109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sahab Ram (deceased) through LRs and others The State of CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “1894 Act”) 19.07.1997 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”) further enhancement of compensation amount. FACTS [2] Notification under Section 4 of followed by Notification dated the land measuring 62 kanal, including the land of appellants, situated in the revenue estates of Village was acquired. to be “construction of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. Date of Decision: Sahab Ram (deceased) through LRs and others Versus State of Haryana and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. L.N. Verma, Advocate for the appellants-landowners. Mr. Abhinash Jain, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State of Haryana. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) The appellants-landowners, by instituting the present appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “1894 Act”), are seeking modification of the award dated 19.07.1997 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”) enhancement of compensation amount. Briefly, the facts are that in pursuance of Notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act followed by Notification dated 06.09.1991 the land measuring 62 kanal, including the land of appellants, situated in the revenue estates of Village Bhadra, Tehsil & District Sirsa was acquired. The public purpose for acquisition of land was stated “construction of a new parallel Mammerkh IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2263 of 1997 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.09.2025 Sahab Ram (deceased) through LRs and others ...Appellants ...Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Advocate General, Haryana State of Haryana. landowners, by instituting the present appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , are seeking modification of the award dated 19.07.1997 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”) praying for enhancement of compensation amount. Briefly, the facts are that in pursuance of Haryana Govt. 1894 Act issued on 15.02.1991, 06.09.1991 under Section 6 thereof, , the land measuring 62 kanal, including the land of appellants, situated Bhadra, Tehsil & District Sirsa, The public purpose for acquisition of land was stated a new parallel Mammerkhera Distributory from DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.29 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA No. 2263 of 1997 (O&M) -2- RD No. 19400-52000”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for brevity “LAC”), vide Award No. 5, dated 01.09.1993, assessed the market value of acquired land @ Rs.60,000/- per acre for Nehri as well as Chahi land and Rs. 30,000/- per acre for Barani land alongwith other statutory benefits. [3] Dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award, landowners / interested persons filed objections under Section 18 of 1894 Act, which were decided vide award dated 19.07.1997 by the Reference Court, whereby market value of the acquired land was enhanced/assessed @ Rs. 64,320/- per acre for Nehri and Chahi land; besides the landowners of LA Case No. 49 (new No. 26-LA) were held entitled to the additional amount @ 12@ per annum from 27.12.1985 i.e. the date of taking over of possession till the date of award i.e. 01.09.1993, on the market value i.e. Rs. 64,320/- per acre for Nehri and Chahi land and Rs. 30,000/- per acre for Barani land alongwith all statutory benefits provided under the 1894 Act. CONTENTIONS: ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-LANDOWNERS [4] Impugning the aforementioned award dated 19.07.1997, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having not relied upon the sale instance dated 08.05.1992 (Ex. P-7) whereby 8 kanals and 13½ marlas of land was sold for Rs. 1,26,437/- and the market value of the land per acre was Rs. 1,16,599/. He thus submits that after applying doctrine of de- escalation, the market value of the acquired land was to be re- assessed by granting appropriate enhancement in favour of appellants-landowners. He also points out that the learned Reference DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.29 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA No. 2263 of 1997 (O&M) -3- Court went wrong while denying the claim of additional amount of 12% interest per annum from the date of taking over of the possession till the date of award in favour of appellants-landowners merely for the reason that there were no such pleadings made in the reference petition and thus, prays that the impugned award is liable to be modified. ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS-STATE OF HARYANA [5] On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the sale instance dated 08.05.1992 (Ex. P-7) was relating to the revenue estate of Village Jhorar Rohi, whereas the land under acquisition was of Village Bhadra, Tehsil & District Sirsa. He submits that in the absence of there being any evidence on record with respect to location of land, the said instance was righty discarded by the Reference Court. He also submits that in the absence of there being any specific demand in their reference petition, the appellants were righty declined the additional benefit of 12% as awarded in case of other landowners, thus, the impugned award warrants no interference. DISCUSSION AND REASONING [6] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book / records, I find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the appellants-landowners. [7] In the humble opinion of this Court, sale instance dated 08.05.1992 (Ex. P-7) relates to the different revenue estate of Village Jhorar Rohi and thus, cannot be taken into consideration as the land in the present acquistion falls within the revenue estate of Village Bhadra, Tehsil & District Sirsa. There is no evidence available on DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.29 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA No. 2263 of 1997 (O&M) -4- record so as to establish the similarity between the nature and value of the land belonging to the aforementioned two revenue estates. Furthermore, even the geographic location of the land forming part of Ex. P-7 in comparison to the land under present acquisition has also not been established on record. In such circumstances, there being material no other evidence available on record warranting re- assessment, the determination made by the learned Reference Court with respect to the market value @ Rs. 64,320/- per acre for Nehri and Chahi land, while Rs. 30,000/- per acre for Barani land calls for no interference. [8] However, it was established on record that the possession of the land in question was taken over by the respondents on 27.12.1985 and even the work for setting up of the Distributory (public purpose) started on 14.02.1986 i.e. much prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act. In such a situation, the appellants-landowners were entitled for grant of additional amount of 12% per annum from 27.12.1985 i.e. the date of taking over the possession of acquired land till the date of passing of award i.e. 01.09.1993 on the market value assessed by the LAC, especially when the similar benefit was awarded by the Reference Court to the other landowners in the Reference petition No.49-LA (new No. 26-LA) being identically placed. The learned Reference Court failed to take into account that both the landowners of the same acquisition proceedings having objected to the award of the LAC by way of filing reference petition under Section 18 of 1894 Act, were essentially to be treated on parity. The Reference Court failed to appreciate that the strict principles of pleadings were not to be applied to the proceedings DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.29 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA No. 2263 of 1997 (O&M) -5- arising out of the 1894 Act, which in fact is a beneficial legislation from the perspective of the landowners being affected of compulsory acquisition of their land holdings. [9] Accordingly, the appellants-landowners are held entitled to the additional amount @ 12% per annum from 27.12.1985 i.e. the date of taking over of the possession of acquired land till the date of passing of award i.e. 01.09.1993 on the market value as assessed by the LAC. [10] Appeal is disposed off accordingly. [11] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off. September 23, 2025 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.29 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document