-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** 203 Reserved on : 23.07.2026 Pronounced on : 27.07.2026 1. RFA-5109-2008 (O&M) JAGROOP SINGH TANWAR …Appellant Versus STATE OF HARYANA …Respondents And Sr. No. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s) 2. RFA-319-2009 (O&M) DALIP SINGH & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA 3. RFA-320-2009 (O&M) VED PARKASH & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA 4. RFA-4638-2008 MAKDU RAM & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 5. RFA-4639-2008 PREM KUMAR & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 6. RFA-4640-2008 KHAZANI & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 7. RFA-4641-2008 MANGE RAM & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 8. RFA-5015-2008 CHANDRO & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 9. RFA-5016-2008 MEHAR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA 10. RFA-5017-2008 MAHENDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA 11. RFA-5018-2008 HARI SINGH STATE OF HARYANA 12. RFA-5019-2008 FATEH SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 13. RFA-5020-2008 DARSHNA DEVI & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 14. RFA-5021-2008 CHANDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA 15. RFA-5022-2008 SAT NARAIN STATE OF HARYANA 16. RFA-5023-2008 BHIM SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 17. RFA-5024-2008 TEK RAM & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 18. RFA-5025-2008 BHARTHU & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 19. RFA-5026-2008 CHANDER BHAN STATE OF HARYANA 20. RFA-5027-2008 MEHAR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA 21. RFA-5028-2008 SATBIR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA 22. RFA-5029-2008 SURESH KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA 23. RFA-5030-2008 CHADER SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 24. RFA-5031-2008 BALJIT SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 25. RFA-2838-2009 RAJENDER KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA 26. RFA-5110-2008 (O&M) NEER SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 27. RFA-5111-2008 (O&M) DAYA KISHAN AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 28. RFA-5124-2008 (O&M) NEER SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 29. RFA-5125-2008 (O&M) RAM KALI AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 30. RFA-5615-2008 LICHHU @ LICHHMAN & STATE OF HARYANA SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- OTHERS 31. RFA-704-2009 LAXMI NARAIN & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 32. RFA-969-2009 KARAMVIR AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA 33. RFA-970-2009 SULTAN SINGH STATE OF HARYANA 34. RFA-971-2009 KARAMBIR AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA 35. RFA-972-2009 JAGBIR AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA 36. RFA-973-2009 (O&M) HARI SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 37. RFA-974-2009 SINGARA SINGH STATE OF HARYANA 38. RFA-975-2009 JAGBIR STATE OF HARYANA 39. RFA-976-2009 BHUPINDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA 40. RFA-977-2009 BALJIT STATE OF HARYANA 41. RFA-978-2009 FATEH SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 42. RFA-992-2009 KRISHAN CHAND & OTHER STATE OF HARYANA 43. RFA-2507-2008 STATE OF HARYANA FATEH SINGH AND OTHERS 44. RFA-2508-2008 STATE OF HARYANA PREM KUMAR AND OTHERS 45. RFA-2509-2008 STATE OF HARYANA DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS 46. RFA-2510-2008 STATE OF HARYANA CHANDERBHAN 47. RFA-2511-2008 STATE OF HARYANA SURESH KUMAR 48. RFA-2512-2008 STATE OF HARYANA KARAMVIR AND OTHERS 49. RFA-2513-2008 STATE OF HARYANA MAHENDER SINGH 50. RFA-2514-2008 STATE OF HARYANA BHUPENDER SINGH 51. RFA-2515-2008 STATE OF HARYANA KARAMBIR AND OTHERS 52. RFA-2516-2008 STATE OF HARYANA SATNARAIN 53. RFA-2517-2008 STATE OF HARYANA JAGROOP SINGH TANWAR 54. RFA-2518-2008 STATE OF HARYANA FATEH SINGH AND OTHERS 55. RFA-2519-2008 STATE OF HARYANA MEHAR SINGH 56. RFA-2520-2008 STATE OF