-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** 219 Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 1. RFA-3051-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER …Appellants Versus SMT. LEELAWATI & OTHERS …Respondents And Sr. No. Case No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) 2. RFA-2320-2017 AZAD SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 3. RFA-2576-2017 RATTAN LAL & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 4. RFA-2827-2017 NIWAS RANA & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 5. RFA-2828-2017 RAM PAL STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 6. RFA-3052-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER DAYA NAND & ANOTHER 7. RFA-3053-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER DAYANAND 8. RFA-3054-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER MAHESH KUMAR & ANOTHER 9. RFA-3055-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SMT. ADESH AGGARWAL & ANOTHER 10. RFA-3056-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SMT. SUDARSHAN MALIK & ANOTHER 11. RFA-3060-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER RATTAN & OTHERS 12. RFA-3061-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER DHARAMBIR & OTHERS 13. RFA-3062-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER AZAD SINGH & ANOTHER 14. RFA-3063-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER RAJINDER KUMAR & OTHERS 15. RFA-3064-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER PAWAN KUMAR & ANOTHER 16. XOBJR-73-CI- 2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER OM PARKASH & ANOTHER 17. RFA-3065-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER OM PARKASH & ANOTHER 18. RFA-3066-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER PANKAJA SARTHI 19. RFA-3067-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER HARISH GAHLOT & OTHERS 20. RFA-3080-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER MAHESH KUMAR & ANOTHER 21. RFA-3081-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER RAMPAL & OTHERS 22. RFA-3082-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER ROOPANJLI LAHRI & ANOTHER 23. RFA-3083-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER HARBIR SINGH & OTHERS SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.28 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- 24. RFA-3084-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SIKHAR YADAV & OTHERS 25. RFA-3085-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER RAMPAL 26. RFA-3087-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER PRABHU DAYAL & ANOTHER 27. RFA-3088-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SAHDEV SINGH & OTHERS 28. RFA-3089-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER NANAJI BHATT & ANOTHER 29. RFA-3090-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER LALIT RAJPUT & ANOTHER 30. RFA-3091-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SURJIT LAHARI & ANOTHER 31. RFA-3092-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER VIJAY SINGH & ANOTHER 32. RFA-3093-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER MANISH SAWHNEY & ANOTHER 33. RFA-3094-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER MRS. ANJANA GUPTA & ANOTHER 34. RFA-3103-2017 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SMT. PHOOLA RAINA & ANOTHER 35. RFA-3140-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SURESH KUMAR & OTHERS 36. RFA-3459-2017 (O&M) SURESH KUMAR & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 37. RFA-2837-2017 (O&M) SUDERSHAN MALIK STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 38. RFA-4170-2019 (O&M) DHARAMBIR & OTHERS STATE OF HARAYANA THROUGH COLLECTOR, GURUGRAM & OTHERS 39. RFA-4632-2017 (O&M) SHIKHAR YADAV & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 40. RFA-3632-2019 (O&M) DHARAMBIR & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Abhinash Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana & Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr. Prithvi Raj Yadav, Advocate for appellants (In RFA-4632-2017) Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate for appellant (In RFA-2320-2017) Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Advocate for appellants (In RFA-4632-2017) Dr. Anand Kumar Bishnoi, Advocate and Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocate For respondents (In RFA-3051-2017) Ms. Maninee, Advocate with Mr. Rohan Moudgil, Advocate and Mr. Raj Mehak Rana, Advocate For appellant in RFA-2837-2017 For respondents in RFA-3080-2017 & RFA-3063-2017 SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.28 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate with Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for appellant(s) (In RFA-2576-2017, RFA-4170-2019 & RFA-3632-2019) Mr. Monit Pal Singh, Advocate For appellants in RFA-3459-2017 For respondent Nos. 1 to 7 in RFA-3140-2017 Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Ishan Aggarwal, Advocate For respondents/cross-objectors (In RFA-3065-2017) *** 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: Date of notification under Section 4 21.12.2009 Date of notification under Section 6 17.12.2009 Purpose of acquisition Development of residential Sector 110 A, Gurgaon for rehabilitation Location Village -Choma District - Gurgaon Area 40.46 Acres Date of order of Collector (LAC) 20.06.2012 Market value as per LAC (per acre) ₹60,00,000/- Date of Reference Court (RC) order 17.01.2017 Market value as per RC (per acre) ₹ 5,68,55,906/- 2. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals & cross-objections 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-3051-2017. SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.28 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -4- 3. The appellant-State is seeking setting aside of award dated 16.05.2018 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Rewari (hereinafter called as ‘Reference Court’) has enhanced amount of compensation. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that market value in the impugned award has been determined ignoring the exemplar sale deeds and exclusively based upon order dated 20.05.2016 passed by this Court in RFA- 4475-2012. The subject matter of aforesaid RFA was land of village in question. The State challenged aforesaid order dated 20.05.2016 before Hon’ble Supreme Court which vide order dated 05.09.2017 reduced the assessed market value by 15%. This Court had assessed market value @ ₹4,78,05,588/- per acre. On applying 15% cut, the reduced value comes to ₹4,06,34,750/- per acre. Therefore, landowners are entitled to compensation considering base value ₹4,06,34,750/- per acre. The Reference Court has awarded them escalation @ 10% per annum which is undisputed. 5. Learned Counsel for landowners expressed their inability to controvert afore-stated factual and legal position though slightly attempted to plead that in their case, base value may not be subjected to cut of 15% as imposed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. On being asked, learned counsel for landowners could not point out any exemplar sale or any other overwhelming evidence/reason to assess market value of their land over and above the value assessed by this Court in RFA-4475-2012 and corrected by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 8. 