RFA-1374 200+201+202 (17 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Ishwar Singh State of Haryana and others 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 taken from 2. 1374-2025 (O&M) & other connected cases 200+201+202 (17 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** RFA No. Date of Decision: 06.05.2026 Ishwar Singh Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Arun Luthra, Advocate Mr.Sumit Gupta, Advocate Mr. Ashish Pannu, Advocate for the appellants/ landowners. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Senior Panel Counsel Mr. Arvind Seth, Senior Panel Counsel, Mr. Dharam Chand Mittal, Sr. Panel Counsel Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Senior Panel Counsel Mr. Vishal Garg, Sr. Panel Counsel for UOI. -.- 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 other connected cases [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 1374-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.05.2026 …….Appellant(s) Versus ..….Respondent s JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Arun Luthra, Advocate Mr.Sumit Gupta, Advocate Mr. Ashish Pannu, Advocate for the appellants/ landowners. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Senior Panel Counsel Mr. Arvind Seth, Senior Panel Counsel, Mr. Dharam Chand Mittal, Sr. Panel Counsel Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Senior Panel Counsel Mr. Vishal Garg, Sr. Panel Counsel Vide this common order, a bunch of 17 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 the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.1633-2025. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to 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 2025. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1374 the Award dated Judge, Sonepat Court’). 3. Acres 5 Kanals 18 marlas Village Gohana, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat Notifications dated 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘ respectively for the public purpose, namely, “ Gohana Sonepat New Railway Line” of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collec short ‘the LAC’ value of the acquired land acre, besides award provided under the 1894 Act. 4 respondent(s) the 1894 Act, which Court vide its decision dated compensation @ Rs. statutory benefits/interest in their favour under the 1894 Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellants 1374-2025 (O&M) & other connected cases the Award dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned Addl. District Sonepat (hereinafter to be referred as the Briefly stating, in the present cas Acres 5 Kanals 18 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Village Gohana, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat Notifications dated 10.10.2011 and 22.11.2011 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘ respectively for the public purpose, namely, “ Gohana Sonepat New Railway Line”. Award of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collec ‘the LAC’) on 20.09.2012, thereby determining the market value of the acquired land at a uniform rate of Rs.30,00,000/ besides awarding all other statutory benefits and interests provided under the 1894 Act. Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the LAC, respondent(s)-landowner(s) invoked Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which was partly allowed by the learned Reference Court vide its decision dated 01.07.2025 compensation @ Rs.62,68,366/- per acre, statutory benefits/interest in their favour under the 1894 Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeals were preferred at the instance appellants-landowners. other connected cases [2] passed by the learned Addl. District (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Briefly stating, in the present case(s), land measuring situated within the revenue estate of Village Gohana, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat was acquired vide 22.11.2011 issued under Sections 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act respectively for the public purpose, namely, “for construction of Jind . Award No. 29 under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for , thereby determining the market at a uniform rate of Rs.30,00,000/- per all other statutory benefits and interests the Award passed by the LAC, landowner(s) invoked Reference under Section 18 of partly allowed by the learned Reference 01.07.2025 while granting enhanced r acre, besides awarding all other statutory benefits/interest in their favour under the 1894 Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeals were preferred at the instance passed by the learned Addl. District ‘Reference e(s), land measuring 25 situated within the revenue estate of was acquired vide issued under Sections 1894 Act’) of Jind under Section 11 tor (for , thereby determining the market per all other statutory benefits and interests the Award passed by the LAC, landowner(s) invoked Reference under Section 18 of partly allowed by the learned Reference while granting enhanced besides awarding all other statutory benefits/interest in their favour under the 1894 Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeals were preferred at the instance SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1374 CONTENTION(S): ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S) 5. the appellants/ landowners Reference Court erred having applied deduction of 25% over the average base price per acre derived from the sale consideration reflected in the sale instances Ex.P38 to Ex.P43. He also contends that no reason was recorded by the learned Reference Court for applying the aforesaid deduction of 25%, thus it was wholly illegal and unsustainable in law and was liable to be set aside. 5.1. required to be assessed without applying any deduction over the average base price derived from the said sale instances Ex. P38 to Ex.P43 and the market price in favour of appellants/ landowners wa thus to be enhanced accordingly. Learned counsel accordingly that the appeals preferred at the instance of landowners allowed. No other argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellants/ landowners. ON BEHALF OF THE RESPO 6. respondent circumstances where the average of six sale instances Ex.P38 to Ex.P43 was taken into account for the purpose of determination of 1374-2025 (O&M) & other connected cases CONTENTION(S): ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S) Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellants/ landowners-Mr. Arun Luthra submits that the learned Reference Court erred having applied deduction of 25% over the average base price per acre derived from the sale consideration eflected in the sale instances Ex.P38 to Ex.P43. He also contends that no reason was recorded by the learned Reference Court for applying the aforesaid deduction of 25%, thus it was wholly illegal and unsustainable in law and was liable to be set aside. Learned counsel thus submits that the market value was required to be assessed without applying any deduction over the average base price derived from the said sale instances Ex. P38 to Ex.P43 and the market price in favour of appellants/ landowners wa thus to be enhanced accordingly. Learned counsel accordingly that the appeals preferred at the instance of landowners allowed. No other argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellants/ landowners. ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) Per contra, learned counsel respondent- Union of India submits that in the given facts and circumstances where the average of six sale instances Ex.P38 to Ex.P43 was taken into account for the purpose of determination of other connected cases [3] ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S)-LANDOWNERS:- Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for Mr. Arun Luthra submits that the learned Reference Court erred having applied deduction of 25% over the average base price per acre derived from the sale consideration eflected in the sale instances Ex.P38 to Ex.P43. He also contends that no reason was recorded by the learned Reference Court for applying the aforesaid deduction of 25%, thus it was wholly illegal and unsustainable in law and was liable to be set aside. Learned counsel thus submits that the market value was required to be assessed without applying any deduction over the average base price derived from the said sale instances Ex. P38 to Ex.P43 and the market price in favour of appellants/ landowners wa thus to be enhanced accordingly. Learned counsel accordingly prays that the appeals preferred at the instance of landowners were to allowed. No other argument has been advanced by learned counsel NDENT(S)-UOI:- Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India submits that in the given facts and circumstances where the average of six sale instances Ex.P38 to Ex.P43 was taken into account for the purpose of determination of Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for Mr. Arun Luthra submits that the learned Reference Court erred having applied deduction of 25% over the average base price per acre derived from the sale consideration eflected in the sale instances Ex.P38 to Ex.P43. He also contends that no reason was recorded by the learned Reference Court for applying the aforesaid deduction of 25%, thus it was wholly illegal Learned counsel thus submits that the market value was required to be assessed without applying any deduction over the average base price derived from the said sale instances Ex. P38 to Ex.P43 and the market price in favour of appellants/ landowners was prays were to be allowed. No other argument has been advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India submits that in the given facts and circumstances where the average of six sale instances Ex.P38 to Ex.P43 was taken into account for the purpose of determination of SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1374 market value and the sale instances Ex.P43 dated 16.09.2010 pertained to small parcels of land measuring 153.30 sq. yards and 150 sq. yards, respectively, no illegality was committed by the learned Reference Court by applying deduction of 25% over the average base aforementioned six sale deeds Ex.P38 to Ex.P43. 6.1. deed Ex.R1 dated 03.04.2008, produced on record by the respondent(s), the base price per acre was approximately Rs.13,20,000/ already assessed favour of the appellants/ landowners which was further enhanced to Rs.62,68,366/ appellants/landowners were sufficiently compensated and no further enhancement was req prays that the appeals preferred at the instance of appellants/landowners were liable to be dismissed. DISCUSSION AND REASONING: 7. through the contents 8. that learned counsel(s) for the appellants have produced on record a site plan depicting the location of land parcels forming part of the sale 1374-2025 (O&M) & other connected cases market value and the sale instances Ex.P43 dated 16.09.2010 pertained to small parcels of land measuring 153.30 sq. yards and 150 sq. yards, respectively, no illegality was committed by the learned Reference Court by applying deduction of 25% over the average base aforementioned six sale deeds Ex.P38 to Ex.P43. Learned counsel further contends that as per the sale deed Ex.R1 dated 03.04.2008, produced on record by the respondent(s), the base price per acre was approximately Rs.13,20,000/-; whereas the LAC vide its award dated 20.09.2012 already assessed the market value @ Rs.30,00,000/ favour of the appellants/ landowners which was further enhanced to Rs.62,68,366/- per acre by the learned Reference Court, thus, the appellants/landowners were sufficiently compensated and no further enhancement was required to be granted in their favour. He thus prays that the appeals preferred at the instance of appellants/landowners were liable to be dismissed. DISCUSSION AND REASONING: - I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the paper-book. Before proceeding in the matter that learned counsel(s) for the appellants have produced on record a site plan depicting the location of land parcels forming part of the sale other connected cases [4] market value and the sale instances Ex.P39 dated 29.04.2010 and Ex.P43 dated 16.09.2010 pertained to small parcels of land measuring 153.30 sq. yards and 150 sq. yards, respectively, no illegality was committed by the learned Reference Court by applying deduction of 25% over the average base price derived from the aforementioned six sale deeds Ex.P38 to Ex.P43. Learned counsel further contends that as per the sale deed Ex.R1 dated 03.04.2008, produced on record by the respondent(s), the base price per acre was approximately ; whereas the LAC vide its award dated 20.09.2012 t value @ Rs.30,00,000/- per acre in favour of the appellants/ landowners which was further enhanced to per acre by the learned Reference Court, thus, the appellants/landowners were sufficiently compensated and no further uired to be granted in their favour. He thus prays that the appeals preferred at the instance of appellants/landowners were liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone book. Before proceeding in the matter, it may be noticed here that learned counsel(s) for the appellants have produced on record a site plan depicting the location of land parcels forming part of the sale Ex.P39 dated 29.04.2010 and Ex.P43 dated 16.09.2010 pertained to small parcels of land measuring 153.30 sq. yards and 150 sq. yards, respectively, no illegality was committed by the learned Reference Court by applying price derived from the Learned counsel further contends that as per the sale deed Ex.R1 dated 03.04.2008, produced on record by the respondent(s), the base price per acre was approximately ; whereas the LAC vide its award