased) through his LRs and ors. At a uniform rate of Rs.3,38,40,000/-. Having noted the aforesaid factual matrix, this Court shall roceed to deal with the contentions raised on behalf of the The contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the sale instances produced by it ought to be considered for re assessment of market value cannot be accepted as in the humble ion of this Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of (supra) only held that Section 25 of consideration of sale instances reflecting lesser consideration for the purpose of determining market value. The said decision any manner, mandate that every sale instance produced on record 2024 & other connected cases [8 Mullanpur Garibdass: per acre. Ferozepur and Parol: per acre. per acre per acre Dated 13.05.2011 Mullanpur Garibdass: Rs. 1,45,00,000/- per acre. Ferozepur and Parol: Rs.1,31,00,000/- per acre. Hoshiarpur: Rs.1,35,00,000/- per acre At a uniform rate of Dated: 31.01.2024 At a uniform rate of Rs.2,68,05,280/-. 2013 titled as GMADA vs. Baldev Singh (Deceased) through his LRs At a uniform rate of ------ Having noted the aforesaid factual matrix, this Court shall deal with the contentions raised on behalf of the The contention raised on behalf of the appellant-GMADA that the sale instances produced by it ought to be considered for re cannot be accepted as in the humble ion of this Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Lal Chand that Section 25 of the 1894 Act does not bar the consideration of sale instances reflecting lesser consideration for the purpose of determining market value. The said decision does not, in any manner, mandate that every sale instance produced on record 8] Mullanpur Garibdass: acre. Ferozepur and Parol: per acre. per acre At a uniform rate of Having noted the aforesaid factual matrix, this Court shall deal with the contentions raised on behalf of the GMADA that the sale instances produced by it ought to be considered for re- cannot be accepted as in the humble Lal Chand does not bar the consideration of sale instances reflecting lesser consideration for the does not, in any manner, mandate that every sale instance produced on record SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.21 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-592 must be relied upon regardless of its evidentiary worth. it is now well instances are available on record, it is th instances that must be taken as the basis for determination of market value as the landowner is entitled to the best price that his land could have fetched in the open market at the time of acquisition. The rationale underlying this market would naturally seek and obtain the best available price, and the landowner who is compulsorily deprived of his land cannot be placed in a position worse than such a willing seller. 9.1. that the sale instances reflecting a lesser consideration are required to be scrutinised with greater ca the result of distress sales underval the true market value of the land. instances produced by the appellant to be bona fide 10. behalf of learned counsel for the deeds pertaining to the present acquisition are available on record, previous awards or judgments cannot be relied upon acceptance with this Court 592-2024 (O&M);XOBJR-46-2024 must be relied upon regardless of its evidentiary worth. it is now well-settled principle of law that instances are available on record, it is th instances that must be taken as the basis for determination of market as the landowner is entitled to the best price that his land could have fetched in the open market at the time of acquisition. The rationale underlying this principle is that a willing seller in an open market would naturally seek and obtain the best available price, and the landowner who is compulsorily deprived of his land cannot be placed in a position worse than such a willing seller. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex sale instances reflecting a lesser consideration are required to be scrutinised with greater caution the result of distress sales; sales between relatives, or deliberate uation for the purposes of stamp duty, and may not reflect the true market value of the land. In such circumstances, the sale instances produced by the appellant- bona fide sale instances and need to be discarded. It may also be noticed here that the contention raised behalf of learned counsel for the appellant deeds pertaining to the present acquisition are available on record, previous awards or judgments cannot be relied upon ceptance with this Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court 2024 & other connected cases [9 must be relied upon regardless of its evidentiary worth. Furthermore, settled principle of law that where multiple sale instances are available on record, it is the highest of such sale instances that must be taken as the basis for determination of market as the landowner is entitled to the best price that his land could have fetched in the open market at the time of acquisition. The principle is that a willing seller in an open market would naturally seek and obtain the best available price, and the landowner who is compulsorily deprived of his land cannot be placed in a position worse than such a willing seller. Apex Court, time and again held sale instances reflecting a lesser consideration are required ution, as such transactions may be sales between relatives, or deliberate uation for the purposes of stamp duty, and may not reflect In such circumstances, the sale -GMADA cannot be considered sale instances and need to be discarded. noticed here that the contention raised appellant-GMADA that once sale deeds pertaining to the present acquisition are available on record, previous awards or judgments cannot be relied upon, does not merit . The Hon’ble Apex Court Manoj Kumar 9] Furthermore, where multiple sale e highest of such sale instances that must be taken as the basis for determination of market as the landowner is entitled to the best price that his land could have fetched in the open market at the time of acquisition. The principle is that a willing seller in an open market would naturally seek and obtain the best available price, and the landowner who is compulsorily deprived of his land cannot be held sale instances reflecting a lesser consideration are required , as such transactions may be sales between relatives, or deliberate uation for the purposes of stamp duty, and may not reflect In such circumstances, the sale GMADA cannot be considered on once sale deeds pertaining to the present acquisition are available on record, , does not merit Manoj Kumar SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.21 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-592 etc. vs. State of Haryana & Others categorically observed that sale instances and previous awards stand on the same footing insofar as their evidentiary value is concerned. In the considered view of this Court, treated as guiding parameters and dissimilarities in the nature, potential, and location of the land akin to sale instances, enabling the Court to apply its judicial mind in assessing the market value in the case 10.1. estates involved in both acquisitions are the same and the public purpose is also identical committed by the learned Reference Court in relying upon the determination made by the learned Reference decision dated 22.07.2013 (Ex.P1) passed in Land Reference No. 87/25.05.2011 vide notification dated 20.02.2009 issued under Section 4 of the Act. Admittedly, the market va proceedings which commenced vide notification dated 20.02.2009 has been re this Court in 11. notification dated 20.02.2009 (previous acquisition) and the present acquisition carried out in terms of notification dated 21.05.2010 592-2024 (O&M);XOBJR-46-2024 vs. State of Haryana & Others categorically observed that sale instances and previous awards stand on the same footing insofar as their evidentiary value is concerned. In the considered view of this Court, the previous a treated as guiding parameters, subject to consider and dissimilarities in the nature, potential, and location of the land akin to sale instances, enabling the Court to apply its judicial mind in assessing the market value in the case As evident from the above char estates involved in both acquisitions are the same and the public purpose is also identical, there was no illegality or perversity committed by the learned Reference Court in relying upon the determination made by the learned Reference decision dated 22.07.2013 (Ex.P1) passed in Land Reference No. 87/25.05.2011 which pertained to the previous acquisition carried out vide notification dated 20.02.2009 issued under Section 4 of the Admittedly, the market value in terms of previous acquisition proceedings which commenced vide notification dated 20.02.2009 has been re-assessed and enhanced to Rs.3,38,40,000/ this Court in Baldev Singh’s case (supra). Taking into account the fact that both the acquisitions i.e. notification dated 20.02.2009 (previous acquisition) and the present acquisition carried out in terms of notification dated 21.05.2010 2024 & other connected cases [10 reported as 2018 (13) SCC 96 categorically observed that sale instances and previous awards stand on the same footing insofar as their evidentiary value is concerned. In the previous awards are to be subject to consideration of similarities and dissimilarities in the nature, potential, and location of the land akin to sale instances, enabling the Court to apply its judicial mind in assessing the market value in the case(s) at hand. As evident from the above chart, since the revenue estates involved in both acquisitions are the same and the public , there was no illegality or perversity committed by the learned Reference Court in relying upon the determination made by the learned Reference Court in terms of the decision dated 22.07.2013 (Ex.P1) passed in Land Reference No. which pertained to the previous acquisition carried out vide notification dated 20.02.2009 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 lue in terms of previous acquisition proceedings which commenced vide notification dated 20.02.2009 assessed and enhanced to Rs.3,38,40,000/- per acre by (supra). Taking into account the fact that both the acquisitions i.e. notification dated 20.02.2009 (previous acquisition) and the present acquisition carried out in terms of notification dated 21.05.2010 10] 2018 (13) SCC 96 categorically observed that sale instances and previous awards stand on the same footing insofar as their evidentiary value is concerned. In wards are to be ation of similarities and dissimilarities in the nature, potential, and location of the land, akin to sale instances, enabling the Court to apply its judicial mind in the revenue estates involved in both acquisitions are the same and the public , there was no illegality or perversity committed by the learned Reference Court in relying upon the Court in terms of the decision dated 22.07.2013 (Ex.P1) passed in Land Reference No. which pertained to the previous acquisition carried out 1894 lue in terms of previous acquisition proceedings which commenced vide notification dated 20.02.2009 per acre by Taking into account the fact that both the acquisitions i.e. notification dated 20.02.2009 (previous acquisition) and the present acquisition carried out in terms of notification dated 21.05.2010 SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.21 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-592 related to the same revenue estates which are in close proxi UT Chandigarh, an appreciation @ 12% per annum for the time gap between the two notifications i.e. from 20.02.2009 to 21.05.2010 (for a period of 15 months) needs to be granted in favour of the respondents/landowners/ XOBJRs over and above the pric assessed by this Court @ Rs.3,38,40,000/ previous notification dated 20.02.2009. Applying the same, the market value with respect to the acquisition in hand which commenced vide notification dated 21.05.2010 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, 12. Rs.3,89,16,000/ 4 of the 1894 Act respondents/ XOBJRs benefits and interests under the 1894 Act, especially the solatium @30% and interest thereupon. 