HARYANA TEK RAM AND OTHERS 57. RFA-2521-2008 STATE OF HARYANA DHANNO DEVI AND OTHERS 58. RFA-2522-2008 STATE OF HARYANA MAKDU RAM AND OTHERS 59. RFA-2523-2008 STATE OF HARYANA BALJIT SINGH AND OTHERS 60. RFA-2524-2008 STATE OF HARYANA SATBIR SINGH 61. RFA-2525-2008 STATE OF HARYANA CHANDRO AND OTHERS 62. RFA-2526-2008 STATE OF HARYANA CHANDER SINGH AND OTHERS 63. RFA-2527-2008 STATE OF HARYANA BHIM SINGH AND OTHERS 64. RFA-2528-2008 STATE OF HARYANA BHARTU AND OTHERS 65. RFA-2529-2008 STATE OF HARYANA MEHAR SINGH 66. RFA-2530-2008 STATE OF HARYANA LICHHU @ LICHHMAN AND OTHERS 67. RFA-2531-2008 STATE OF HARYANA SULTAN SINGH 68. RFA-4418-2008 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA KHAZANI AND OTHERS 69. RFA-2888-2008 STATE OF HARYANA RAJENDER KUMAR 70. RFA-2889-2008 STATE OF HARYANA VED PARKASH AND OTHERS 71. RFA-2890-2008 STATE OF HARYANA BALJIT 72. RFA-2891-2008 STATE OF HARYANA DAYA KISHAN AND OTHERS 73. RFA-2892-2008 STATE OF HARYANA MANGE RAM AND OTHERS 74. RFA-2893-2008 STATE OF HARYANA SINGARA SINGH 75. RFA-2894-2008 STATE OF HARYANA JAGBIR AND OTHERS 76. RFA-2895-2008 STATE OF HARYANA HARI SINGH 77. RFA-2896-2008 STATE OF HARYANA JAGBIR SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- 78. RFA-2897-2008 STATE OF HARYANA RAMKALI AND OTHERS 79. RFA-2898-2008 STATE OF HARYANA NEER SINGH AND OTHERS 80. RFA-3041-2008 STATE OF HARYANA KRISHAN CHAND AND OTHERS 81. RFA-3042-2008 STATE OF HARYANA NEER SINGH AND OTHERS 82. RFA-3135-2008 STATE OF HARYANA LAXMI NARAIN AND OTHERS 83. RFA-3136-2008 STATE OF HARYANA CHANDER SINGH 84. RFA-3212-2008 STATE OF HARYANA DARSHNA DEVI AND OTHERS 85. RFA-3213-2008 STATE OF HARYANA DARSHNA DEVI AND OTHERS 86. RFA-2506-2008 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA HARI SINGH & OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Abhishek Yadav, DAG, Haryana Mr. S. N. Pillania, Advocate for appellant(s) (In RFA-319-2009 & RFA-320-2009) Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate with Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate For landowners and For respondents (in RFA-2506-2008 & RFA-2828-2009) *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. These appeals are directed against awards passed by the Reference Court. The State is claiming that assessed market value needs to be reduced and landowners are claiming otherwise. Tabulated details of the assessment made till date read as: 1. Date of notification under Section 4 26.03.2003 2. Date of notification under Section 6 29.08.2003 3. Purpose of acquisition Construction of bypass 4. Location Village - Ahirka Tehsil - Jind District - Jind 5. Area of land acquired 20.87 Acres 6. Date of order of Collector (LAC) 23.12.2004 7. Market value as per LAC (per acre) ₹2,00,000/- 8. Date of Reference Court (RC) order 31.01.2008 SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -4- 9. Market value as per RC (per acre) ₹6,00,000/- 2. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals & cross-appeals filed by landowners as well as State, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from RFA-5109-2008. 3. The appellant-landowners are seeking modification of award dated 31.01.2008 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Jind (hereinafter called as ‘Reference Court’) has not awarded compensation as claimed by them. 4. Learned counsel for landowners submits that Collector rate in May’ 2001 as noted in impugned award was ₹ 5,80,800/- per acre. The sale deed dated 29.05.2001 disclosed sale consideration ₹ 5, 82, 095/- per acre. The notification under Section 4 was issued on 26.03.2003 and published on 15.04.2003. As per recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Kishan Vs. State of Haryana”, 2025 SCC OnLine 715, escalation of 12% per annum was minimum requirement. Learned Reference Court has not considered said fact and assessed market value of acquired land @ ₹ 6 lakh per acre or ₹ 4 lakh per acre as per location of the land based on sale consideration (Ex. P-12/A) @ ₹ 5.82 lakh per acre. If landowners are awarded escalation of 12% per annum, the market value would come to 124% of assessed value. 