dated 20.09.2012 per acre in favour of the appellants/ landowners which was further enhanced to per acre by the learned Reference Court, thus, the appellants/landowners were sufficiently compensated and no further uired to be granted in their favour. He thus prays that the appeals preferred at the instance of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone , it may be noticed here that learned counsel(s) for the appellants have produced on record a site plan depicting the location of land parcels forming part of the sale SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1374 instances Ex.P38 to Ex.P43 thereof has also been handed over to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents who site plan will assist this Court to decide the appeal(s) in hand in an effective manner parties the same, duly signed by them marked as 9. instance dated 03.04.2008 (Ex.R1), relied upon by the responden reflects the base price of Rs.13,20,000/ itself vide its award dated 20.09.2012 Rs.30,00,000/ where the 03.04.2008 ( by the LAC, the same cannot be treated as a transaction for the purpose of determining the market value in the present case of the subject land at the relevant point in time. 10. landowners produced on record, the following sale instances: Sale deeds produced by the appellants Sr. No. Sale Exhibits 1. Ex. 1374-2025 (O&M) & other connected cases instances Ex.P38 to Ex.P43 vis-à-vis thereof has also been handed over to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents who has not disputed its veracity site plan will assist this Court to decide the appeal(s) in hand in an effective manner as such, with the consent of learned counsel for the the same, duly signed by them marked as Mark ‘X’. At the outset, it may be noticed here that the sale instance dated 03.04.2008 (Ex.R1), relied upon by the responden reflects the base price of Rs.13,20,000/ itself vide its award dated 20.09.2012 Rs.30,00,000/- per acre of the acquired land where the base price derived from 03.04.2008 (Ex.R1) is less than half of the market value LAC, the same cannot be treated as a transaction for the purpose of determining the market value in the present case(s), as it does not reflect the representative market price of the subject land at the relevant point in time. Further, in order to substantiate their claim, appellants/ landowners produced on record, the following sale instances: Sale deeds produced by the appellants Sale Exhibits Date of sale deed Area Name of village Ex.P17 18.09.2013 2 Kanals 11 Gohana other connected cases [5] vis the acquired land. A copy thereof has also been handed over to learned counsel appearing on not disputed its veracity. The said site plan will assist this Court to decide the appeal(s) in hand in an as such, with the consent of learned counsel for the the same, duly signed by them, is taken on record and At the outset, it may be noticed here that the sale instance dated 03.04.2008 (Ex.R1), relied upon by the responden reflects the base price of Rs.13,20,000/- per acre; whereas the LAC itself vide its award dated 20.09.2012 assessed the market value @ of the acquired land. In such circumstances, base price derived from the sale instance dated half of the market value determined LAC, the same cannot be treated as a bona fide and genuine transaction for the purpose of determining the market value in the t reflect the representative market price of the subject land at the relevant point in time. Further, in order to substantiate their claim, appellants/ landowners produced on record, the following sale instances:- Sale deeds produced by the appellants-landowners Name of village Total Sale consideration (Rs.) Value per acre (Rs.) Gohana 31,88,000/- 1,00,01,569 the acquired land. A copy thereof has also been handed over to learned counsel appearing on . The said site plan will assist this Court to decide the appeal(s) in hand in an as such, with the consent of learned counsel for the , is taken on record and At the outset, it may be noticed here that the sale instance dated 03.04.2008 (Ex.R1), relied upon by the respondents per acre; whereas the LAC assessed the market value @ In such circumstances, the sale instance dated determined and genuine transaction for the purpose of determining the market value in the t reflect the representative market price Further, in order to substantiate their claim, appellants/ Value per (Rs.) 1,00,01,569 SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1374 2. Ex.P1 3. Ex.P1 4. Ex.P 5. Ex.P 6. Ex.P 7. Ex. 8. Ex.P 9. Ex.P 10. Ex.P 11. Ex. 12. Ex. 10.1 instances under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case(s) in hand and thus were not required to be taken into consideration. Besides acquisition in hand pertained to the revenue estates of Village Gohana; whereas sale instances Ex.P25 to Ex.P27 pertained to the revenue estate of Village Butana Khetlan and as such were also need instances of Village Gohana and Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case(s) in hand, thus into consideration for the purpose of determination of market 1374-2025 (O&M) & other connected cases Marlas Ex.P18 30.01.2013 10 Kanals 14 Marlas Gohana Ex.P19 03.04.2013 28 Kanals 9-4/5 Marlas Gohana Ex.P25 15.05.2009 8 Kanals 16 Marlas Butana Khetlan Ex.P26 23.12.2008 32 Kanals 1 Marla Butana Khetlan Ex.P27 23.12.2008 32 Kanals 1 Marla Butana Khetlan Ex.P38 19.08.2011 2 Kanals 13 Marlas Gohana Ex.P39 29.04.2010 153.33 sq yards Gohana Ex.P40 13.09.2010 2 Kanals 14 Marlas Gohana Ex.P41 30.12.2010 13 Kanals 15 Marlas Gohana Ex.P42 06.12.2010 6 Kanals 12 Marlas Gohana Ex.P43 16.09.2010 150 sq. yards Gohana A perusal of the above chart shows that the sale instances Ex.P17 and P19 pertained to the period post under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case(s) in hand and thus were not required to be taken into consideration. Besides ion in hand pertained to the revenue estates of Village Gohana; whereas sale instances Ex.P25 to Ex.P27 pertained to the revenue estate of Village Butana Khetlan and as such also needed to be discarded. instances Ex.P38 to Ex.P43 all pertained of Village Gohana and for the period prior to the Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case(s) in hand, thus into consideration for the purpose of determination of market other connected cases [6] Gohana 1,42,50,000/- 1,06,52,336 Gohana --- ---- Butana Khetlan 12,10,000/- 11,00,000 Butana Khetlan 32,86,000/- 8,20,218 Butana Khetlan 32,86,000/- 8,20,218 Gohana 21,60,000/- 65,20,755 Gohana 3,54,000/- 1,11,71,000 Gohana 20,25,000/- 60,00,000 Gohana 1,03,14,000/- 60,00,873 Gohana 49,50,000/- 60,00,000 Gohana 4,45,000/- 1,43,58,667 A perusal of the above chart shows that the sale Ex.P17 and P19 pertained to the period post-notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case(s) in hand and thus were not required to be taken into consideration. Besides this, the