RFA No.7430 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 108 SURENDER SINGH AND ORS Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate and Mr. Sudhir Rana, Advocate and Mr. Ankush Duhan, for the appellants/landowners. Mr. Abhinash Jain, D.A.G., Haryana. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) [1]. Vide this common order, a bunch of 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 No.7430 of 2011 [2]. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the Award dated 19.01.2011 be referred as the ‘Reference Court’), whereby Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for shor instance of the landowners was partly allowed while granting 2011 (O&M) with other connected cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.7430 with other connected cases. Date of Decision: SURENDER SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate and Mr. Sudhir Rana, Advocate and Mr. Ankush Duhan, Advocate for the appellants/landowners. Mr. Abhinash Jain, D.A.G., Haryana. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) Vide this common order, a bunch of 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 2011. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the Award 2011 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, be referred as the ‘Reference Court’), whereby Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for shor landowners was partly allowed while granting IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 7430 of 2011 (O&M) with other connected cases. Date of Decision: 16.09.2025 ......Appellants ...Respondent(s HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate and Mr. Abhinash Jain, D.A.G., Haryana. Vide this common order, a bunch of 15 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 By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the Award Addl. District Judge, Rewari (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’), whereby Reference Petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’) at the landowners was partly allowed while granting them the benefit of 1 s) 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 from RFA By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the Award after to under Act’) at the the benefit of MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.18 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA No.7430 of 2011 enhanced market value awarding other statutory be [3]. Briefly stating, in the present case(s), situated within the revenue estate of village came to be acquired vide under Sections 4 constructing Gokalgarh Minor from K.M. 0.0.000 to 1.627 off taking K.M. 1.100/L of Budhpur distributory in the revenue District Rewari; (for short ‘the LAC land @ Rs.12,50,000/ [4]. Aggrieved thereof, under Section 18 of the Reference Court vide its award dated compensation @ Rs. all other statutory benefits/interest in their favour [5]. Impugning the appellants submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong while discarding the sale instances counsel further submits that since 4.24 acres of land, the sale instances Ex.P parcels of land, by the learned Reference Court for the purpose of assessment of market value of the acquired land. 2011 (O&M) with other connected cases market value @ Rs.16,00,000/- per acre er statutory benefits/interest in their favour Briefly stating, in the present case(s), the revenue estate of village Gokalgarh came to be acquired vide Notifications dated 4 & 6 of the 1894 Act respectively constructing Gokalgarh Minor from K.M. 0.0.000 to 1.627 off taking K.M. 1.100/L distributory in the revenue estate of village Gokalgarh, Tehsil and ; followed by an Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on 08.03.2007 determining @ Rs.12,50,000/- per acre alongwith other statutory Aggrieved thereof, the appellant(s) under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to be Reference Court vide its award dated 19.01.2011 compensation @ Rs.16,00,000/- per acre qua the acquired land besides awarding other statutory benefits/interest in their favour Impugning the aforementioned appellants submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong while discarding instances Ex.P-1 to P-7 which were duly proved on record. Learned counsel further submits that since the acquisition in the present case was m 4.24 acres of land, the sale instances Ex.P-1 to Ex.P parcels of land, upon application of appropriate cut should have been by the learned Reference Court for the purpose of assessment of market value of acquired land. A comparative table of the sale instance per acre qua the acquired land besides nefits/interest in their favour under the 1894 Act. Briefly stating, in the present case(s), land measuring 4.24 acres Gokalgarh, Tehsil and District Rewari dated 09.10.2006 and 02.11.2006 issued respectively for the public purpose, namely constructing Gokalgarh Minor from K.M. 0.0.000 to 1.627 off taking K.M. 1.100/L estate of village Gokalgarh, Tehsil and followed by an Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector determining the market value of the acquired per acre alongwith other statutory benefits. appellant(s)-landowners invoked Reference Act, which came to be partly allowed by the learned 19.01.2011, granting them enhanced the acquired land besides awarding other statutory benefits/interest in their favour as provided under the 1894 Act. Award, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong while discarding which were duly proved on record. Learned the acquisition in the present case was merely for 1 to Ex.P-7 though relating to small appropriate cut should have been considered by the learned Reference Court for the purpose of assessment of market value of A comparative table of the sale instances Ex.P-1 to Ex.P 2 the acquired land besides acres , Tehsil and District Rewari, issued namely, constructing Gokalgarh Minor from K.M. 0.0.000 to 1.627 off taking K.M. 1.100/L estate of village Gokalgarh, Tehsil and followed by an Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector of the acquired invoked Reference learned granting them enhanced the acquired land besides awarding under the 1894 Act. learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong while discarding which were duly proved on record. Learned erely for 7 though relating to small considered by the learned Reference Court for the purpose of assessment of market value of 1 to Ex.P-7 MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.18 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA No.7430 of 2011 which were duly proved on record by the appellan hereunder:- Sr. No Sale deed 1 5592 2 230 3 7565 4 5796 5 4550 6 3167 7 6209 [5.1]. Learned counsel also 29.07.2025 passed by this Court in cases) titled ‘ whereby the market value with regard to the acquisition of land carried out in terms of Notifications dated 06.11.2006 and 24.11.2006 and 6 of the 1894 Act respectively for the same purpose i.e. for construction of Minor under the Budhpur Gokalgarh was determined @ Rs.47,90,909/ appellants were entitled for award of same market value. [6]. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that no interference is called for with the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, whereby market value of the acquired land was assessed @ Rs.16,00,000/ relying upon the Award passed b 2011 (O&M) with other connected cases which were duly proved on record by the appellan Sale deed Dated Village Area 5592 19.11.04 Gokalgarh 0-4M 20.4.2005 Gokalgarh 0-4M 7565 3.3.2005 Gokalgarh 1K0M 5796 2.12.2004 Gokalgarh 0- 10M 4550 24.09.2004 Gokalgarh 0-4M 3167 31.10.02 TPC Scheme No.9 Rewari 0-6M 6209 19.1.2006 Gangaich Ahir 0-5M Learned counsel also places reliance upon the decision dated 29.07.2025 passed by this Court in RFA No.7146 of 2012 titled ‘Rajender Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others the market value with regard to the acquisition of land carried out in terms of Notifications dated 06.11.2006 and 24.11.2006 and 6 of the 1894 Act respectively for the same purpose i.e. for construction of Minor under the Budhpur distributory in the same revenue estate of village Gokalgarh was determined @ Rs.47,90,909/- ellants were entitled for award of same market value. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that no interference is called for with the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, whereby market value of the acquired land was assessed @ Rs.16,00,000/ relying upon the Award passed by the LAC under Section 11 of the 1894 Act which were duly proved on record by the appellants/landowners are extracted Area Amount Rate per acre Rate per sq. yard 4M 58000 2320000 450/- 4M 58000 2320000 450/- 1K0M 266500 2132000 450/- M 140500 2448000 450/- 4M 54000 2160000 450/- 6M 272000 7744000 1600/- 5M 130000 4160000 867/- places reliance upon the decision dated RFA No.7146 of 2012 (with other connected Rajender Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others the market value with regard to the acquisition of land carried out in terms of Notifications dated 06.11.2006 and 24.11.2006 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act respectively for the same purpose i.e. for construction of in the same revenue estate of village Gokalgarh was determined @ Rs.47,90,909/- per acre and submits that the ellants were entitled for award of same market value. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that no interference is called for with the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, whereby market value of the acquired land was assessed @ Rs.16,00,000/- per acre while y the LAC under Section 11 of the 1894 Act 3 s/landowners are extracted per sq. Ex. P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 places reliance upon the decision dated (with other connected Rajender Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others’ the market value with regard to the acquisition of land carried out in issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act respectively for the same purpose i.e. for construction of in the same revenue estate of village and submits that the On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that no interference is called for with the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, whereby per acre while y the LAC under Section 11 of the 1894 Act MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.18 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA No.7430 of 2011 pertaining to the revenue estate of village village Gokalgarh and the land therein was acquired in terms of Notification dated 26.09.2006 under Section that even as per the sale deeds Ex.P proved on record by the landowners; value upon applying 1/3 which has already been assessed by the learned Reference Court and, thus the appeals filed at the instance of appellants/landowners were liable to be