5. Learned State counsel reiterated findings of Reference Court and submitted that as per different judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, escalation qua non-urban land ought to be 10% per annum. SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -5- 6. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 7. 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. 8. From the perusal of record and arguments advanced, it is evident that State vide notification dated 15.04.2003 issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) acquired land situated in Village Ahirka, Tehsil and District Jind. The said notification was followed by notification dated 29.08.2003 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act. The land was acquired for constructing bypass from Jind-Assandh Road to Jind-Narwana Road in Village Ahirka. Relevant date for the determination of market value of the acquired land was 15.04.2003 i.e. date of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act. The Collector vide Award dated 23.12.2004 determined market value of Nehri, Chahi and Gair Mumkin land @ ₹ 1,50,016/- per acre and assessed market value for land abutting road upto 1 Acre depth @ ₹ 2,00,000/- per acre. The landowners were held entitled to statutory benefits besides market value of the acquired land. A supplementary award was passed on 20.06.2005 whereby compensation qua 15 Biswa land, fruit trees and structure was assessed as below: (i) for 104 grapes trees ₹ 4,10,280/-; (ii) for 15 Biswa land ₹ 70,320/-; (iii) for three houses ₹ 2,97,700/-. SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -6- 9. The landowners filed reference petitions before the learned Reference Court which vide award dated 31.01.2008 assessed market value as below: (i) For land abutting the road upto 1 Acre depth @ ₹ 6,00,000/- per acre; (ii) For Nehri, Chahi and Gair Mumkin land @ ₹ 4,00,000/- per acre; (iii) 15 Biswa land @ ₹ 4,00,000/- per acre; (iv) 50% enhancement in compensation for 104 grape trees and three houses. 10. The dispute before this Court is confined to assessment of market value of the land in question. There is no dispute qua superstructure and trees. Relevant extracts of the impugned award read as: - “17. In view of the aforementioned settled position of law, the complainant as has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector vide the aforesaid is to be enhanced. The Collector has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,016/- per acre for Nehri, Chahi and gair mumkin land and Rs.2,00,000/- per acre alongwith the road upto one acre depth. Vide the supplementary award (2J) dated 20.6.2005 compensation for 104 number of crop has been awarded as Rs.4,10,280/-, 3 number of houses as Rs.2,97,700/- and for land measuring 0 bigha 15 biswas Rs.70,320/-. The petitioners have placed on record, a copy of sale deed Ex. PW1/A (sic PW12/A) dated 29.5.2001, whereby the 5 ¼ biswas of land was sold in a sum of Rs.95,500/- which comes to Rs.5,82,095 per acre. The Collector rate on this sale deed has been mentioned as Rs.120/- per square yard which comes to Rs.5,80,800/- per acre. The petitioners have also placed on record documents Ex. PW11/B to Ex. PW11/D, which are the instances of sale by way of auction and the price in these instances is Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. The sale instance Ex. SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -7- PW30/B at the rate of Rs.48 lacs per acre cannot be made basis because it is for small piece of land. The notification under Section 4 was published on 15.4.2003 whereas the aforementioned sale instance Ex.PW12/A is of 29.5.2001. The land sold vide the aforesaid sale deed is stated to be abutting to road, therefore, to my mind, the ends of justice would meet if the compensation is enhanced as per the aforesaid sale deed Ex.PW12/A, wherein the collector rate of the land had been mentioned as Rs.5,80,800/- per acre, therefore, as the notification under Section 4 in this case was published in the year 2003, therefore to my mind, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- per acre for the land alongwith the road one acre depth and Rs.4,00,000/-per acre for the remaining Nehri, Chahi and gair mumkin land shall be suitable compensation in this case for the land acquired. 