ion in hand pertained to the revenue estates of Village Gohana; whereas sale instances Ex.P25 to Ex.P27 pertained to the revenue estate of Village Butana Khetlan and as such, the same to be discarded. On the other hand, the sale all pertained to the same revenue estate for the period prior to the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case(s) in hand, thus can be taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of market value in 1,06,52,336 11,00,000/- 8,20,218/- 8,20,218/- 65,20,755/- 1,11,71,000 60,00,000/- 60,00,873/- 60,00,000/- 1,43,58,667 A perusal of the above chart shows that the sale notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case(s) in hand and thus were , the ion in hand pertained to the revenue estates of Village Gohana; whereas sale instances Ex.P25 to Ex.P27 pertained to the the same he sale to the same revenue estate notification under be taken value in SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1374 the case(s) in hand. 10.2 the sale instances Ex.P39 dated 29.04.2010 and Ex.P43 dated 16.09.2010, pertained to small parcels of land (i.e. 153.33 sq. yards and 150 sq. yards respectively) a area. The aforementioned residential plots, the acquired land of the site plan instances i.e. Exs.P38, P40 to P42 are all located in the vicinity of the acquired land parcel and at a distance of approximately half kilometer to two and half kilometer, thus, having similar nature and potential value, would be the most suitable sale exemplars and can be safely relied upon for assessing the market value in the present case(s). 11. the fact that it is time and again emphasized by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the objective of the 1894 Act is to grant just and fair compensation to the landowners and to determine such definitive value, some guesstimation work has to be done by the Court, since the value of sale consideration reflected in sale instances P40 to P42 to Rs. 65,20,755 given facts, 1374-2025 (O&M) & other connected cases the case(s) in hand. However, a perusal of the site plan the sale instances Ex.P39 dated 29.04.2010 and Ex.P43 dated 16.09.2010, pertained to small parcels of land (i.e. 153.33 sq. yards and 150 sq. yards respectively) and formed part of the residential The aforementioned two sale instances apparently pertaining to residential plots, thus being of different nature and potential the acquired land, therefore, cannot be relied upon. ite plan Mark ‘X’ shows that the remaining 04 (four) sale instances i.e. Exs.P38, P40 to P42 are all located in the vicinity of the acquired land parcel and at a distance of approximately half kilometer to two and half kilometer, thus, having similar nature and potential alue, would be the most suitable sale exemplars and can be safely relied upon for assessing the market value in the present case(s). Keeping in view the discussion made hereinabove and the fact that it is time and again emphasized by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the objective of the 1894 Act is to grant just and fair compensation to the landowners and to determine such definitive value, some guesstimation work has to be done by the Court, since the value of sale consideration reflected in sale instances P40 to P42 are closely range-bound between Rs. 65,20,755/- per acre, this Court is of the opinion that given facts, taking average of the four other connected cases [7] However, a perusal of the site plan Mark ‘X’ shows that the sale instances Ex.P39 dated 29.04.2010 and Ex.P43 dated 16.09.2010, pertained to small parcels of land (i.e. 153.33 sq. yards nd formed part of the residential sale instances apparently pertaining to of different nature and potential vis-à- , therefore, cannot be relied upon. A further perusal shows that the remaining 04 (four) sale instances i.e. Exs.P38, P40 to P42 are all located in the vicinity of the acquired land parcel and at a distance of approximately half kilometer to two and half kilometer, thus, having similar nature and potential alue, would be the most suitable sale exemplars and can be safely relied upon for assessing the market value in the present case(s). Keeping in view the discussion made hereinabove and the fact that it is time and again emphasized by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the objective of the 1894 Act is to grant just and fair compensation to the landowners and to determine such definitive value, some guesstimation work has to be done by the Court, since the value of sale consideration reflected in sale instances Exs.P38, bound between Rs.60,00,000/- per acre per acre, this Court is of the opinion that in the four sale instances would be the shows that the sale instances Ex.P39 dated 29.04.2010 and Ex.P43 dated 16.09.2010, pertained to small parcels of land (i.e. 153.33 sq. yards nd formed part of the residential sale instances apparently pertaining to -vis A further perusal shows that the remaining 04 (four) sale instances i.e. Exs.P38, P40 to P42 are all located in the vicinity of the acquired land parcel and at a distance of approximately half kilometer to two and half kilometer, thus, having similar nature and potential alue, would be the most suitable sale exemplars and can be safely Keeping in view the discussion made hereinabove and the fact that it is time and again emphasized by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the objective of the 1894 Act is to grant just and fair compensation to the landowners and to determine such definitive value, some guesstimation work has to be done by the Court, since Exs.P38, per acre in the sale instances would be the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1374 most appropriate way to determine the mar hand. The aforesaid view is also derived from decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “ Dharambir Agarwal” whereby it was held that the Courts c principle of taking the highest sale instance by taking average of the sale deed(s) and the same would depend upon the facts of the case. The relevant portions of paragraphs 17 and 20 are extracted hereinbelow: 1374-2025 (O&M) & other connected cases most appropriate way to determine the mar hand. The aforesaid view is also derived from decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Phoolvati Dharambir Agarwal” reported as whereby it was held that the Courts c principle of taking the highest sale instance by taking average of the sale deed(s) and the same would depend upon the facts of the case. The relevant portions of paragraphs 17 and 20 are extracted hereinbelow:- “17. We may also hasten to add that though the general practice is of considering the highest sale Exemplar, but, many a time, Courts take an average of relevant sale instances to arrive at the nearest possible market value of the acquired land. Averaging of sale instance is not wholly impermissible….. …….True it is that where multiple exemplars are relied upon, and such exemplars relate to adjoining or nearby areas having similar potentiality, the highest bona fide exemplar ought to be the benchmark for estimation of the fair and just value. It is equally true that the Courts do not possess a magic wand to determine the exact and the definitive value of the land and in the process of guess work, the Court would rely upon every possible material brought on record by the parties. Applying the principle of fixation of fair and just market value of the acquired land, we thus deem it appropriate to rely upon (i) the sale instance(s) of highest consideration with appropriate deduction; (ii) the valuation report (Exhibit "C35") which stipulates t market value of the land @ Rs.2,50,000/ (iii) the average of all the examplars relied upon by the respondent-claimants. Hence, we are of the firm opinion that other connected cases [8] most appropriate way to determine the market price in the case(s) in hand. The aforesaid view is also derived from decision of the Hon’ble Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Phoolvati reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2162 whereby it was held that the Courts can deviate from the general principle of taking the highest sale instance by taking average of the sale deed(s) and the same would depend upon the facts of the case. The relevant portions of paragraphs 17 and 20 are extracted hasten to add that though the general practice is of considering the highest sale Exemplar, but, many a time, Courts take an average of relevant sale instances to arrive at the nearest possible market value of the acquired land. Averaging of sale instances, as per judicial precedents, is not wholly impermissible….. …….True it is that where multiple exemplars are relied upon, and such exemplars relate to adjoining or nearby areas having similar potentiality, the highest bona fide exemplar ought to be the benchmark for estimation of the fair and just ly true that the Courts do not possess a magic wand to determine the exact and the definitive value of the land and in the process of guess work, the Court would rely upon every possible material brought on record by the parties. Applying the principle of guesstimate for fixation of fair and just market value of the acquired land, we thus deem it appropriate to rely upon (i) the sale instance(s) of highest consideration with appropriate deduction; (ii) the valuation report (Exhibit "C35") which stipulates the fair market value of the land @ Rs.2,50,000/- per ground; and (iii) the average of all the examplars relied upon by the claimants. Hence, we are of the firm opinion that ket price in the case(s) in hand. The aforesaid view is also derived from decision of the Hon’ble Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Phoolvati 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2162, an deviate from the general principle of taking the highest sale instance by taking average of the sale deed(s) and the same would depend upon the facts of the case. The relevant portions of paragraphs 17 and 20 are extracted hasten to add that though the general practice is of considering the highest sale Exemplar, but, many a time, Courts take an average of relevant sale instances to arrive at the nearest possible market value of the acquired s, as per judicial precedents, …….True it is that where multiple exemplars are relied upon, and such exemplars relate to adjoining or nearby areas having similar potentiality, the highest bona fide exemplar ought to be the benchmark for estimation of the fair and just ly true that the Courts do not possess a magic wand to determine the exact and the definitive value of the land and in the process of guess work, the Court would rely upon every possible material brought on record guesstimate for fixation of fair and just market value of the acquired land, we thus deem it appropriate to rely upon (i) the sale instance(s) of highest consideration with appropriate deduction; (ii) the he fair per ground; and (iii) the average of all the examplars relied upon by the claimants. Hence, we are of the firm opinion that SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1374 11.1. Dessai vs. State of Goa” latest decision of “ vs. State of Haryana” where there are several sale instances of similar nature of land with prices ranging in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken as representing the market price. Horrmal’s case (supra 12. the landowners and taking into account the peculiar circumstances of the case(s) in hand, this Court deems it fit to take average of abovementioned four Court for determining the market value in the present Pertinently, as per the site plan, some part of the acquired land parcel 1374-2025 (O&M) & other connected cases the fair and just market value of the acquired land at the relevant time was about Rs.2,50,000/ held so, we set aside the deductions of 15% towards largeness of the area or 10% as development charges as made by the High Court…..” Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dessai vs. State of Goa” reported as latest decision of “Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs and others vs. State of Haryana” reported as 2024(4) RCR(Civil) 758, where there are several sale instances of similar nature of land with prices ranging in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken as representing the market price. Horrmal’s case (supra) is extracted hereunder: “28. This view has been reiterated in of M.P., (2013) 16 SCC 392 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.” Accordingly, for award of just and fair compensation the landowners and taking into account the peculiar circumstances of the case(s) in hand, this Court deems it fit to take average of abovementioned four sale deeds produced on record before this Court for determining the market value in the present Pertinently, as per the site plan, some part of the acquired land parcel other connected cases [9] the fair and just market value of the acquired land at the was about Rs.2,50,000/- per ground. Having held so, we set aside the deductions of 15% towards largeness of the area or 10% as development charges as made by the High Court…..” Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Anjani Molu reported as (2010) 13 SCC 710 and in the Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs and others 2024(4) RCR(Civil) 758, held that where there are several sale instances of similar nature of land with prices ranging in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken as representing the market price. The relevant extract of ) is extracted hereunder:- 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 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 Accordingly, for award of just and fair compensation the landowners and taking into account the peculiar circumstances of the case(s) in hand, this Court deems it fit to take average of the sale deeds produced on record before this Court for determining the market value in the present case(s). Pertinently, as per the site plan, some part of the acquired land parcel the fair and just market value of the acquired land at the per ground. Having held so, we set aside the deductions of 15% towards largeness of the area or 10% as development charges as Anjani Molu and in the Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs and others ld that where there are several sale instances of similar nature of land with prices ranging in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be The relevant extract of Sh. Himmat Singh v. State judge bench of this Court consolidated various precedents to affirm that in circumstances where there are multiple sale deeds available 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 Accordingly, for award of just and fair compensation to the landowners and taking into account the peculiar circumstances of the sale deeds produced on record before this case(s). Pertinently, as per the site plan, some part of the acquired land parcel SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1374 is adjacent to already developed residential colonies and also in close proximity to the educational institution as well as Industrial Unit, thus carried better potential fo commercial purpose in comparison to the land parcel forming part of sale instances Ex.P38 and Exs.P40 to P42. 12.1. annum also needs to be applied over the base pric sale instances Exs.P40 to P42 from the date of such upto the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. it is pertinent to mention here that no applied over the base price the time gap between the said sale instance dated 19.08.2011 upto the date of the date of notification under Section 4 of the the case(s) in hand is less than 2 months. average value comes to Rs. made hereunder: Exhibit / Date of Execution of sale deed (1) P-38/ 19.08.2011 P-40/ 13.09.2010 P-41/ 30.12.2010 P-42/ 06.12.2010 13. 1374-2025 (O&M) & other connected cases is adjacent to already developed residential colonies and also in close proximity to the educational institution as well as Industrial Unit, thus carried better potential for being used for residential as well as commercial purpose in comparison to the land parcel forming part of sale instances Ex.P38 and Exs.P40 to P42. In such circumstances, an appreciation @ 12% per annum also needs to be applied over the base pric sale instances Exs.P40 to P42 from the date of such upto the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. it is pertinent to mention here that no applied over the base price derived from the sale instance Ex.P38 as the time gap between the said sale instance dated 19.08.2011 upto the date of the date of notification under Section 4 of the the case(s) in hand is less than 2 months. average value comes to Rs.66,15,700/ made hereunder:- Rate Per Acre (Rs.) (2) Section 4 Notification Date (3) Time Period Between Execution & Notification (4) 65,20,755/- 10.10.2011 0 Year 1 Month 21 Days 60,00,000/- 10.10.2011 1 Year 0 Month 27 Days 60,00,873/- 10.10.2011 0 Year 9 Months 10 Days 60,00,000/- 10.10.2011 0 Year 10 Months 4 Days Total Average of sale deeds Rs. 2,64,62,751÷ 4 Net amount Insofar as the smallness of the land parcels forming part other connected cases [10] is adjacent to already developed residential colonies and also in close proximity to the educational institution as well as Industrial Unit, thus r being used for residential as well as commercial purpose in comparison to the land parcel forming part of sale instances Ex.P38 and Exs.P40 to P42. In such circumstances, an appreciation @ 12% per annum also needs to be applied over the base price derived from the sale instances Exs.P40 to P42 from the date of such sale instances upto the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that no appreciation is required to be derived from the sale instance Ex.P38 as the time gap between the said sale instance dated 19.08.2011 upto the date of the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case(s) in hand is less than 2 months. Applying the aforesaid, the 66,15,700/- per acre as per calculation Time Period Execution & Interest Rate (5) Interest Amount (Rs.) (6) Amount after appreciation (2+6) (Rs.) (7) 0 Year 1 Month - - 65,20,755.00 1 Year 0 Month 12% 7,73,260/- 67,73,260.00 0 Year 9 Months 12% 5,60,301/- 65,61,174.00 0 Year 10 Months 12% 6,07,562/- 66,07,562.00 2,64,62,751.00 Rs. 2,64,62,751÷ 4 66,15,687.75 66,15,700.00 (Round Off) Insofar as the smallness of the land parcels forming part is adjacent to already developed residential colonies and also in close proximity to the educational institution as well as Industrial Unit, thus r being used for residential as well as commercial purpose in comparison to the land parcel forming part of In such circumstances, an appreciation @ 12% per e derived from the sale instances Further, required to be derived from the sale instance Ex.P38 as the time gap between the said sale instance dated 19.08.2011 upto 1894 Act in , the per acre as per calculation Amount after appreciation 65,20,755.00 67,73,260.00 65,61,174.00 66,07,562.00 2,64,62,751.00 66,15,687.75 66,15,700.00 Insofar as the smallness of the land parcels forming part SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1374 of the four Marlas, 13 Kanals 15 Marlas, 6 Kanals 12 Marlas measuring measuring having adopted the average of the aforementioned sale instances for determining the market value in the case(s) in hand, appropriate based solely on the sale exempl consideration, an appropriate deduction on account of the comparatively small size of the land parcel involved therein may have been warranted; however, that is not the position in the present matter(s), 25 Kanals and 14 marla smallness of area herein. 