##PAGE1##

118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RFA No. 2459 of 2002 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 30.01.2026

Gopi Chand and others

...Appellants

Versus

The State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate,

for the appellants.

Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana

for the respondent.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

The appellants-landowners, by instituting the present

appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(for short “1894 Act”), are seeking modification of the award dated

10.01.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon

(hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”) for

enhancement of compensation amount.

[2] Briefly, the facts are that in pursuance of Haryana Govt.

Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act issued on 20.04.1990,

followed by Notification dated 18.04.1991 under Section 6 thereof,

certain land of the appellants-landowners, situated within the revenue

estate of Village Jharsa, District Gurgaon, was acquired. The

acquisition was made for public purpose, namely, for the development

and utilization of land for residential, commercial, institutional and

open spaces/recreational area at Gurgaon. The Land Acquisition

1 of 3

::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2026 22:36:39 :::

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -2-(cid:4)

(cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)

Collector, Gurgaon (for short “LAC”) vide Award No. 8, dated

23.03.1993, assessed the market value of the acquired land

alongwith other statutory benefits as under:-

Sr. Kind of land Market Value per

No. acre (in Rs.)

Village: Jharsa

1. Chahi 4,00,000.00

2. Magda 3,50,000.00

3. Bhood 3,00,000.00

4. Gair Mumkin 2,50,000.00

Villages: Bindapur, Samaspur and Kanhai

1. Chahi 1,50,000.00

2. Magda 1,25,000.00

3. Banjar & Gair Mumkin 1,00,000.00

[3] Aggrieved of the aforesaid Award, landowners /

interested persons filed objection under Section 18 of the Act of 1894,

which was accepted vide decision dated 01.12.1998 by the learned

Reference Court, thereby enhancing the market value at the rate of

Rs. 212/- per square yard besides other statutory benefits.

[4] Dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision of the learned

Reference Court, the present appeal has been preferred at the

instance of appellants-landowners.

[5] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having

gone through the paper-book / records, no case for interference in the

impugned award is made out.

[6] A perusal of the record shows that the appellants-

landowners have been awarded the market value at the rate of

Rs.212/- per square yard while relying upon the judgment dated

03.06.1999 passed by this Court in RFA-883 of 1999, titled “State of

Haryana Versus Dilbagh and others”. The said determination

relates to the same notification dated 20.04.1990 issued under

2 of 3

::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2026 22:36:39 :::

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -3-(cid:4)

(cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)

Section 4 of the 1894 Act as well as the same award dated

23.03.1993 in the case at hand.

[7] Further, learned State Counsel, on instructions, has very

categorically submitted that there is no alternation made to the

determination dated 03.06.1999 passed in Dilbagh Singh’s case

(supra) either by way of any Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) or by the

Hon’ble Apex Court.

[8] Consequently, in the considered opinion of this Court, no

case for interference with th