IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.2500 of 2018 (O&M)

with other connected cases.

Date of Decision: 04.02.2026 FAUJA SINGH & OTHERS ......Appellants Vs THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate Mr. Rahul, Advocate Mr. Munish Sharma, Advocate Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate Ms. Samriti Jain, Advocate Mr. Anmol Rattan S. Dhillon, Advocate for the appellants/landowners.

Mr. Abhinash Jain, D.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Saachi Mahajan, Advocate Ms. Amrit Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. Vide this common order, a bunch of 19 Regular First Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving identical facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.2500 of 2018.

[2]. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the Award dated 06.12.2017 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Karnal (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’).

[3]. Briefly stating, in the present case(s), land measuring 298 Kanals 02 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Assandh, H.B. No.84, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal, came to be acquired vide Notifications dated 28.06.2012 and 24.06.2013 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act’) respectively for the public purpose namely for the extension of New Grain Market at Assandh. An Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on 23.06.2015, thereby determining the market value @ Rs.30,00,000/- per acre for the land acquired upto the depth of two acres from the main Karnal-Assandh Road and Rs.25,00,000/-per acre behind two acres from the main Karnal-Assandh Road, for all kinds of land besides, award of all other statutory benefits including 100% solatium and additional amount of 12%

p.a. on the compensation as well as the statutory interests.

[4]. Dis-satisfied with the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants/landowners invoked Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to be partly allowed by the learned Reference Court vide its award dated 06.12.2017, while granting them enhanced compensation @ Rs.44,23,993/- per acre for the land which was situated upto the depth of two acres from the main Karnal-Assandh Road and Rs.39,23,993/-per acre for the remaining land which was situated beyond the depth of two acres from the main Karnal-Assandh Road. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of landowners as well as the respondents.

[5]. Impugning the aforesaid Award, learned Senior counsel representing the appellants/landowners submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having taken into account the average sale price of the sale deeds dated 29.12.2011 (Ex.PW6/B), 26.03.2012 (Ex.PW6/C) and 22.06.2012 (Ex.R-4). Learned Senior counsel submits that in view of the settled law, the sale exemplar fetching the highest of sale price was required to be taken into account. Learned Senior counsel further submits that as per records, part of land parcel from Khasra No.164//16/2 was alienated vide sale exemplar Ex.PW6/B and the said khasra number even formed part of the acquired land. Learned Senior counsel, thus submits that the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court were wrong to the effect that the land parcel forming part of sale exemplar Ex.PW6/B was located far away from the acquired land. He thus, submits that the market value in the case in hand was required to be adjudged by placing reliance upon Ex.PW6/B only, rather than taking average of the three sale deeds i.e. Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C and Ex.R-4.

[5.1]. Learned Senior counsel further submits that that there exists a time gap of six months between the