IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 09, 2026 STATE OF HARYANA ........Appellant Versus HARI RAM ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.

None for the respondent(s)-landowner(s).

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

Vide this common order, a batch of 3 Regular First Appeals shall stand disposed of, details whereof are mentioned in the footnote of the judgment. For convenience, the facts are drawn from RFA-768-2000.

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 05.08.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon (for short ‘Reference Court’) whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the appellant(s) was partly allowed.

2. In the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 14.06.1986 (published on 15.07.1986) and under Section 6 issued on 14.11.1986 (published on 01.12.1986) followed by passing of award on 25.03.1987 for land measuring 4.36 acres situated in revenue estate of village Bhonkarka, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The acquisition was carried out for the public purpose namely for construction of road from village Bhonkarka to Parasoli in Gurgaon District.

3. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of respondents-

landowners.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant(s)-State submits that the learned Reference Court failed to take into account sale deeds Exs.R-1 and R-2 dated 16.07.1985 and 11.07.1985 vide which the alienation was made @Rs.26,607/- per acre and Rs.28,000/- per acre respectively for that in view of the two aforesaid sale instances, no interference was called for with the award passed by the LAC who determined the market value @Rs.30,080/- per acre for chahi, gair mumkin plots and Rs.16,000/- per acre for banjar and gair mumkin rasta in favour of respondent-landowners. Learned counsel also points out that the learned Reference Court went wrong having relied upon the sale instance Ex.P-1 dated 28.07.1986 which was apparently post notification and thus, prays for setting aside of the impugned award assessing the market value in favour of landowners to the extent of Rs.48,000/- per acre for all kinds of land besides granting all other statutory benefits under the Act.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant(s)-State and gone through the paper-book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s)-State.

6. A perusal of record shows that learned Reference Court while granting market value @ Rs.48,000/- per acre in favour of respondent(s)- landowner(s) relied upon sale instance Ex.P-1 dated 28.07.1986 vide which 1 acre of land was sold for Rs.60,000/- in the same revenue estate of village Bhonkarka. The date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand is 15.07.1986 i.e. 13 days prior to the date of sale instance Ex.P-1. In such circumstances, no illegality or perversity can be found with the judicial discretion exercised by the learned Reference Court for having placed reliance upon the sale instance Ex.P-1 dated 28.07.1986 which, in terms of time, was in close proximity to the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand. Moreover, for the time gap of 13 days between date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act and date of sale instance Ex.P-1, learned Reference Court had already applied deduction of around 20% over the sale consideration of Rs.60,000/- per acre as depicted in sale instance Ex.P-1 dated 28.07.1986.

7. Furthermore, the sale instance Exs.R1 and R-2 dated 16.07.1985 and 11.07.1985 respectively whereby, sale price per acre ranges between Rs.26,000/- to Rs.28,000/- need not be relied upon especially, when the respondent(s)-landowner(s) have already proved on record the sale instance Ex.P-1 dated 28.07.1986 vide which 1 acre of was sold for a