IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH other connected cases Reserved on: 17.01.2025 Date of decision: 10.03.2025 STATE OF HARYANA& ORS. ..Appellants Versus JAI SINGH AND ORS. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Ms. Safia Gupta, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Manoj Kumar Taye, Advocate Mr. Chirag Wadhwa, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate, Mr. R.K. Hooda, Advocate for the landowners.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Prelude:-

1.1 With the consent of learned counsel representing the parties, a batch of 67 connected regular first appeals along with 2 cross-objections, (detail whereof is given at the foot of the judgment) shall stand disposed of by a common order. The landowners as well as State of Haryana have filed cross-appeals to assail the correctness of market value assessed by the Reference Court (in short ‘RC’) on 15.07.2015, with respect to acquired land measuring 6 bighas and 17 biswas for construction of effluent channel from

8 MLDSTP to Barota Drain.

1.2 The relevant details of the acquisition are as under:-

Sr. No. Particulars Important dates and details

1. Date of Notification under 13.08.2009 Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘1894 Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case:-

2.1 The landowners claim that the market value of the acquired land is not less than Rs.2,00,00,000/- per acre. They submit that the acquired land is surrounded by several industrial and commercial establishment and is located in Karnal City.

2.2 Per contra, learned counsel for State of Haryana submitted that the landowners have failed to produce any sale instance to prove that the market value assessed by the LAC was wrong.

2.3 In oral evidence, the landowners examined PW-1 Ram Kumar Kamboj (draftsman), PW-2 Shakti Singh, PW-3 Vikram Singh (clerk). They also produced the following documents:-

2.4 In oral evidence, the State of Haryana examined RW-1 Ved Pal, SDE, Public Health, Sub-Division No.4, Karnal, and produced the following documents:-

2.5 The RC found that the assessment of market value by the RC vide awards Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 are not relevant as these pertain to parcels of land, which are at a significant distance from the land acquired in the present cases. While relying upon entry No.52 in the Collector’s rate list (Ex.P-2), the RC has proceeded to assess the market value at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per sq. Yard while ignoring three sale instances produced by the State on the ground that these sale instances reflect price lower than the amount awarded by the LAC.

3. Arguments addressed:-

3.1 Sh. R.K. Hooda, learned counsel representing some of the landowners has also filed a written note of his submissions, which has been perused.

3.2 Learned counsel representing the appellant has submitted that the Collectors rates are always on the lower side, hence, the RC has erred in assessing the market value on that basis. It is further submitted that the property in question has potential to be used for commercial, industrial and residential purpose, hence, the compensation has been wrongly assessed on the basis of minimum rates fixed by the Collector. It is further submitted that the rates in the residential area were around Rs.3,500/- per sq. yard, which has been ignored by the Court. At the end, it is contended that the proper value of the trees and tube-wells has not been awarded.

3.3 Per contra, learned counsel for the State of Haryana contends that the RC has erred in relying upon Collectors rates

4. Analysis and Discussion:-

4.1 The RC has committed error in relying upon Collector’s rate, which is not permissible. The Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. M/s Nemichand Damodardas and others, 2022 AIR (SC) 3458, has categorically held that the instructions issued by the government for the purpose of determining stamp duty cannot be relied upon to assess the market value. The Supreme Court also relied upon its previous ju