IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 27, 2026 SADA RAM AND ORS ......Appellants Versus HARYANA STATE AND ANR. ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Shivam Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 10.02.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhari, 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 1.20 acres, situated within the revenue estate of Village Jathlana, District Jagadhari was acquired for the public purpose for construction of link road from Jathlana to Harijan Basti vide notifications dated 18.12.1984 (published on 15.01.1985) and 22.04.1986 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award dated 23.03.1987 assessing the market value at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre for chahi land and Rs.80,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land along with other statutory benefits.

3. The appellants-landowners, feeling dissatisfied with the award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act pleading that the price of land was not less than Rs.80,000/- per Kanal as the land was situated near abadi deh of village Jathlana. Moreover, it was pleaded that the land was fit for commercial purpose and rice sheller was in existence near the land.

4. Upon notice, the same was contested by the respondents- State and it was contended that there was no abadi or commercial establishment existing near the acquired land and on the contrary, construction of link road greatly benefitted the landowners, thus, the award passed by the LAC was fair and adequate.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Reference Court on 09.06.1997:-

“1. What was the market value of the acquired of land in question on the date of publication of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP

2. Relief.”

6. Upon framing of issues, the petitioners examined Sunder Lal as PW1, Budh Ram as PW2 and Lal Singh Datana as PW3 and tendered some documents in evidence. On the other hand, respondents examined Balbir Raj Kanungo PWD (B&R) and tendered sale deeds Ex.R-1 to R-4 in evidence.

7. After considering the evidence, the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhari, vide award dated 10.02.1998 upheld the compensation granted by LAC and dismissed the reference petition.

8. Aggrieved of the aforesaid award dated 10.02.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhari, the appellants-

landowners filed the present appeal.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants-landowners.

10. A perusal of record shows that vide sale deed Ex.P-2 dated 01.10.1983, 1 kanal of land forming part of same revenue estate of Village Jathlana, District Kurukshetra was sold for Rs.45,000/- and the base price thereof was Rs.3,60,000/- per acre, however, the same was not taken into consideration by the learned Reference Court and was wrongly discarded. In the given facts, the sale deed Ex.P2 thus needs to be taken into account as the best available sale exampler. Taking into consideration the fact that total acquired land was 1.2 acres whereas, land forming part of sale instance Ex.P-2 measures 1 kanal; an appropriate cut @ 60% needs to be applied towards smallness of land forming part of village Jathlana, District Kurukshetra.

11. Further, the fact that since the total land measuring 1.20 acres was acquired for public purpose of construction of road from Jathlana to Harijan Basti, the State did not suffer any loss of land or expense towards providing of additional in