IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.4229 of 1998 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 17.04.2026 SMT. PUSHPA DEVI AND OTHERS .....Appellants.

Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ...Respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Advocate for the appellants-landowners.

Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Addl. A.G., Haryana and Mr. Nischal Chetanya Manchanda, Advocate for the respondent.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award dated 14.09.1998 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’) whereby, reference petition preferred at the instance of appellants-landowners invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “1894 Act”), was dismissed.

[2]. Briefly stating, in the present case, certain land owned by the appellants/landowners, situated within the revenue estate of village Bohra Kalan, Tehsil Gurgaon was acquired vide Notifications dated 22.12.1986 and 19.11.1987 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act’) respectively for the public purpose, namely, “for construction of a road from Bohra Kalan to Ghosgarh”. Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on 12.12.1989, whereby market value of the acquired land was assessed @ Rs.60,000/- per acre for chahi land besides granting all other statutory benefits under the 1894 Act.

[3]. Feeling dissatisfied with the award passed by the LAC, the landowners preferred reference petition under Section 18 of the 1894 Act seeking enhancement of compensation. Upon consideration of the material available on record, the learned Reference Court vide its decision dated 14.09.1998 dismissed the reference petition(s). Aggrieved of the aforesaid decision of the learned Reference Court, the present appeal was preferred at the instance of landowners.

CONTENTION(S):

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-LANDOWNERS: -

[4]. Impugning the aforesaid award, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-landowners submits that the learned Reference Court erred having discarded the sale deeds produced by the landowners in the form of Exs.P-1 and P-2 solely on the ground that only the certified copies thereof were brought on record whereas neither the vendor nor the vendee were examined. He further submits that the learned Reference Court erred not taking into account the fact that the acquired land was situated in village Bohra Kalan which was adjacent to National Highway No. 8 and various industrial establishments were existing prior to the acquisition, as such, the acquired land possessed significant locational and potential value. He thus, prays that on the basis of evidence on record, the market value was required to be re-assessed and the appeal preferred at the instance of landowners was to be allowed.

CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE:-

[5]. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the State submits that as per the sale instances produced by the respondent-State in the form of Exs.R-1 to R-3, the maximum market value of the acquired land was Rs.44,000/- per acre and since the LAC himself assessed the market value @ Rs. 60,000/- per acre, the appellants- landowners were sufficiently compensated and thus, no interference was warranted with the decision of the learned Reference Court. Learned Senior Counsel thus prays that the appeal preferred at the instance of the landowners was to be dismissed.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING: -

[6]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as records of the case(s). I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant/landowner.

[7]. Before proceeding further, details of the sale instances produced by the landowners as well as State in furtherance of their claims are reproduced hereunder:-

Sale deeds produced by the landowners:-

Sale deeds produced by the St