13. appeal(s) preferred at the appeal(s) as well as cross objections by landowners are partly allowed with the aforesaid modification. 14. expired in the appeal(s)/cross legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek 592-2024 (O&M);XOBJR-46-2024 related to the same revenue estates which are in close proxi UT Chandigarh, an appreciation @ 12% per annum for the time gap between the two notifications i.e. from 20.02.2009 to 21.05.2010 (for a period of 15 months) needs to be granted in favour of the respondents/landowners/ XOBJRs over and above the pric assessed by this Court @ Rs.3,38,40,000/ previous notification dated 20.02.2009. Applying the same, the market value with respect to the acquisition in hand which commenced vide notification dated 21.05.2010 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, comes to Rs.3,89,16,000/ Accordingly, the market value is assessed Rs.3,89,16,000/-./- per acre on the date of notification under Section of the 1894 Act in the case(s) in hand respondents/ XOBJRs shall also be entitled for all the benefits and interests under the 1894 Act, especially the solatium @30% and interest thereupon. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present appeal(s) preferred at the instance of the State are dismissed and the appeal(s) as well as cross objections by landowners are partly allowed with the aforesaid modification. Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/cross-objection(s) after fi legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek 2024 & other connected cases [11 related to the same revenue estates which are in close proximity to UT Chandigarh, an appreciation @ 12% per annum for the time gap between the two notifications i.e. from 20.02.2009 to 21.05.2010 (for a period of 15 months) needs to be granted in favour of the respondents/landowners/ XOBJRs over and above the pric assessed by this Court @ Rs.3,38,40,000/- per acre in relation to previous notification dated 20.02.2009. Applying the same, the market value with respect to the acquisition in hand which commenced vide notification dated 21.05.2010 issued under Section comes to Rs.3,89,16,000/- per acre. the market value is assessed at the rate on the date of notification under Section case(s) in hand. Besides it, the landowner shall also be entitled for all the statutory benefits and interests under the 1894 Act, especially the solatium In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present instance of the State are dismissed and the appeal(s) as well as cross objections by landowners are partly allowed with the aforesaid modification. Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek 11] mity to UT Chandigarh, an appreciation @ 12% per annum for the time gap between the two notifications i.e. from 20.02.2009 to 21.05.2010 (for a period of 15 months) needs to be granted in favour of the respondents/landowners/ XOBJRs over and above the price per acre in relation to previous notification dated 20.02.2009. Applying the same, the market value with respect to the acquisition in hand which commenced vide notification dated 21.05.2010 issued under Section the rate of on the date of notification under Section landowners/ statutory benefits and interests under the 1894 Act, especially the solatium In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present instance of the State are dismissed and the appeal(s) as well as cross objections by landowners are partly Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately ling thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.21 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-592 execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications before the learned Executing Court. 15. of. 12.05.2026 sanjay Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 12.05.2026 sanjay 592-2024 (O&M);XOBJR-46-2024 execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications before the learned Executing Court. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disp 12.05.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Sr. No. Case No. 1. RFA-594-2024(O&M) 2. RFA-598-2024(O&M) & XOBJR 105 2025 3. RFA-599-2024(O&M) 4. RFA-628-2024(O&M) 5. RFA-631-2024(O&M) 6. RFA-632-2024(O&M) 7. RFA-636-2024(O&M) 8. RFA-641-2024(O&M) 9. RFA-4456-2016(O&M) & XOBJR 154 2025 10. RFA-24-2017 (O&M) & XOBJR 7 2017 11. RFA-43-2017 (O&M) & XOBJR 36 2017 12. RFA-44-2017 (O&M) & XOBJR 22 2018 13. RFA-490-2017 (O&M) & XOBJR 67 CI-2017 14. RFA-3097-2017 (O&M) & XOBJR 139 CI-2019 15. RFA-883-2022 (O&M) 12.05.2026 2024 & other connected cases [12 execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No 2024(O&M) 2024(O&M) & XOBJR 105- 2024(O&M) 2024(O&M) 2024(O&M) 2024(O&M) 2024(O&M) 2024(O&M) 2016(O&M) & XOBJR 154- 2017 (O&M) & XOBJR 7-CI- 2017 (O&M) & XOBJR 36-CI- 2017 (O&M) & XOBJR 22-CI- 2017 (O&M) & XOBJR 67- 2017 (O&M) & XOBJR 139- 2022 (O&M) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE 12] execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications osed (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.21 19:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document