(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)

(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

(i) RFA No. 1151 of 2019 (O&M)

Swet Chem Antibiotics Limited … Appellant Vs.

State of Haryana & Ors. (cid:1)

… Respondents(cid:1)

(ii) RFA No. 905 of 2023 (O&M)

Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgaon . . . . Applicant-Appellant Vs.

Swet Chem Antibiotics Ltd. and others . . . . Respondents ****

Reserved on: 10.12.2025 Pronounced on: 15.12.2025 Pronounced fully/operative part: Fully ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA ****

Argued by: - Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate (cid:1)

For appellant in RFA No. 905 of 2023 and for (cid:1)

Respondents in RFA No. 1151 of 2019.

Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate (cid:1)

For appellant in RFA No. 1151 of 2019 and (cid:1)

For respondents in RFA No. 905 of 2023. (cid:1)

Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG Haryana. (cid:1)

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 02.11.2018 of the Reference Court (learned Additional District Judge, Sonipat), in which the market value of the superstructure existing on the acquired land of Swet Chem Antibiotics Ltd. (hereinafter “Swet Chem”/“petitioner”) was considered.

2. The acquiring authority – Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) challenges the Reference Court’s enhancement of compensation for the superstructure by 25% over and above the amount assessed by the Collector. On the other hand, the land owner (Swet Chem) seeks further enhancement substantially beyond the Reference Court’s figure.

3. Background Facts : The short background of the case is that pursuant to notifications 17.11.2005 & 07.02.2006 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, land in various villages including Asavaspur was acquired for development of Sectors 65–68, Sonipat. By a supplementary award dated 21.04.2009, the Collector assessed the market value of the superstructure on the land of Swet Chem at ₹1,64,56,846/-. Statutory benefits were added and payment of ₹1,97,72,899/- was received by Swet Chem. The petitioner Swet Chem sought reference under Section 18 of the Act challenging the Collector’s assessment.

4. Assessment by Reference Court : Learned Reference Court observed that the value of a superstructure can be ascertained by different methods e.g. income-tax returns, capitalisation of rent, actual cost of construction subject to depreciation/appreciation, and expert opinion and then found that there was no material on record to apply the methods of tax returns, rent capitalisation or actual cost. The only evidence for enhanced valuation relied upon by Swet Chem was the architect/valuer’s report (Ex.P-1) placed on record through PW-2, who assessed the market value of super- structure at ₹6,28,03,500/-. The Reference Court concluded that Ex.P-1 was not a credible or reliable estimate, as it lacked measurements, bill of quantities, source of rates, depreciation analysis and documentary proof of construction cost and that the valuer had not provided the details to prove the basis of his opinion. In those circumstances, applying a well-known practice adopted by this Court in similar cases, the Reference Court awarded an enhancement of 25% over and above the Collector’s valuation and confirmed payment of statutory benefits.

5. Both parties feel aggrieved and filed separate appeals.

6. Landowner - Petitioner’s Contentions : Swet Chem contends that the Reference Court ignored oral and documentary material showing higher value, specifically, that the superstructure was of high quality, incorporated specialized items such as effluent treatment plant, DM plant, foundation works for heavy machinery, rain water harvesting, electrical and mechanical fittings, fencing, internal roads and other improvements, and that retrenchment compensation and loss caused by closure of the unit ought to have been taken into account.

7. Respondent’s (Appellant in RFA 905-2023) contentions: HUDA contends that the Reference Court erred in mechanically enhancing the Collector’s awar