The Authority or Court, while exercising adjudicatory jurisdiction under Section 64 of the 2013 Act, is not strictly bound by the methodology prescribed in Section 26 for the Collector. It retains independent power to determine just and fair market value based on all available evidence and judicial principles.

This order shall dispose off the present nineteen (19) appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1182, 1183, 1184, 1189, 1190, 1192, 1193, 1202, 1204, 1206, 1207, 1210, 1218, 1219 & 1220 of 2024; 7, 14, 38 & 105 of 2025); as the same arise out of common acquisition / award.

In all appeals, the appellant(s)-landowner(s) are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.

The appellant(s)-landowner(s), by way of present appeal(s) preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “1894 Act”), seek modification of the award dated 02.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”), for enhancement of compensation amount.

FACTS

The relevant date(s) / particulars of the acquisitions are as under:-

Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award dated 02.08.2024 passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeal(s) have been preferred at the instance of appellant(s)-landowner(s).

CONTENTION(S):

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S)-LANDOWNER(S)

Impugning the aforesaid award dated 02.08.2024, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant(s)-landowner(s) submits that the learned Reference Court erred having discarded the sale deeds produced by the appellant(s)-landowner(s), especially when the majority of such sale deeds pertained to the acquired land parcel itself. Learned Senior Counsel also points out that the parameters laid down under Section 26 of The Right To Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “2013 Act”) are though required to be followed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Ambala (for brevity “LAC”), however, the same in no manner restrict or regulate the scope of the jurisdiction vested with the ‘Authority’ adjudicating upon the application preferred under Section 64 of the 2013 Act by the appellant(s)-landowner(s). Learned Senior Counsel thus submits that the re-determination of the market value in the case(s) in hand was required to be made by relying upon the sale instances produced by the appellant(s)-landowner(s), especially the one fetching highest of the sale consideration.

No other point has been raised on behalf of the appellant(s)-landowner(s).

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT(S)-STATE OF HARYANA

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent(s)-State of Haryana submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and the pleadings available on record; the learned Reference Court rightly relied upon the sale exemplars Exhibit R-1 & Exhibit R-2; as such, no modification therein is required and thus, the present appeals are liable to be dismissed. Learned State Counsel also contends that as the award dated 13.10.2014 was passed by the LAC under the provisions of the 2013 Act, the objections preferred at the hands of aggrieved landowners were to be dealt strictly within terms of Section 26 thereof.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the paper-book / records, I find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant(s)-landowner(s).

In the present case(s), though the acqu