-1- RFA-535-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** 227 Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 1. RFA-535-2025 CHARAN DEV AND OTHERS …Appellants Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER …Respondents And Sr. No. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s) 2. RFA-538-2025 SUNITA RANI THROUGH HER GPA MOHAN LAL & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 3. RFA-540-2025 MADAN LAL & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 4. RFA-545-2025 RANBIR STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 5. RFA-546-2025 MEENA KUMARI STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 6. RFA-547-2025 CHETAN DASS (DECEASED) THROGH HIS LRS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 7. RFA-554-2025 ATMA RAM & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 8. RFA-558-2025 SMT SHAKUNTLA RANI ALIAS SHAKUNTLA DEVI STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 9. RFA-562-2025 URMILA DEVI & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 10. RFA-572-2025 KRISHNA STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 11. RFA-574-2025 JOGINDER SINGH & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 12. RFA-575-2025 CHANDI RAM & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 13. RFA-578-2025 ANIL KUMAR & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 14. RFA-583-2025 SATBIR SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.08 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- RFA-535-2025 15. RFA-584-2025 NEELAM RANI & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 16. RFA-585-2025 PALA (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 17. RFA-590-2025 (O&M) CHANDRAWALI (DECEASED) THROUGH HER LRS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 18. RFA-592-2025 SHALESH KUMAR & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 19. RFA-604-2025 DAYA NAND STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 20. RFA-605-2025 (O&M) SURAJBHAN ALIAS SURJA (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 21. RFA-606-2025 MOHAN LAL THROUGH ITS GPA KRISHAN LAL STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 22. RFA-615-2025 BHOOP SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 23. RFA-660-2025 HARISH CHANDER STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 24. RFA-665-2025 HARIOM STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 25. RFA-676-2025 CHANDERPATI & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 26. RFA-677-2025 PASHI LAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 27. RFA-681-2025 RAJMAL (DEACEASED) THROUGH HIS LR STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 28. RFA-723-2025 (O&M) RAMPHAL ALIAS RAMLAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 29. RFA-614-2026 (O&M) HARI SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 30. RFA-642-2026 (O&M) VIJENDER KUMAR & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 31. RFA-643-2026 SMT BHATERI STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 32. RFA-882-2026 (O&M) AMAR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 33. RFA-1016-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER HARIOM 34. RFA-1181-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SATBIR & OTHERS 35. RFA-1182-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER DAYANAND 36. RFA-1183-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SHALESH KUMAR & ANOTHER SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.08 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- RFA-535-2025 37. RFA-1184-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER MOHAN LAL 38. RFA-1185-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER RAJMAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR 39. RFA-1186-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER HARI SINGH & OTHERS 40. RFA-1187-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER CHANDERPATI & ANOTHER 41. RFA-1188-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER RAJBALA 42. RFA-1189-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER VIJENDER KUMAR & OTHERS 43. RFA-1190-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER PALA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS 44. RFA-1191-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER GRAM PANCHAYAT TOSHAM 45. RFA-1209-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS KRISHNA 46. RFA-1335-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS URMILA DEVI & ANOTHER 47. RFA-1336-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS BALWAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LR & ANOTHER 48. RFA-1337-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS CHANDI RAM & OTHERS 49. RFA-1338-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER CHETAN DASS (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS 50. RFA-1339-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS JOGINDER SINGH & ANOTHER 51. RFA-1340-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER ANIL KUMAR & OTHERS 52. RFA-1341-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS SAVITRI & OTHERS 53. RFA-1342-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER PASHI LAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ANOTHER 54. RFA-1343-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER ATMA RAM & OTHERS 55. RFA-1344-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER BHATERI 56. RFA-1296-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER CHANDRAWALI 57. RFA-1297-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER HARISH CHANDER 58. RFA-1298-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER MEENA KUMARI 59. RFA-1299-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SHAKUNTLA RANI SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.08 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -4- RFA-535-2025 60. RFA-1300-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER JI RAM 61. RFA-1301-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER RANBIR 62. RFA-1302-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER RAMPHAL ALIAS RAM LAL & OTHERS 63. RFA-1303-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER MAHENDER SINGH 64. RFA-1304-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER BHOOP SINGH 