IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1. RFA No.2244 of 2008 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 09.03.2026 KRISHAN LAL AND ORS. .....Appellants Vs STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS COLLECTOR, DISTRICT PANIPAT AND ANR. ...Respondent(s)

2. RFA No.4434 of 2007 (O&M)

STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS COLLECTOR, DISTRICT PANIPAT AND ORS. .....Appellants Vs KRISHAN LAL AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)

3. RFA No.4435 of 2007 (O&M)

STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS COLLECTOR, DISTRICT PANIPAT AND ANR. .....Appellants Vs BALJIT SINGH AND ANR. ...Respondent(s)

4. RFA No.4436 of 2007 (O&M)

STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS COLLECTOR, DISTRICT PANIPAT AND ANR. .....Appellants Vs JAGE AND ANR. ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate and Mr. Atul Dhankar, Advocate for the appellants/landowners.

Mr. Abhinash Jain, D.A.G., Haryana.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. Vide this common order, the aforementioned Regular First Appeals, are being decided as the same 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.2244 of 2008.

[2]. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the Award dated 29.08.2007 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Panipat (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’).

[3]. Briefly stating, in the present case(s), certain land owned by the appellants-landowners, situated within the revenue estate of village Naultha, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat came to be acquired vide Notifications dated 04.05.2001 and 22.01.2002 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act’) respectively for the public purpose, namely, “for the construction of New Balana Minor from RD.0 to 17200 tail off-taking at RD 15350-L, Israna Disty. by Irrigation Department’. Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on 15.01.2003, whereby market value of the acquired land was assessed @ Rs.2,40,000/- per acre along with all other statutory benefits and interests provided under the 1894 Act.

[4]. Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the LAC, the appellants/landowners invoked Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to be partly allowed by the learned Reference Court vide its award dated 29.08.2007, while granting them enhanced compensation @ Rs.3,00,000/- per acre besides awarding all other statutory benefits/interest in their favour under the 1894 Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of landowners as well as respondent/State.

[5]. Impugning the aforesaid Award, learned counsel for the appellants/landowners submits that the learned Reference Court erred having not taken into account the sale instances produced by the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that that the sale deed dated 19.05.2000 (Ex.P-4) which fetched the highest sale price was required to be taken into account while assessing the market value in the case(s) in hand.

[5.1]. Learned counsel also points out that an appreciation @ 15% was to be applied over the base price of the sale deed dated 19.05.2000 (Ex.P-4) for the time gap between the date of aforementioned sale deed and the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, in the present case(s) i.e. 04.05.2001. Accordingly, the market value was required to be re-assessed and enhanced in favour of the appellants/landowners.

[6]. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong in appreciating the pleas and evidence adduced by the appellants/landowners, especially when no justification was given on the part of the learned Reference Court qua enhancing the market value of the acquired land from Rs.2,40,000/-per acre to Rs.3,00,000/- per acre and as such, the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and the Award passed by the LAC was to be restored.

[7]. I have heard learned coun