IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on:-01.12.2025 Haryana State Industrial Development Corp.

(now HSIIDC) ....Appellant..

vs.

Yudhbir Singh and others ....Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the appellant-HSIIDC.

Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the respondents-landowners.

Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

1. This common judgment of mine shall dispose of the batch of total 16 Regular First Appeals, details whereof are given at the foot of the judgment, as they all involve common question of law and facts.

1.1 For convenience, the facts are being taken from RFA-4727-

2016 (O&M).

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an Award dated 31.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak (for short, “Reference Court”), whereby, reference petition preferred at the instance of respondents-landowner invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “the 1894 Act”), was partly accepted. 2. Brief facts of the case are that some land owned by the respondents-landowner, situated in the revenue estate of Village Kutana, District Rohtak, was acquired vide notifications dated 05.02.2008 and 25.04.2008, issued under Sections 4 & 6 respectively of the 1894 Act, for the public purpose, namely, construction of link road of Industrial Estate, Kutana with Rohtak-Bhiwani link road, Village Kutana, Tehsil and District Rohtak. The total land acquired was 101 kanal 13 marlas. The Land Acquisition Collector vide its Award dated 09.07.2008, assessed the market value of the acquired land and awarded Rs.10,000/- per sq. yards for all types of land.

3. Aggrieved of the same, the respondents-landowners invoked separate reference petitions under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, seeking enhancement of compensation. Upon consideration of the material available on record, the Reference Court vide its Award dated 31.10.2015, partly accepted the reference petitions, enhancing the market value of the acquired land to the tune of Rs.33,75,000/- per acre.

4. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the landowners (seeking enhancement of the compensation) as well as HSIIDC (finding the enhancement excessive, thus, praying for setting aside of the decision of the learned Reference Court), preferred their appeals and cross-appeals, details whereof are given at the bottom of the judgment.

5. Impugning the aforementioned award dated 31.10.2015, learned counsel for the appellant-HSIIDC submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having failed to rely upon the sale exemplars Ex.R-1 and Ex.R- 2, which were produced on record by the appellant and were of the similar nature of land forming part of Rectangle Nos.56 and 57 falling within the revenue estate of Village Kutana. He submits that even the acquired land formed part of Rectangle No.57 and, thus the sale deeds Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 were required to be relied upon.

5.1. Learned counsel also points out that as per Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2, the sale price per acre was around Rs.10-11 lakhs, whereas, the Land Acquisition Collector vide its award dated 09.07.2008 had granted the market value @ Rs.10,000/- per sq. yd., as such, no further increase was required to be granted by the learned Reference Court. Consequently, the appeals preferred at the instance of appellant-HSIIDC need to be allowed, thereby, restoring the award passed by Land Acquisition Collector.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/landowners submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong in discarding the material evidence available on record in the form of sale deeds Ex.P-2 to P-12, which were all related to the same revenue estate of village Kutana and were prior to the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case(s) in hand. He further relies upon the latest decision made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hor