65. RFA-1305-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SUNITA RANI & OTHERS 66. RFA-1306-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SURAJBHAN ALIAS SURJA & ANOTHER 67. RFA-1307-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER NEELAM RANI & OTHERS 68. RFA-1308-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER CHARAN DEV & OTHERS 69. RFA-1309-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER MADAN LAL & OTHERS 70. RFA-1310-2025 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER AMAR SINGH & OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Akash Yadav, Advocate for the appellants/landowners Mr. Abhinash Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana and Mr. Abhishek Yadav, DAG, Haryana. *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. These appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) are directed against awards passed by the Reference Court. Tabulated details of the assessment made till date read as:- SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.08 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -5- RFA-535-2025 Date of notification under Section 4 11.02.2011 Date of notification under Section 6 10.09.2011 Purpose of Acquisition Construction of road from New Bye-Pass Tosham-Bhiwani Road to Tosham-Hisar road crossing Tosham-Bawani Khera Road & Tosham Hansi Road in Bhiwani Location Village: Tosham Tehsil: Tosham District: Bhiwani Area 378 Kanal 9 Marla Date of order of Collector (LAC) 22.06.2012 Market value as per LAC (per acre) ₹12,00,000/- Date of Reference Court (RC) order 18.02.2025 Market value as per RC (per acre) ₹27 lakh upto 2 acres ₹24 lakh beyond 2 acres Along with 20% severance charges 2. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. The State as well as landowners have laid challenge to impugned award. The landowners are seeking enhancement whereas respondent-State is seeking reduction in market value determined by the Reference Court. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from RFA-535- 2025. 3. The appellants-landowners through instant appeal are seeking modification of award dated 18.02.2025 whereby learned Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority-cum-Additional District Judge, Bhiwani (hereinafter called as ‘Reference Court’) has not determined amount of compensation as claimed by them. SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.08 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -6- RFA-535-2025 4. The State Government issued notification dated 11.02.2011 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) for the acquisition of 378 Kanal 9 Marla of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Tosham, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani with intent to construct road from New Bye-Pass Tosham-Bhiwani Road to Tosham-Hisar road crossing Tosham-Bawani Khera Road & Tosham-Hansi Road in Bhiwani. The said notification was followed by notification dated 10.09.2011 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act. 5. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’) vide Award dated 22.06.2012, in terms of provisions of 1894 Act, determined compensation payable to the landowners. Market value of the acquired land was determined at the rate of ₹12,00,000/- per acre. Landowners were held entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits. Feeling dissatisfied from the aforesaid award, landowners preferred petitions before the Collector which were referred to Court under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. 6. The landowners as well as the State, in support of their contentions, led their evidence. The State attempted to justify market value determined by Collector, however, landowners vehemently pleaded that value of their land has been assessed on lower side. 7. The Reference Court while appreciating evidence led by both sides, by impugned common award adjudicated reference petitions. The Reference Court has assessed market value of the acquired land @ ₹27,00,000/- upto 2 Acres depth from road and ₹24,00,000/- beyond 2 Acres. SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.08 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -7- RFA-535-2025 The Court has further awarded severance charges @ 20% of the market value. The landowners as well as State are in appeal before this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants-landowners submits that Reference Court was supposed to rely upon order dated 01.03.2016 passed by this Court in RFA No.6989 of 2014 as modified by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.04.2018 whereby value of the adjoining land was determined @ ₹73,91,062/- per acre. The Reference Court could make location cut, however, order dated 01.03.2016 passed by this Court could not be absolutely ignored. The Reference Court has ignored aforesaid order on the ground that land acquired under aforesaid order was 7 or 8 Acres (correct figure is 8.34 Acre) whereas land in question is 47 Acres. In RFA No.6989 of 2014, the acquired land was adjoining main road and value of a smaller residential plots was taken into consideration whereas in the present case, sale deeds of larger area are available. The Reference Court has made artificial distinction. The appellants are similarly situated with landowners in RFA No.6989 of 2014. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that order dated 01.03.2016 passed by this Court in RFA No.6989 of 2014 cannot be relied upon. The Supreme Court in ‘Manoj Kumar and Others Versus State of Haryana’, 2018(13) SCC 96 has clearly held that previous award cannot be mechanically relied upon. In RFA No.6989 of 2014, the acquired land was abutting the main road. This Court in aforesaid case relied upon value of a smaller residential plot. In the present case, the appellants as well as State have submitted multiple exemplar sale deeds wherein area involved is larger SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.08 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -8- RFA-535-2025 and value per acre comes to even less than ₹10,00,000/- per acre. The Reference Court had adopted very liberal approach and made addition of 50% in the collector rate which was fixed for agricultural land to be utilized for setting up stone crusher. 10. