IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-4607-2018 Date of Decision: September 09, 2025 SHRI CHAND SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS ........Appellants Versus STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH COLLECTOR HISAR AND ORS.

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

Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate with Mr. Deepak Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

A batch of 9 connected Regular First Appeals (details whereof are given on the foot of the judgment) shall stand disposed of by this common order, as they involve common question of law and facts.

For convenience, the facts are being taken from RFA-4607-

2018.

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the award dated 04.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, whereby the reference petitions filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1894 Act’) by the appellants-petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation were dismissed.

2. Briefly stating, the land measuring 9.85 acres, situated within the revenue estate of Village Surewala, Tehsil and District Hisar was acquired for the purpose of construction of godowns for HAFED vide notification dated 08.01.2002 and 01.04.2002 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of 1894 Act. The Land Acquisition Collector passed Award No. 1 dated 31.03.2004 assessing the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre up to the depth of one acre from the main road and Rs.3,00,000/- per acre for the remaining land.

3. The appellants-petitioners, feeling dissatisfied with the award, sought reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act before the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, pleading that the market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.500/- per square yard as the nearby land was already acquired for the purpose of Anaj Mandi, Uklana. Moreover, the land so acquired was situated on Hisar-Chandigarh Road and thus, was having a great potential value for residential, commercial and industrial use.

4. Upon notice, respondents filed a written statement wherein it was stated that the Land Acquisition Collector rightly awarded the compensation as the acquired land was purely agricultural in nature and the same was not situated on Hisar-Chandigarh road, thus, no potential value was attached to it.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned trial Court on 07.01.2012:-

“1. What was the market value of the acquired at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and as to whether the petitioner/petitioners is/are entitled to compensation as prayed and to what extent? OPP

2. Whether the petition is barred by time? OPP

3. Relief.”

6. In order to prove their case, the petitioners examined witnesses viz. Mr. Dharambir Architect as PW-1, Vijay Singh-PW2, Chajju Ram as PW-3, Rajbir Poonia as PW-4, Roshan Lal-Patwari as PW5 and Ram Kala as PW-6. On the other hand, the respondents examined RW-1 Joginer Singh-Manager.

8. After considering the evidence, the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide award dated 01.11.2014 partly accepted the petitions and fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.5 lakhs per acre as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act. Aggrieved of the award dated 01.11.2014, the respondents filed RFA- 3261-2015 before this Court whereby, vide decision dated 14.09.2017, award dated 01.11.2014 was set aside and the matter was remitted to learned trial Court for reconsideration with one effective opportunity to each party to adduce their respective evidence. Consequently, the petitioners examined Bhup Singh-Patwari as PW1, Dharambir-Draftsman as PW8 and Satish Kumar as PW9. On the other hand, respondents examined Rameshwar Dass-Manager as RW-2 and tendered certain documents in evidence.

9. Vide order date