In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Reserved On: 06.02.2025 Pronounced On: 25.02.2025 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Mohali ... Appellant(s)

Versus Hardip Kaur Gill ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present: Mr. R.S Khosla, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aman Sharma, Mr. Chirag Suri and Mr. Yogender Verma, Advocates, for the appellant-GMADA.

Mr. Naresh Kaushal and Mr. Nitish Kaushal, Advocates for the landowners.

Mr. Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Munish Sharma, Advocate for the appellants (In CM-519-CI-2021and RFA-4491-2013)

Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the appellants (In RFA-1124-2013, RFA-1125-2013, RFA-1126-2013, RFA-1409-2013 to RFA-1423-2013, RFA-1424-2013 to RFA-1426, RFA-1988-2013, RFA-1989-

2013, RFA-2283-2013 to RFA-2286-2013, RFA-2288-2013, RFA-2289-2013, RFA-2465-2013 and RFA-2466-2013.

Mr. Tarunveer Vashist, Advocate Mr. Shoryaveer Vashisht, Advocate for the appellants in RFA-4610-2013, RFA-4612-2013, RFA-

4614-2013, RFA-4618-2013 and RFA-4619-2013.

Mr. Manoj Pundir and Mr. Kuldeep Rathee, Advocates for the appellant (In RFA-821-2014) and for the respondents/landowner (In RFA-1460 of 2014).

Mr. Sandeep Dhiman, Advocate for the appellants (In RFA-202-2014 and RFA-203-2014, RFA-4213-2016, RFA-4261-2016 and RFA-1410-2017).

Mr. Nirmal Jangra, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate for the appellant (In RFA-3514-2018).

Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the appellant in RFA-2258-2014 to RFA-2262-2014 and RFA-2434-2014 and RFA-1707-2015.

Mr. Raj Kumar Rathore, Advocate Mr. Kuldeep Rathore, Advocate for the respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 (In RFA-3231-2013) and for respondents No. 1 to 3.

Mr. Ishan Kaushal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. Factual Background

1.1 With the consent of learned counsel representing the parties, a batch of around 484 regular first appeals, the detail whereof is given at the foot of the judgment, shall stand disposed of by a common order.

1.2 These cross appeals have been filed by the landowners as well as the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “GMADA”), the beneficiary of the acquisition. The assessment of the market value of the acquired land is the only issue arising in all these appeals.

1.3 The relevant and necessary details of the acquisition are as under:-

1.4 The learned counsel representing the parties are ad idem that the cases arising from village Manauli are not a part of this batch.

1.5 The declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 was published on 18.01.2005. Through different awards for each of four villages, the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as “the LAC’) on 26.12.2006 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ₹40,00,000/- per acre.

1.6 Being dissatisfied with the award of the LAC, the landowners requested for referring the matter to the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as “the RC”). The various reference petitions were decided by the RC in various bunches. The RC has assessed the market value of the acquired land in respect of four villages, namely Chilla, Mauli Baidwan, Kumbra and Raipur Khurd and the tabulated compilation thereof is extracted as under:-

1.7 The landowners as well as GMADA have assailed the correctness of the market value assessed by the RCs in various awards. The landowners claim that the market value of the acquired land was not less DEEPAK KUMAR BHARtDhWaAnJ ₹5,00,00,000/- per acre. The GMADA on the other hand claims that the RCs have erred in assessing the market value.

filed an application for additional evidence. They wish to produce the various RC’s awards assessing the market value of acquired land by different notifications in villages, namely Manakmajra and Kambala. 2. Evidence produced by the respective parties

2.1 In all these cases, the following witnesses have been examined in oral evidence:-

2.2 Except the sale deeds, the parties have produced the following documentary evidence:-

2.3 On the oth