IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.02.2026 GURBACHAN SINGH AND ORS. ......Appellants Vs STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR, HOSHIARPUR AND ORS.

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award dated 02.04.1998 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’).

[2]. Briefly stating, in the present case, land measuring 3 Kanals situated within the revenue estate of village Pur-Hiran, Hadbast No.251, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, came to be acquired vide Notifications dated 04.06.1993 and 11.06.1993 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act’) respectively for the public purpose namely for “construction of Ring Road Phase II (Group III) connecting Mahilpur-Hoshiarpur and Hoshiarpur-Phagwara Road.” Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on 09.06.1995, thereby determining the market value of the acquired land as under:-

“Kind of land Rate per acre Chahi Rs.98240/- per acre Barani Rs.63,280/- per acre Gair Mumkin Rasta Rs.63,280/- per acre”

[3]. Aggrieved thereof, 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 02.04.1998, while granting them enhanced compensation @ Rs.1,16,000/- per acre for chahi land besides awarding all other statutory benefits/interest in their favour under the 1894 Act. Dis-satisfied with the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeal was preferred at the instance of landowners.

[4]. Impugning the aforesaid Award, learned counsel for the appellants/landowners submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having discarded the sale deeds dated 02.11.1992 (Ex.A-3) and 10.08.1992 (Ex.A-4) which were both pertaining to the same revenue estate of village Pur-Hiran. Learned counsel further submits that based on the aforesaid evidence, the market value of the acquired land was required to be re-determined and the present appeal was, thus liable to be allowed.

[5]. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that there is no illegality or perversity with the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court having ignored the sale deeds dated 02.11.1992 (Ex.A-3) and 10.08.1992 (Ex.A-4). Learned State counsel points out that since the location of the land parcels forming part of aforementioned sale deeds in comparison to the land under acquisition was not established on record, as such the said sale transactions were not to be relied upon for the purposes of determination of market value and thus, the impugned Award passed by the learned Reference Court calls for no interference.

[6]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as records of the case(s). I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants/landowners.

[7]. A perusal of the records shows that in the present case vide Notifications dated 04.06.1993 and 11.06.1993 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act’) respectively, 03 Kanals of land forming part of village Pur-Hiran, Hadbast No.251, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur was acquired for the public purpose namely for construction of Ring Road Phase II (Group III) connecting Mahilpur-Hoshiarpur and Hoshiarpur- Phagwara Road. In order to prove their claim, the appellants/landowners proved on record the following sale deeds:-

[8]. No doubt, the appellants/landowners did not produce any site plan to establish the comparative location and proximity of the land parcels forming part of the sale instances Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4 in relation to the acquired land parcel. However, a perusal