18. 18. So far as the compensation awarded under the award no.2-J of 20.6.2005 (aforesaid) is concerned, to my mind the compensation for 15 biswas of land acquired should be enhanced @ Rs.4,00,000/- per acre whereas 50% enhancement should be given for compensation for 104 grapes trees and three houses. It is ordered accordingly. Moreover, the petitioners in these petitions are entitled to enhanced rate of compensation alongwith all other benefits under Section 23(1) and 23(ii) of the Act. Therefore, all these issues are decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.” 11. The Collector rate though is revised from time to time yet does not depict true picture because of multiple reasons, thus, under 1894 Act cannot be mechanically invoked to determine value of acquired land. Collector rate is declared by State Government for the purpose of stamp duty. Ordinarily, people disclose consideration in the sale deed equal to or little more than Collector rate. Seller does not want to disclose correct value because it may entail capital gain and buyer; firstly, due to condition of the SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -8- seller; and secondly, to avoid stamp duty as well as lack of accounted/tax paid money avoids disclosing correct value. In such circumstances, it becomes inevitable to make upward adjustment in the available sale consideration which is equal to or little more than Collector rate. 12. In the case in hand, sale deed Ex. PW30/B is disclosing value @ ₹ 48 lakh per acre. The Collector rate and all other sale deeds are disclosing value in between ₹ 5 to 6 lakh per acre. The landowners failed to point out location of Ex. PW30/B and other compelling reasons to accept said value which was nine times the Collector rate and other sale deeds. Learned counsel have now pleaded that value cannot be determined on the basis of Collector rate and further prayed that there should be per annum escalation. Collector rate cannot be mechanically applied but in the present case, sale deeds produced by landowners are also disclosing value not more than ₹ 5.80 lakh per acre. 13. In Ram Kishan (supra), Supreme Court has ordered to grant 12% per annum escalation because land was abutting road and was further surrounded by the Highways. There was potentiality of growth. In the present case, land was agriculture though there was potentiality of growth. Notification under Section 4 was issued on 15.04.2003 and exemplar sale was dated 29.05.2001. As noticed above, this Court is conscious of the fact that Collector rate does not reflect correct market value. The Reference Court has determined market value almost equal to Collector rate. Keeping in mind Collector rate, exemplar sale deeds, statement of learned counsel for the appellants and State counsel as well as judgment of Supreme Court in “Lal Chand Vs. Union of India & Another”, 2009(15) SCC 769, this Court finds SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -9- that 10% per annum escalation over the value assessed by Reference Court would be appropriate. 14. In the wake of aforesaid findings, market value determined by Reference Court is enhanced by 20%. Enhanced value would be ₹ 7.20 lakh per acre where Reference Court has determined value @ ₹ 6 lakh per acre. Similarly, value of other lands stand enhanced by 20%. The landowners shall also be entitled to statutory benefits provided under Section 23 (1A) and (2) as well as interest under Section 28 of 1894 Act. 15. In case of death of any appellant, his/her legal heirs would be entitled to claim enhanced compensation from Executing Court. 16. In the backdrop, appeals of the State are hereby dismissed. 17. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 27.07.2026 SDK Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Date of uploading : 28.07.2026 SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document