RFA-3468 114 (12 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Raj Kumar XEN PWD B&R Branch, Yamuna Nagar 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 common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken 2. the Award dated District Judge, 3. 3468-2003 (O&M) & other connected cases cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA Date of Decision: 30.10.2025 Raj Kumar Versus XEN PWD B&R Branch, Yamuna Nagar CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Shivam Singh Chauhan, Advocate Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) Vide this common order, a bunch of 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 common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to Award dated 02.05.2003 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari Briefly stating, 61 kanals 1 3 (O&M) & other connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-3468-2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.10.2025 …….Appellant Versus XEN PWD B&R Branch, Yamuna Nagar and anr. ..….Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Mr.Shivam Singh Chauhan, Advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Vide this common order, a bunch of 12 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 common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.3468 of 2003 By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to passed by the Court of Additional Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari-cum-Reference Court. kanals 12 marlas of land, situated within 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 common facts and question of law. For 2003. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to passed by the Court of Additional Reference Court. , situated within SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.12 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3468 the revenue estate of Village Nagar, was dated 20.03.199 under Sections 4 and 6 o ‘the Act’ “approacher of High Sharanpur short ‘the LAC’) vi acquired land granting all other statutory benefits under the Act 4. landowners which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court while enhancing acre besides 5. Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners 6. for the appellants/ land Reference Court has rightly placed reliance upon sale instance Ex.P1 dated 23.01.1991 for the purpose of determination of compensation in the present case 3468-2003 (O&M) & other connected cases the revenue estate of Village Kalanaur, Tehsil and District Yamuna Nagar, was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications 20.03.1998 and 18.02.1999 published on 24.02.1999, under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for “approacher of High-level Bridge on Yamuna River in K.M. 25 of Sharanpur-Kurukshetra Road”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award 15.01.2000 acquired land @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for all types of land, granting all other statutory benefits under the Act Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, landowners filed reference petitions invoking which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court while enhancing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. acre besides granting all other statutory benefits under the Act. Still dissatisfied with the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners as well as respondent State. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel(s) for the appellants/ landowners submit that though the learned Reference Court has rightly placed reliance upon sale instance Ex.P1 dated 23.01.1991 for the purpose of determination of compensation in present case, however, considering the fact that the sale instance 3 (O&M) & other connected cases [2] Kalanaur, Tehsil and District Yamuna acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications and 18.02.1999 published on 24.02.1999, issued f the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short respectively, for public purpose i.e. for construction level Bridge on Yamuna River in K.M. 25 of The Land Acquisition Collector (for 15.01.2000 assessed market value of the per acre for all types of land, besides granting all other statutory benefits under the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court while the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.3,00,000/- per all other statutory benefits under the Act. dissatisfied with the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance as well as respondent State. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel(s) owners submit that though the learned Reference Court has rightly placed reliance upon sale instance Ex.P1 dated 23.01.1991 for the purpose of determination of compensation in considering the fact that the sale instance Kalanaur, Tehsil and District Yamuna acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications issued f the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short construction level Bridge on Yamuna River in K.M. 25 of The Land Acquisition Collector (for assessed market value of the besides appellants/ Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court while per dissatisfied with the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel(s) owners submit that though the learned Reference Court has rightly placed reliance upon sale instance Ex.P1 dated 23.01.1991 for the purpose of determination of compensation in considering the fact that the sale instance SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.12 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3468 pertained under Section 4 of the Act of the case in hand was issued on 20.03.1998 required to be granted in favour of the landowners prolonged time gap acquisition was carried out for the public purpose, i.e. for construction of H.L. Bridge, Yamuna River and connecting highway to the said bridge, and the respondent State incur any thus, 1/3 therefore, concludes the market value was accordingly. 