IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

112+218+257

1. RFA No.526 of 2000 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 06.03.2026 GURDEV SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS.....Appellant(s)

Vs THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, PAYAL ...Respondent(s)

2. RFA No.527 of 2000 (O&M)

DALIP SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR.....Appellant Vs THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, PAYAL ...Respondent(s)

3. RFA No.528 of 2000 (O&M)

MAJOR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. LRS. AND ORS. .Appellants Vs THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, PAYAL & ANR. ...Respondent(s)

4. RFA No.529 of 2000 (O&M)

SATINDER SINGH ….Appellant Vs THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, PAYAL ...Respondent(s)

5. RFA No.593 of 2000 (O&M)

BANT SINGH AND ORS. ….Appellants Vs THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, PAYAL ...Respondent(s)

6. RFA No.832 of 2020 (O&M)

GURDIAL KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER LR….Appellant(s)

Vs THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, PAYAL ...Respondent(s)

7. RFA No.834 of 2020 (O&M)

GOPAL SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS & ORS. ….Appellant(s)

Vs THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, PAYAL AND ORS...Respondent(s)

8. RFA No.592 of 2000 (O&M)

MOHINDER SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS & ORS…Appellant(s)

Vs THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, PAYAL ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate (through V.C.)

Mr. Hardeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant(s)/landowner(s).

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

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. Vide this common order, the aforementioned Regular First Appeals, 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.526 of 2000 (O&M).

[2]. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the Award dated 04.06.1999 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’).

[3]. Briefly stating, in the present case(s), land measuring 255 Bighas and 35 Biswas situated within the revenue estate of village Arraichan, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana, came to be acquired vide Notifications dated 24.03.1994 and 29.03.1994 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act’) respectively, for the public purpose, namely for “setting up an Advance Training Institute and for construction of its buildings.” Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on 17.04.1995, whereby market value of the acquired land was assessed @ Rs.2,13,053/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs.6,39,899/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land along with all other statutory benefits and interests provided under the 1894 Act.

[4]. Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the LAC, the appellant(s)- landowner(s) invoked Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to be partly allowed by the learned Reference Court vide its award dated 04.06.1999, while granting enhanced compensation @ Rs.240/- per sq. yard for the Gair Mumkin land and regarding agricultural land, the Award passed by the LAC was confirmed, besides awarding all other statutory benefits/interest under the 1894 Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of landowners.

[5]. Impugning the aforesaid Award, learned counsel for the appellant(s)/landowner(s) submits that the learned Reference Court erred having discarded the sale instances produced by the appellant(s)/landowner(s) merely for the reason that the same pertained to small parcels of land. Learned counsel relies upon the decision made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Horrmal Vs. State of Haryana, reported as ‘2024(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 758’ to contend that the sale instances pertaining to the small parcels of land were not to be outrightly discarded and could be taken into account for the purpose of determination of market value after applying appropriate deduction towards smallness of area.

[5.1]. Learned counsel further points out that t