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. SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.28 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -5- 9. From the perusal of record and arguments of stakeholders, it is evident that State vide notification dated 21.12.2009 issued under Section 4 of 1894 Act acquired land situated in Village Choma, District Gurgaon. The said notification was followed by notification dated 17.12.2009 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act. The land was acquired for development of residential Sector 110-A, Gurgaon for rehabilitation of families whose houses would come under road alignment and green belt at Gurgaon. Relevant date for the determination of market value of the acquired land was 21.12.2009 i.e. date of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act. The Collector qua notification dated 21.12.2009 determined market value of the acquired land @ ₹60,00,000/- per acre. The landowners were held entitled to statutory benefits besides market value of the acquired land. The landowners filed reference petitions before the learned Reference Court which vide Award dated 17.01.2017 assessed market value of acquired land @ ₹5,68,55,906/- per acre. 10. The landowners and State produced evidence in support of their contentions before the Reference Court which rejected exemplar sale deeds and relied upon decision of this Court passed in RFA 4475-2012 titled “Ram Chander and Another Vs. State of Haryana” qua another piece of land which was acquired for the same purpose and was situated within same revenue estate. The Reference Court on the ground of parity applied Ram Chander (supra) and determined market value @ ₹5,68,55,906/- per acre. Relevant extracts of the award read as: - “11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Govt. Pleader assisted by the Law Officer and have taken myself through the record. Admittedly vide Ex.P9 award dated 30.07.2013 reference court of Ms. Vani SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.28 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -6- Gopal Sharma, the then learned Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon determined the market value of the land in respect of the same village. The said award was challenged by the land owners in the Hon'ble High Court in RFA No. 4475 of 2012 (main case) and Hon'ble High Court decided the said RFA vide judgment dated 20.5.2016 Ex. Px vide which compensation in respect of the acquired land was determined to the turn of Rs. 4,78,05,588/- per acre. It is not the case of the respondents that judgment Ex.PX passed by the Hon'ble High Court in RFA has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said case (Ex.P9) notification under section 4 of the Act was Passed on 25.01.2008 i.e. prior to the notification under section 4 of the Act in the present case (21.12.2009) There is time gap of 1 Year 10 month 26 days (691 days (691 days) between the two notification. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kheda and another versue Vasudev Chandrashankar and another - 1998 (1) LACC 234 has held that determining the market value of the acquired land regarding which an award is already pronounced and the subsequent land being of the same village and being of the same nature. The earlier judicial award is the best instance to assess the market value. In case Karan Singh Vs. UOI,AIR 1997 SC 3899 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of india has held that previous awards announced by the courts are the good piece of evidence which can be relied upon for determination of the market value of the acquired land. The Division Bench of our own Hon'ble High Court in case Tek Chand another verslus state of Haryana, 1996 (1) Revenue Law Reporter 279 has held that courts should make endeavour to maintain consistency regarding the market value assessed for the land same village. In Arunash Chander Kaushik versus Union Territory, Chandigarh (2009)2 PLR 147 and State of Haryana and Ors Versus Hemant Kumar 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 26(P&H) the Hon'ble Court while allowing the enhancement of compensation awarded an additional increase of 12% in price per year for the time gap between SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.28 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -7- the two acquisitions. In ONGC Limited versus Rameshbhai Jeewanbhai Patel (2008)14 SCC 745 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the acquired land is in Urban/Semi Urban Areas increase can be to the tune of 10% to 15% per annum and if acquired land is situated in Rural area increase can be to the tune of 5% to 7.5% Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehrwl Khewaji Trust (Regd) Faridkot & Others versus State of Punjab and Others-2012(2) RCR (Civil) 893 (SC) held that for determining market value for two acquisitions with time gap, Supreme Court has been granting 10% to 15% increase per annum; in that case annual increase was granted at the rate of 12% per annum. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid judgments, more than the sale deeds adduced by the parties as referred to above, I am inclined to place reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court Ex. PX in respect of the same village. During the course of arguments, none of the parties raised any argument that land acquired in the present case is superior or inferior to the land acquired in Ex. PX. In the said case notification under section 4 of the Act was passed 1 Year 10 Month 26 days (691 days) prior to the notification value of the acpuired land in the present case can well be assessed by giving an appropriate increase per annum for period of 1 Year 10 Month 26 days (691 days) on the amount of Rs. 4,78,05,588/- (assessed vide award Ex. PX.) In the facts of the case, I am inclined to give the said increase @ 10% per annum works out to Rs. 90,50,318/- Therefore, the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under section 4 of the Act is assessed at the rate of Rs. 5,68,55,906/- per acre. Hence, this issue is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioners.” 11. From the above findings and judgment of this Court in Ram Chander (supra), it is manifest that the market value of land acquired vide notification dated 25.01.2008 and falling within village in question was assessed by this Court at the rate of ₹4,78,05,558/- per acre. Ram Chander SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.28 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -8- (supra) was challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court which vide order dated 05.09.2017 imposed cut of 15% on the amount awarded by this Court. On applying 15% cut, the reduced value came to ₹4,06,34,750/- per acre. The landowners were accordingly made entitled to compensation considering base value ₹4,06,34,750/- per acre. 12. Both sides have agreed that base value may be applied as determined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Chander (supra). There is no dispute qua escalation @ 10% per annum. Applying base value ₹4,06,34,750/- and extending escalation @ 10% per annum, market value in the present case comes to ₹4,83,27,520/- per acre. Accordingly, market value of land in question is assessed @ ₹4,83,27,520/- per acre. 13. In the wake of above discussion and findings, appeals of the State are partially allowed and appeals of landowners seeking enhancement stand dismissed. 14. 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 SUDEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.28 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document