14. deduction towards the development cost needs to be applied as the acquisitio namely, “ and the respondent(s) it incur any cost towards providing of additional infrastructura amenities. dated 16.02.2016 passed in and others vs. State of Haryana and others 1374-2025 (O&M) & other connected cases four sale exemplars measuring Marlas, 13 Kanals 15 Marlas, 6 Kanals 12 Marlas measuring 25 kanals – 14 marlas), measuring 25 acres 5 Kanals 18 Marlas having adopted the average of the aforementioned sale instances for determining the market value in the case(s) in hand, appropriate to apply any deduction. Had the determination been based solely on the sale exempl consideration, an appropriate deduction on account of the comparatively small size of the land parcel involved therein may have been warranted; however, that is not the position in the present matter(s), as the total area as per the four sale exemplars comes to 25 Kanals and 14 marla thus, no deduction is made towards smallness of area herein. Furthermore, in the given facts and circumstances, no deduction towards the development cost needs to be applied as the acquisition proceedings were carried out for the public purpose namely, “for construction of Jind Gohana Sonepat New Railway Line and the respondent(s)-State neither suffered any loss of land nor did it incur any cost towards providing of additional infrastructura amenities. Also, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 16.02.2016 passed in RFA 3397 of 2014 and others vs. State of Haryana and others other connected cases [11] 2 Kanal 13 Marlas, 2 Kanals 14 Marlas, 13 Kanals 15 Marlas, 6 Kanals 12 Marlas respectively (total marlas), vis-a-vis the acquired land 25 acres 5 Kanals 18 Marlas, is concerned, this Court having adopted the average of the aforementioned sale instances for determining the market value in the case(s) in hand, it may not be to apply any deduction. Had the determination been based solely on the sale exemplar fetching the highest sale consideration, an appropriate deduction on account of the comparatively small size of the land parcel involved therein may have been warranted; however, that is not the position in the present r the four sale exemplars comes to thus, no deduction is made towards Furthermore, in the given facts and circumstances, no deduction towards the development cost needs to be applied as the n proceedings were carried out for the public purpose for construction of Jind Gohana Sonepat New Railway Line State neither suffered any loss of land nor did it incur any cost towards providing of additional infrastructura the Coordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment RFA 3397 of 2014 titled “Katar Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others”, concerning 2 Kanal 13 Marlas, 2 Kanals 14 respectively (total the acquired land , is concerned, this Court having adopted the average of the aforementioned sale instances for it may not be to apply any deduction. Had the determination been ar fetching the highest sale consideration, an appropriate deduction on account of the comparatively small size of the land parcel involved therein may have been warranted; however, that is not the position in the present r the four sale exemplars comes to thus, no deduction is made towards Furthermore, in the given facts and circumstances, no deduction towards the development cost needs to be applied as the n proceedings were carried out for the public purpose, for construction of Jind Gohana Sonepat New Railway Line” State neither suffered any loss of land nor did it incur any cost towards providing of additional infrastructural the Coordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment Katar Singh , concerning SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1374 acquisition for the similar purpose of laying the Jind railway line charges. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations, this Court is likewise not inclined to make any deduction on account of development in the present case under:- 1374-2025 (O&M) & other connected cases acquisition for the similar purpose of laying the Jind railway line did not apply any deduction towards development charges. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations, this Court is likewise not inclined to make any deduction on account of development in the present case(s). The relevant extract reads as “The next question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether any cut is warranted to be imposed on the abovesaid market value of the acquired land. It is the settled proposition of law that imposition of any particular percentage of cut is not an absolute rule. Neither it is desirable nor it is possible to lay down a straight formula in this regard, which may be made applicable in every given situation. It is equally true that each case is to be decided on the basis of its own pec circumstances. In view of the peculiar fact situation obtaining in the instant set of cases, no development of land, as such, was required. Neither beneficiary department was going to lay down any sewerage nor it was going to carve out any parks. Similarly, no land was going to be wasted in construction of roads. Keeping in view all these abovesaid facts which have gone undisputed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no cut is warranted to be imposed on the abovesaid market value for the acquired land. The view that has been taken by this court also finds support from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Harbans Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab through the Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala, 2006 (1) RCR (Civil turn, based on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It goes without saying that after laying down the other connected cases [12] acquisition for the similar purpose of laying the Jind-Gohana-Sonepat did not apply any deduction towards development charges. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations, this Court is likewise not inclined to make any deduction on account of . The relevant extract reads as “The next question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether any cut is warranted to be imposed on the abovesaid market value of the acquired land. It is the settled proposition of law that imposition of any particular is not an absolute rule. Neither it is desirable nor it is possible to lay down a straight-jacket formula in this regard, which may be made applicable in every given situation. It is equally true that each case is to be decided on the basis of its own peculiar facts and circumstances. In view of the peculiar fact situation obtaining in the instant set of cases, no development of land, as such, was required. Neither beneficiary department was going to lay down any sewerage nor it was going to carve out any parks. Similarly, no land was going to be wasted in Keeping in view all these abovesaid facts which have gone undisputed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no cut is warranted to be imposed on the t value for the acquired land. The view that has been taken by this court also finds support from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Harbans Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab through the Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala, 2006 (1) RCR (Civil) 634, which was, in turn, based on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme X X X X X X It goes without saying that after laying down the pat did not apply any deduction towards development charges. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations, this Court is likewise not inclined to make any deduction on account of . The relevant extract reads as “The next question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether any cut is warranted to be imposed on the abovesaid market value of the acquired land. It is the settled proposition of law that imposition of any particular is not an absolute rule. Neither it is jacket formula in this regard, which may be made applicable in every given situation. It is equally true that each case is to be uliar facts and circumstances. In view of the peculiar fact situation obtaining in the instant set of cases, no development of land, as such, was required. Neither beneficiary department was going to lay down any sewerage nor it was going to carve out any parks. Similarly, no land was going to be wasted in Keeping in view all these abovesaid facts which have gone undisputed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no cut is warranted to be imposed on the t value for the acquired land. The view that has been taken by this court also finds support from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Harbans Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab through the Land Acquisition ) 634, which was, in turn, based on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme It goes without saying that after laying down the SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1374 15. date of notification under Section 4 of the 18 Rs.66,15,700/ entitled for all other statutory benefits and interest, especially interest on solatium under the 1894 Act. 16. the instance of landowners are partly allowed modifications. 17. appellants have not been brought on record, they shall be execution applications in their own names being legal heirs or legal representatives of the deceased testamentary document created by the deceased. It is further clarified 1374-2025 (O&M) & other connected cases railway line on the acquired land, the land owners would not be in a position to put their unacquired land to use. Neither it is feasible nor practical by the Railways Department to provide underpasses or over distances. Because of this reason, the land owners would have to cover considerable distance to reach their unacquired land, which will be adding to transportation charges, adversely affecting the net income considerably, from the unacquired land. Considering all the positive as well as negative determinative factors in this regard, this Court is of the considered view that it wo grant at least 50% of the abovesaid market to the land owners on account of severance charges. Ordered accordingly.” Accordingly, the market value of the acquired land date of notification under Section 4 of the 18 Rs.66,15,700/- per acre. In addition, the landowners shall also be entitled for all other statutory benefits and interest, especially interest on solatium under the 1894 Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed the instance of landowners are partly allowed modifications. Further, in case of unfortunate demise of any of the appellants-landowners, if the legal heir(s) have not been brought on record, they shall be execution applications in their own names being legal heirs or legal representatives of the deceased-landowners; subject of course to any testamentary document created by the deceased. It is further clarified other connected cases [13] railway line on the acquired land, the land owners would not be in a position to put their unacquired land to its optimum use. Neither it is feasible nor practical by the Railways Department to provide underpasses or over-bridges at short Because of this reason, the land owners would have to cover considerable distance to reach their hich will be adding to transportation charges, adversely affecting the net income considerably, from the unacquired land. Considering all the positive as well as negative determinative factors in this regard, this Court is of the considered view that it would be just and expedient to grant at least 50% of the abovesaid market to the land owners on account of severance charges. Ordered Accordingly, the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act is assessed @ In addition, the landowners shall also be entitled for all other statutory benefits and interest, especially interest In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed the instance of landowners are partly allowed with the aforesaid Further, in case of unfortunate demise of any of the landowners, if the legal heir(s)-legal representative(s) have not been brought on record, they shall be entitled for filing execution applications in their own names being legal heirs or legal landowners; subject of course to any testamentary document created by the deceased. It is further clarified railway line on the acquired land, the land owners would not its optimum use. Neither it is feasible nor practical by the Railways bridges at short Because of this reason, the land owners would have to cover considerable distance to reach their hich will be adding to transportation charges, adversely affecting the net income considerably, from the unacquired land. Considering all the positive as well as negative determinative factors in this regard, this Court is uld be just and expedient to grant at least 50% of the abovesaid market to the land owners on account of severance charges. Ordered on the is assessed @ In addition, the landowners shall also be entitled for all other statutory benefits and interest, especially interest In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed at with the aforesaid Further, in case of unfortunate demise of any of the legal representative(s) entitled for filing execution applications in their own names being legal heirs or legal landowners; subject of course to any testamentary document created by the deceased. It is further clarified SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1374 that the appellant(s) the period of delay in filing the respective appeal(s). 18. disposed of. 06.05.2026 sanjay Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 06.05.2026 sanjay 1374-2025 (O&M) & other connected cases that the appellant(s)-landowner(s) shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay in filing the respective appeal(s). Pending misc. application disposed of. 06.05.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Sr. No. Case No. RFA-1328-2025 (O&M) RFA-1329-2025 (O&M) RFA-1330-2025 (O&M) RFA-1332-2025 (O&M) RFA-1333-2025 (O&M) RFA-1334-2025 (O&M) RFA-1345-2025 (O&M) RFA-1346-2025 (O&M) RFA-1348-2025 (O&M) 10. RFA-1349-2025 (O&M) 11. RFA-1357-2025 (O&M) 12. RFA-1633-2025 (O&M) 13. RFA-1326-2025 (O&M) 14. RFA-1562-2025 (O&M) 15. RFA-1918-2025 (O&M) 16. RFA-1931-2025 (O&M) 06.05.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) other connected cases [14] wner(s) shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay in filing the respective appeal(s). application(s), if any, shall also stands (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE wner(s) shall not be entitled to interest for also stands SANJAY GUPTA 2026.05.13 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document