7. the State has placed on record ‘ Authorities duly signed by Mr. PWD Department, Yamuna Nagar, for the purpose of referring to the location of sale deeds Ex.P1, Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 in comparison to the land under acquisition two sheets duly countersigned by learned State counse the same is taken on record as Mark ‘X’, for the assistance of the Court towards effective adjudication of the appeals. 8. submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong while 3468-2003 (O&M) & other connected cases pertained to the year 1991 (dated 23.01.1991); whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act of the case in hand was issued on 3.1998, consequently, an appreciation @ 15% per annum was required to be granted in favour of the landowners ged time gap. He further submits that in terms of the fact that the acquisition was carried out for the public purpose, i.e. for construction of H.L. Bridge, Yamuna River and connecting highway to the said bridge, and the respondent State was not to suff any cost towards providing of additional infrastructural facilities thus, 1/3rd deduction made was highly excessive. Learned counsel therefore, concludes that based on the evidence available on record, the market value was required to be reassessed and enhanced accordingly. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has placed on record ‘aks shajra Authorities duly signed by Mr. Sunny, Junior Engineer, Department of epartment, Yamuna Nagar, for the purpose of referring to the location of sale deeds Ex.P1, Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 in comparison to the land under acquisition in the present case two sheets duly countersigned by learned State counse the same is taken on record as Mark ‘X’, for the assistance of the Court towards effective adjudication of the appeals. Referring to the site plan, Mark ‘X’, learned State counsel submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong while 3 (O&M) & other connected cases [3] 23.01.1991); whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act of the case in hand was issued on an appreciation @ 15% per annum was required to be granted in favour of the landowners owing to the submits that in terms of the fact that the acquisition was carried out for the public purpose, i.e. for construction of H.L. Bridge, Yamuna River and connecting highway to the said was not to suffer loss of any land or cost towards providing of additional infrastructural facilities was highly excessive. Learned counsel that based on the evidence available on record, required to be reassessed and enhanced On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of aks shajra’ prepared by the Revenue Sunny, Junior Engineer, Department of epartment, Yamuna Nagar, for the purpose of referring to the location of sale deeds Ex.P1, Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 in comparison to the in the present case. The said site plan consists two sheets duly countersigned by learned State counsel and as such the same is taken on record as Mark ‘X’, for the assistance of the Court towards effective adjudication of the appeals. Referring to the site plan, Mark ‘X’, learned State counsel submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong while relying upon 23.01.1991); whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act of the case in hand was issued on an appreciation @ 15% per annum was owing to the submits that in terms of the fact that the acquisition was carried out for the public purpose, i.e. for construction of H.L. Bridge, Yamuna River and connecting highway to the said any land or cost towards providing of additional infrastructural facilities, was highly excessive. Learned counsel, that based on the evidence available on record, required to be reassessed and enhanced On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of ’ prepared by the Revenue Sunny, Junior Engineer, Department of epartment, Yamuna Nagar, for the purpose of referring to the location of sale deeds Ex.P1, Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 in comparison to the s of and as such the same is taken on record as Mark ‘X’, for the assistance of the Court Referring to the site plan, Mark ‘X’, learned State counsel relying upon SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.12 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3468 the sale instance Ex.P1 which was situated at a distance of around 1.5 to 2 kms and thus the same could not have been relied upon for the purpose of determination of compensation learned Reference Court should hav Ex.R1 dated which was Learned counsel thus market value per acre was Rs.1.97 lakhs and the same was equivalent to the compensation awarded by the LAC acre and Reference Court in the cross required to be allowed; whereas the appeals preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners were to be dismissed. 9. through the paper 10. recorded by the Reference Court to the effect that the land under acquisition is adjoining to the petrol pump and shops. No evidence to the contrary has been referred to or relied upon by learned State counsel to rebut the said finding. Relevant extract in this regard from the learned Reference Court award is 3468-2003 (O&M) & other connected cases the sale instance Ex.P1 which was situated at a distance of around 1.5 to 2 kms and thus the same could not have been relied upon for the purpose of determination of compensation learned Reference Court should have relied upon the sale instance dated 05.11.1997 and Ex.R2 dated 19. was at the distance of merely 700 meters from the acquired land. Learned counsel thus submits that as per Exs.R1 and R2, maximum market value per acre was Rs.1.97 lakhs and the same was equivalent to the compensation awarded by the LAC acre and consequently, the further enhancement Reference Court in favour of the landowners the cross-appeals filed at the instance of respondent State were required to be allowed; whereas the appeals preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners were to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book(s) as well. In the present case, a positive finding of fact has been recorded by the Reference Court to the effect that the land under acquisition in the present case is situated on the National is adjoining to the petrol pump and shops. No