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that delay in filing any appeal which is part of present bunch may be condoned. Accordingly, delay, if any, in any case, stands condoned. It is clarified that appellant shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period. 11. All the arguments raised by both sides have been recorded in the presence of counsel for the parties. They have not raised any other argument. 12. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 13. From the perusal of record, it is evident that the Reference Court has rejected exemplar sale deed produced by landowners as well as State. Most of the sale deeds produced by both sides related to period post notification issued under Section 4. As per Section 23(1), sale deeds executed after issuance of notification under Section 4 should not be considered. As per law laid down by the Supreme Court, sale deeds executed post notification under Section 4 may be relied upon where sale deeds executed prior to notification under Section 4 are not available. The Reference Court has rejected other sale deeds produced by landowners on the ground that area involved is very small. The respondent had produced sale deeds involving larger area, however, value disclosed was very small. It SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.08 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -9- RFA-535-2025 was almost equal to collector rate. The Reference Court has considered Collector rate of 2010-2011. As per Collector rate, if land is purchased for setting up a stone crusher or any other industry, market value for the stamp duty would be ₹16,00,000/- per acre. The Reference Court has relied upon aforesaid rate to conclude that determination of higher Collector rate where land is utilized for stone crusher reveals that there is potentiality in the acquired land and it cannot be assessed at Collector rate fixed for agricultural land or at a value disclosed in the sale deeds relied upon by the State. The Reference Court has further formed an opinion that value should be assessed at 150% of Collector rate because Collector rate does not disclose correct value. Benefit of potentiality should be given especially in view of the fact that acquired land is in the proximity of mines and crushers. Land in question was acquired for the construction of Bye-Pass which crossed Tosham-Hansi Road. There are Petrol Pump, Police Station, Mini Secretariat, Civil Court, SDM residence in the close vicinity of the acquired land. 14. The State is not disputing the fact that if acquired land was to be registered for the crusher or any other industry, the Collector rate for stamp duty was ₹16,00,000/- per acre. This rate was ₹18,00,000/- per acre where land was adjoining the existing State Highway. It is further undisputed that there were shops, residential colony, Police Station, Mini Secretariat, Civil Court and SDM residence in the close vicinity of the acquired land. The acquired land was further closed to mines and crushers. Land in question could be utilized for crushers and other industrial units. These factors collectively indicate that acquired land was potential, thus, market value SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.08 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -10- RFA-535-2025 could not be assessed equal to collector rate. The Reference Court has rightly made addition of 50% considering locational factors as well as potentiality of the land. 15. The appellants are claiming that value of their land should be assessed at par with land acquired for drainage. The Reference Court has duly considered claim of the appellants. Indubitably, land acquired for the drainage was abutting the main road. The total area involved in the previous acquisition was 8.33 Acre whereas in the present case, it was 47 Acre. In the previous award, market value was assessed on the basis of value of a small piece of residential area. The Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar (supra) has clearly held that previous award cannot be mechanically relied upon. Though 2013 Act is inapplicable in the present case still reference of Explanation 3 of Section 26(1) may be made. As per aforesaid explanation, previous award of the same district cannot be considered for determining market value. In the present case, multiple sale deeds of same type of land were available. Sale consideration disclosed in those sale deeds is much less than Collector rate where land is got registered for utilizing as crusher. In such circumstances, sale consideration disclosed in the relied upon sale deeds could not be made basis to determine market value and at the same moment market value could not be assessed on the basis of previous award which was based upon sale deed of a residential plot. Factum of area involved and location cannot be ignored. In the previous award, the acquired land was abutting the main road whereas land in question was away from highway SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.08 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -11- RFA-535-2025 which is evident from the fact that it was utilized for Bye-Pass and as per revenue record, it was agricultural land. 16. The Reference Court has awarded severance charges to the tune of 20% of market value. The state is not disputing the fact that acquired land was bifurcated into two pieces, thus, landowners suffered loss on account of severance. The Reference Court has awarded severance charges @ 20% of market value which seem to be just and fair. It is apt to notice that none of the contesting parties has heartily disputed question of severance and quantum of acquisition. 17. In the wake of above discussion and findings, the appeals filed by both sides stand dismissed. The Reference Court has not made it clear whether land of all the landowners was bifurcated or not. To avoid further litigation and confusion, it is made clear that the Executing Court before releasing compensation may examine this aspect. The landowners whose land was not bifurcated would not be entitled to severance charges. 18. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 03.09.2026 SDK Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.09.08 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document