IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-1374-1997 (O&M) Decided on:-12.02.2026 Ramesh Chand ...Appellant.

vs.

State of Haryana and another ...Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 10.03.1997 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra (for short, “Reference Court”), whereby, reference petition preferred at the instance of appellant-landowner invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “1894 Act”), was partly accepted.

2. Brief facts of the case are that some land owned by the appellant-landowner, situated in the revenue estate of Village Darra Kalan, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra was acquired vide notifications dated 05.11.1971 (published on 16.11.1971) and 15.12.1972 (published on 09.01.1973) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land 1894 Act, respectively, for the public purpose, namely, “construction of Thanesar-Pehowa Road to village Salarpur”. The total land under acquisition was 6.5 acres. However, upon the measurement by the field staff, the area under acquisition was found to be 2.40 acres. Vide award dated 26.08.1986, the Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value @ Rs.9,600/- per acre for chahi land and Rs.8000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin sarak.

3. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant-landowner invoked separate reference petition under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, seeking enhancement of compensation. Upon consideration of the material available on record, the Reference Court vide its Award dated 10.03.1997, granted the benefit of enhanced compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre besides all other statutory benefits.

4. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award passed by the ld.

Reference Court, the appellant-landowner preferred the present appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book.

6. No illegality or perversity can be found in the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court while having discarded the previous award Ex.P-1 and judgment of this Court Ex.P-2. The award dated 30.03.1993 (Ex.P-1) rendered by the Reference Court related to acquisition proceedings which commenced vide notification dated 15.09.1987 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, whereas, in judgment of this Court dated 14.03.1990 (Ex.P-2), the land acquired was not related to the area adjoining the vicinity of the acquired land in the present case. In such circumstances, while taking into account the locational and potential value attached to the land which was surrounded by the commercial establishments at that point in time, the market value awarded at the uniform rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre is found to be just and fair.

7. In view of the discussion made herein above, there being no misreading or mis-interpretation of evidence available on record by the learned Reference Court, no interference is called for. Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.

8. Pending application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of.

12.02.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)

sonika JUDGE (i)Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable: Yes/ No