107 IN TH (1) Indraj and a State of Har (2) Mam Raj an State of Har CORAM: Present: HARKESH bearing RF common ac [2] aforementio Acquisition modification IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RFA Date and another Versus of Haryana and another AND RFA and others Versus of Haryana and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR Mr. Deepak Singh Saini, Advoc Ms. Vamika Johar, Advocate for the appellant(s) / landowne Mr. Abhinash Jain, Deputy Adv for the respondents. **** KESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose off RFA Nos. 3286 & 3287 of 1998 on acquisition / award. The appellants-landowners entioned appeals preferred under sition Act, 1894 (for short “ ication of the award dated 23.04. UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH RFA No. 3286 of 1998 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.10.2025 ...Appellants ...Respondents RFA No. 3287 of 1998 (O&M) ...Appellants ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate and cate owner(s). ty Advocate General, Haryana e off the present two appeals 1998 as the same arise out of wners, by instituting the under Section 54 of the Land t “1894 Act”), are seeking 23.04.1998 passed by learned DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.03 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”) for enhancement of compensation amount. FACTS [3] Briefly, the facts are that in pursuance of Haryana Govt. Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act issued on 13.05.1993 published on 01.06.1993, followed by Notification dated 07.02.1994 under Section 6 thereof published on 01.03.1994, some land owned by the appellants-landowners situated in the revenue estate of Village Panwa, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, was acquired. The public purpose for acquisition of the land was stated to be for construction of road from Jhansa Road to Jhinwarheri. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short “LAC”) vide its Award, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre for Chahi land besides awarding statutory benefits. [4] Dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award, landowners / interested persons filed references under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which were disposed off vide award dated 23.04.1998 by the learned Reference Court, while assessing the market value at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre alongwith other statutory benefits. [5] Aggrieved thereof, the appellants preferred the present appeals seeking further enhancement of compensation amount, which stood admitted vide order dated 12.11.1998 by this Court. CONTENTIONS: ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S)-LANDOWNER(S) [6] Impugning the aforementioned award dated 23.04.1998, learned counsel for the appellant(s), while relying upon a decision dated 08.10.2025 passed by this Court in four appeals, lead case of DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.03 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- which was RFA No. 3949 of 1998, title “Smt. Dayalo and others Versus State of Haryana and another”, submits that for the same notification issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 13.05.1993 and for the same purpose i.e. for construction of road from Jhansa to Jhinwarheri, the market value has been assessed at the rate of Rs.2,28,571/- per acre for the revenue estate of Village Jhinwarheri. He submits that the land in question in the present appeals forms part of the revenue estate of Village Panwan which abuts the revenue estate of Village Jhinwarheri and thus, needs to be assessed on parity, therefore, the landowners need to be awarded the benefit of same market value at the rate of Rs.2,28,571/- per acre. ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS-STATE OF HARYANA [7] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents representing the State of Haryana submits that in the present case the landowners themselves have proved on record the sale deed Ex. P-1 dated 24.05.1993 for the land measuring 15 kanal 11 marla, situated in the revenue estate of Village Panwa against sale consideration of Rs. 2,91,563/- as per the same, the market value per acre comes to Rs. 1,50,000/-. He thus submits that once the sale instance from the revenue estate of Village Panwan was available, no reliance could be placed upon the determination made with respect to the adjoining Village of Jhinwarheri and, therefore, the impugned award calls for no interference. DISCUSSION AND REASONING [8] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book / records, I am unable to find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant(s)-landowner(s). DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.03 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -4- [9] In the considered opinion of this Court, once the sale exemplar pertaining to the revenue estate of Village Panwan is available on record in the form of sale deed Ex. P-1 dated 24.05.1993 as per which the sale consideration per acre comes to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, no reliance can be placed upon the determination made by this Court with respect to the land forming part of the adjoining Village Jhinwarheri, be that the acquisition from the said revenue estate has been carried out for the same purpose. The appellant(s)-landowner(s) have already been granted the benefit of market value at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, which aligns with the sale price mentioned in the sale instance Ex. P-1, produced by the appellants themselves and consequently, the impugned award calls for no interference. DECISION [10] In the light of above, Award(s) dated 23.04.1998 passed by the Reference Court is hereby upheld and both the appeals are hereby dismissed. [11] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off. October 30, 2025 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE DINESH KUMAR 2025.11.03 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document