##PAGE1##

1 RFA-4152-2013 (O&M) and other connected cases

111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RFA-4152-2013 (O&M) and other connected cases

Date of Decision: December 23, 2025

RAJIV AND ORS ........Appellants

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. S.P. Tyagi, Advocate,

Mr. Anil Dutt, Advocate and

Mr. Rajender Chhokar, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Anand Singh, Advocate for the appellants

in RFA Nos.1007/2014, 4029 and 4030 of 2013.

Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the appellants

in RFA Nos.4034 and 4035 of 2013.

Mr. Abhishek Yadav, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate and

Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

CM-1062-CI-2020

Present application is for seeking permission to produce and

prove the documents i.e. Exs. A-1 to A-8 as additional evidence.

Notice of the application was issued to respondents (HAFED)

and reply to the same stands filed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the contents of the application. Considering the authenticity and

genuineness of documents which mainly form part of official records and

the veracity thereof, having not been assailed by the respondents, the

TEJWINDER SINGH

2025.12.24 18:51

I agree to specified portions

of this document

2 RFA-4152-2013 (O&M) and other connected cases

prayer made in the application is allowed and documents i.e. Annexures

A-1 to A-6 and A-8 are taken on record as additional evidence. Otherwise

also the documents sought to be produced are going to help the Court to

adjudicate the appeal in hand in a more effective manner.

Besides it, site plan (Ex. R-1) is also taken on record as the

same would assist this Court in determining the fair and just market

value.

MAIN CASE

A batch of 7 connected Regular First Appeals (details whereof

are given on the foot of the judgment) shall stand disposed of by this

common order, as they involve common question of law and facts.

For convenience, the facts are being taken from RFA-4152-

2013.

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the

judgment dated 14.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional District

Judge, Sonipat, whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the

appellants-landowners, seeking enhancement of compensation was

dismissed.

2. Briefly stating, land measuring 1 acre 5 kanals, situated within

the revenue estate of Village Ganaur, Hadbast No.104, Tehsil Ganaur

and District Sonipat was acquired for the public purpose for

establishment of new Vegetable Market at Ganuar vide notifications

dated 06.10.2006 and 10.07.2007 issued under Sections 4 and 6

respectively of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’)

passed Award No.10 dated 19.09.2008 assessing the market value at the

rate of Rs.35,00,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits.

TEJWINDER SINGH

2025.12.24 18:51

I agree to specified portions

of this document

3 RFA-4152-2013 (O&M) and other connected cases

3. The appellant(s)-landowner(s), feeling dissatisfied with the

award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act pleading that the

LAC had not taken into consideration all relevant facts as the market

value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.2.5 crores and the same

falls in National Capital Region (NCR). Moreover, it was pleaded that the

acquired land was situated adjacent to GT Road National Highway and

thus had potential for residential and also for commercial purpose.

4. Upon notice, respondent No.3 filed written statement stating

that LAC rightly awarded the compensation as the acquired land was

agricultural in nature and formed part of the controlled area under the

provisions of Act No.41 of 1963.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues

were framed by learned Reference Court:-

“1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to amount claimed

in their petitions for acquired land as market value has

not been paid by La