evidence to the contrary has been referred to or relied upon by learned State counsel to rebut the said finding. Relevant extract in this regard from the learned Reference Court award is reproduced hereunder: “Admittedly, the land acquired is 3 (O&M) & other connected cases [4] the sale instance Ex.P1 which was situated at a distance of around 1.5 to 2 kms and thus the same could not have been relied upon for the purpose of determination of compensation. He further contends that e relied upon the sale instance 05.11.1997 and Ex.R2 dated 19.02.1997, land under 700 meters from the acquired land. that as per Exs.R1 and R2, maximum market value per acre was Rs.1.97 lakhs and the same was almost equivalent to the compensation awarded by the LAC at Rs.2 lakhs per further enhancement granted by the learned favour of the landowners was not required. Thus, appeals filed at the instance of respondent State were required to be allowed; whereas the appeals preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners were to be dismissed. counsel for the parties and gone In the present case, a positive finding of fact has been recorded by the Reference Court to the effect that the land under situated on the National Highway and is adjoining to the petrol pump and shops. No evidence to the contrary has been referred to or relied upon by learned State counsel to rebut the said finding. Relevant extract in this regard from the learned hereunder:- “Admittedly, the land acquired is the sale instance Ex.P1 which was situated at a distance of around 1.5 to 2 kms and thus the same could not have been relied upon for the the e relied upon the sale instance , land under 700 meters from the acquired land. that as per Exs.R1 and R2, maximum almost Rs.2 lakhs per by the learned . Thus, appeals filed at the instance of respondent State were required to be allowed; whereas the appeals preferred at the instance of counsel for the parties and gone In the present case, a positive finding of fact has been recorded by the Reference Court to the effect that the land under Highway and is adjoining to the petrol pump and shops. No evidence to the contrary has been referred to or relied upon by learned State counsel to rebut the said finding. Relevant extract in this regard from the learned “Admittedly, the land acquired is SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.12 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3468 respondents shows that the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 23.01.1991 relied upon by the learned Reference Court for the purpose of determination of Market Value, and the sam whereas the 05.11.1997 and Ex.R2 dated 19.12.1997, are the said State Highway i.e. at a distance of around 700 meters. 11. findings recorded by the learned Reference Court while having placed reliance upon the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 23.01.1991 for the purpose of determination of market value in the case in hand for the reason that the land forming part thereunder is at a distance of around 2 kms. from the acquired land; especially when the land forming part of Ex.P1 is also adjacent to the same State Highway on which the land under acquisition exists. 12. 1/3rd deduction applied instance Ex.P1 dated 23.01.1991 that the land forming part of the said sale instance abuts the State Highway the acquired land especially when it forms part of 3468-2003 (O&M) & other connected cases situated on the national highway and adjoining to the petrol pump and shops.” A perusal of site plan Mark ‘X’ produced by the respondents shows that the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 23.01.1991 relied upon by the learned Reference Court for the purpose of determination of Market Value, abuts the State Highway by same State Highway abuts the land under acquisition whereas the land parcels forming part of 05.11.1997 and Ex.R2 dated 19.12.1997, are the said State Highway i.e. at a distance of around 700 meters. In such circumstances, no illegality can be found with the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court while having placed reliance upon the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 23.01.1991 for the purpose of determination of market value in the case in hand for the reason that the land forming part thereunder is at a distance of around 2 kms. from the acquired land; especially when the land forming part of Ex.P1 is also adjacent to the same State Highway on which the land under acquisition exists. Moreover, no interference is warranted with respect to the deduction applied towards the sale price as instance Ex.P1 dated 23.01.1991 for 1K that the land forming part of the said sale instance abuts the State Highway even though it is situated at a distance of around 2 kms. from the acquired land especially when it forms part of 3 (O&M) & other connected cases [5] situated on the national highway and adjoining to the petrol pump and shops.” A perusal of site plan Mark ‘X’ produced by the respondents shows that the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 23.01.1991 relied upon by the learned Reference Court for the purpose of abuts the State Highway by just 1 Killa the land under acquisition as well land parcels forming part of sale exemplar Ex.R1 dated 05.11.1997 and Ex.R2 dated 19.12.1997, are situated far away from the said State Highway i.e. at a distance of around 700 meters. In such circumstances, no illegality can be found with the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court while having placed reliance upon the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 23.01.1991 for the purpose of determination of market value in the case in hand merely for the reason that the land forming part thereunder is at a distance of around 2 kms. from the acquired land; especially when the land forming part of Ex.P1 is also adjacent to the same State Highway on which the land under acquisition exists. Moreover, no interference is warranted with respect to the the sale price as derived from the sale for 1K-10M because of the reason that the land forming part of the said sale instance abuts the State at a distance of around 2 kms. from the acquired land especially when it forms part of the same revenue situated on the national highway and A perusal of site plan Mark ‘X’ produced by the respondents shows that the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 23.01.1991 relied upon by the learned Reference Court for the purpose of just 1 Killa as well; sale exemplar Ex.R1 dated far away from In such circumstances, no illegality can be found with the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court while having placed reliance upon the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 23.01.1991 for the merely for the reason that the land forming part thereunder is at a distance of around 2 kms. from the acquired land; especially when the land forming part of Ex.P1 is also adjacent to the same State Highway on Moreover, no interference is warranted with respect to the derived from the sale the reason that the land forming part of the said sale instance abuts the State at a distance of around 2 kms. from ue SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.12 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3468 estate i.e. Village Kalanaur. dated 23.01.1991; whereas the acquisition in the present case commenced vide notification dated 20. of the Act years. Consequently, 12% per annum needs to be awarded when the land under acquisition abuts Kurukshetra existing petrol pump and shop 13. appreciation @ 12% per annum for a period of 85 months over and above Rs. per acre and after applying 1/3 for the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, comes to Rs.6,66,859.74/ appellants/landowners shall also be entitled for all other statutory benefits and interest provided under the Act 14. filed at the instance of appellants/landowners are partly allowed; whereas the appeals fil hereby dismissed. 15. unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross 3468-2003 (O&M) & other connected cases estate i.e. Village Kalanaur. However, the sale dated 23.01.1991; whereas the acquisition in the present case commenced vide notification dated 20.0 of the Act, there seems to be a considerable time gap of almost 07 years. Consequently, a suitable appreciat 12% per annum needs to be awarded when the land under acquisition abuts the Kurukshetra to Saharanpur and is also in the vicinity of already existing petrol pump and shops etc. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, applying appreciation @ 12% per annum for a period of 85 months over and above Rs. 4,48,000/- (Ex.P1); the value comes to Rs.10,00,289.12/ per acre and after applying 1/3rd deduction, the market value per acre for the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, comes to Rs.6,66,859.74/- (rounded of appellants/landowners shall also be entitled for all other statutory and interest, especially the benefit of provided under the Act. In the wake of discussion made hereinabove, the appeals filed at the instance of appellants/landowners are partly allowed; whereas the appeals filed at the instanc hereby dismissed. Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross 3 (O&M) & other connected cases [6] However, the sale instance Ex.P1 is dated 23.01.1991; whereas the acquisition in the present case 03.1998 issued under Section 4 , there seems to be a considerable time gap of almost 07 a suitable appreciation at the compound rate of 12% per annum needs to be awarded over its sale price especially the State Highway leading from Saharanpur and is also in the vicinity of already in view of aforesaid discussion, applying appreciation @ 12% per annum for a period of 85 months over and (Ex.P1); the value comes to Rs.10,00,289.12/ deduction, the market value per acre for the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of (rounded off Rs.6,66,860/-). The appellants/landowners shall also be entitled for all other statutory the benefit of interest on solatium as In the wake of discussion made hereinabove, the appeals filed at the instance of appellants/landowners are partly allowed; d at the instance of respondent/ State are Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross-objection(s) after filing instance Ex.P1 is dated 23.01.1991; whereas the acquisition in the present case issued under Section 4 , there seems to be a considerable time gap of almost 07 ion at the compound rate of especially State Highway leading from Saharanpur and is also in the vicinity of already in view of aforesaid discussion, applying appreciation @ 12% per annum for a period of 85 months over and (Ex.P1); the value comes to Rs.10,00,289.12/- deduction, the market value per acre for the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of he appellants/landowners shall also be entitled for all other statutory as In the wake of discussion made hereinabove, the appeals filed at the instance of appellants/landowners are partly allowed; e of respondent/ State are Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have objection(s) after filing SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.12 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-3468 thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek exe appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. 16. disposed of. 30.10.2025 sanjay Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 30.10.2025 sanjay 3468-2003 (O&M) & other connected cases thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at 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 disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Sr. No. Case No. 1. RFA-3315-2003 (O&M) 2. RFA-3316-2003 (O&M) 3. RFA-3317-2003 (O&M) 4. RFA-3318-2003 (O&M) 5. RFA-3319-2003 (O&M) 6. RFA-3469-2003 (O&M) 7. RFA-3492-2003 (O&M) 8. RFA-3954-2003 (O&M) 9. RFA-4057-2003 (O&M) 10. RFA-4452-2003 (O&M) 11. RFA-4560-2003 (O&M) 2025 3 (O&M) & other connected cases [7] thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be cution 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 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) 2003 (O&M) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be cution of the present decision by moving Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2025.11.12 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document