dismissed. [7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants/landowners. [8]. It is landowners in the titled ‘Rajender sale instances is exactly the same as herein. A chart of sale deeds the judgment passed in the aforementioned case of given as under:- Sr.No. Sale Deed 1 5592 2 230 3 5796 4 4550 2011 (O&M) with other connected cases pertaining to the revenue estate of village Lisana village Gokalgarh and the land therein was acquired in terms of Notification dated 26.09.2006 under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. Learned State counsel also points out that even as per the sale deeds Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2, Ex.P ved on record by the landowners; the same being of small area, value upon applying 1/3rd cut would come to around Rs.16,00,000/ which has already been assessed by the learned Reference Court and, thus the appeals filed at the instance of appellants/landowners were liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants/landowners. is relevant to notice here that the evidence relied upon by the the case of RFA No.7146 of 2012 (with other connected cases) Rajender Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others sale instances is exactly the same as has been in the present case . A chart of sale deeds sale deeds Ex.PW the judgment passed in the aforementioned case of - Dated Village Area K-M Sale Consideration (Rs.) 19.11.2004 Gokalgarh 0-4 58,000/ 20.04.2005 Gokalgarh 0-4 58,000/ 02.12.2004 Gokalgarh 0-10 1,40,500/ 24.09.2004 Gokalgarh 0-4 54,000/ Lisana which abuts the revenue estate of village Gokalgarh and the land therein was acquired in terms of Notification dated earned State counsel also points out 2, Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5 which were the same being of small area, the market cut would come to around Rs.16,00,000/- per acre only which has already been assessed by the learned Reference Court and, thus the appeals filed at the instance of appellants/landowners were liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the relevant to notice here that the evidence relied upon by the RFA No.7146 of 2012 (with other connected cases) Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others in the form of been in the present case by the appellants ale deeds Ex.PW-8/3 to Ex.PW-8/6 extracted from the judgment passed in the aforementioned case of Rajender Singh and others Sale Consideration (Rs.) Rate per acre (Rs.) Exhibit 58,000/- 23,20,000/- PW-8/3 58,000/- 23,20,000/- PW-8/4 1,40,500/- 22,48,000/- PW-8/5 54,000/- 21,60,000/- PW-8/6 4 which abuts the revenue estate of village Gokalgarh and the land therein was acquired in terms of Notification dated earned State counsel also points out 5 which were the market per acre only which has already been assessed by the learned Reference Court and, thus the appeals filed at the instance of appellants/landowners were liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the relevant to notice here that the evidence relied upon by the RFA No.7146 of 2012 (with other connected cases) in the form of by the appellants from Rajender Singh and others is Exhibit 8/3 8/4 8/5 8/6 MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.18 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA No.7430 of 2011 [8.1]. A perusal of decision passed in case of (supra) reflects that the above mentioned sale deeds were not taken into account as exemplar sale instances and based on other evidence on record for the revenue estate of Gokalgarh was assessed at Rs.47,90,909/ the date of notification dated 06.11.2006, issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the said case. [9]. Moreover in Rajender Singh and others said case even formed part of acquired for the same purpose distributory in the same revenue estate of village Gokalgarh minor difference of less than 30 days between the two acquisitions. The dated 09.10.2006 others (supra) commenced vide Notification dated 06.11.2006 relying upon the determination made by this Court in case of others (supra), the market value of the land is assessed @ Rs. interest payable under the provisions of the 1894 Act. [10]. Consequently appeals preferred at the instance of appellant allowed in the aforesaid terms [11]. Further, in case of unfortunate demise of any of the appellants/landowners, brought on record, they shall be entitled for filing exemption 2011 (O&M) with other connected cases A perusal of decision passed in case of reflects that the above mentioned sale deeds were not taken into account as exemplar sale instances and based on other evidence on record for the revenue estate of Gokalgarh was assessed at Rs.47,90,909/ the date of notification dated 06.11.2006, issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in Moreover, perusal of decision dated 29.07.2025 Rajender Singh and others (supra) clearly reflects that said case even formed part of the revenue estate of village Gokalgarh for the same purpose i.e. for the construction of Minor under the Budhpur distributory in the same revenue estate of village Gokalgarh minor difference of less than 30 days between the two The acquisition in the present case commenced vide Notification .2006 whereas the acquisition in the case of commenced vide Notification dated 06.11.2006 relying upon the determination made by this Court in case of (supra), the market value of the land under acquisition is assessed @ Rs.47,90,909/- per acre along with interest payable under the provisions of the 1894 Act. Consequently, in view of the discussion made herein above, preferred at the instance of appellant in the aforesaid terms. Further, in case of unfortunate demise of any of the landowners, if the legal heirs-legal representative(s) have not been on record, they shall be entitled for filing exemption A perusal of decision passed in case of Rajender Singh and others reflects that the above mentioned sale deeds were not taken into account as exemplar sale instances and based on other evidence on record, the market value for the revenue estate of Gokalgarh was assessed at Rs.47,90,909/- per acre, as the date of notification dated 06.11.2006, issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in erusal of decision dated 29.07.2025 passed by this Court reflects that the land acquired in the the revenue estate of village Gokalgarh and was for the construction of Minor under the Budhpur distributory in the same revenue estate of village Gokalgarh; though there was minor difference of less than 30 days between the two notifications in the two acquisition in the present case commenced vide Notification whereas the acquisition in the case of ‘Rajender Singh and commenced vide Notification dated 06.11.2006 and as such while relying upon the determination made by this Court in case of Rajender Singh and under acquisition in the present appeal along with all other statutory benefits and interest payable under the provisions of the 1894 Act. , in view of the discussion made herein above, all preferred at the instance of appellants-landowners are hereby partly Further, in case of unfortunate demise of any of the legal representative(s) have not been on record, they shall be entitled for filing exemption applications in their 5 and others reflects that the above mentioned sale deeds were not taken into account as , the market value per acre, as on the date of notification dated 06.11.2006, issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in passed by this Court in the was for the construction of Minor under the Budhpur was a otifications in the two acquisition in the present case commenced vide Notification Rajender Singh and while Rajender Singh and n the present appeal other statutory benefits and all the hereby partly Further, in case of unfortunate demise of any of the legal representative(s) have not been applications in their MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.18 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA No.7430 of 2011 own names being legal heirs or legal representatives of the deceased subject to of course any testamentary document created by the [12]. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. September 16, 2025 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Sr No. Case No. 1 RFA-7431 2 RFA-743 3 RFA-7433 4 RFA-7434 5 RFA-7435 6 RFA-7436 7 RFA-7437 8 RFA-7438 9 RFA-328 10 RFA-587 11 RFA-2213 12 RFA-2271 13 RFA-731 (O&M) 14 RFA-7318 (O&M) September 16, 2025 Atik 2011 (O&M) with other connected cases own names being legal heirs or legal representatives of the deceased of course any testamentary document created by the All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Case No. Title 7431-2011 (O&M) NANAK RAM AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 7432-2011 (O&M) HARKESH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 7433-2011 (O&M) RAJESH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 7434-2011(O&M) SURENDER SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 7435-2011(O&M) KAMLESH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 7436-2011(O&M) SHER SINGH AND OF HARYANA AND ORS 7437-2011(O&M) RAJBIR AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 7438-2011(O&M) SHEODAN AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 328-2017(O&M) RAJESH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 587-2017(O&M) AMAR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 2213-2018(O&M) BANWARI LAL AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 2271-2018(O&M) BANWARI LAL AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 7317-2011 SUMER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND 7318-2011 SUNIL YADAV ANA ANR. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. (HARKESH MANUJA) September 16, 2025 own names being legal heirs or legal representatives of the deceased landowners; of course any testamentary document created by the deceased. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No NANAK RAM AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS RAJESH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS SURENDER SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS KAMLESH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS SHER SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS RAJBIR AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS SHEODAN AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS RAJESH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AMAR SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS BANWARI LAL AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. BANWARI LAL AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. SUMER SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. SUNIL YADAV ANA ANR. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE 6 landowners; MOHMED ATIK 2025.09.18 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt