Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narpinder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 16 March, 2026
RFA-797
797-2014
2014 (O&M) & other connected cases [1]
140 (5 cases)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
*****
RFA
RFA-797-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 16.03.2026
Narpinder Singh .......Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and anr. ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abhishek Shukla, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.
-.-
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
Vide this common order, a bunch of 05 Regular First Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For the sake ake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.797-2014.
2. By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 20.04.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as ''the the Reference ce Court').
Court
3. Briefly stating, 43K-09M 09M of land situated within the revenue estates of Village Patti Jattan, Hadbast No. 38 (area 23K-
23K MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.25 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-797 797-2014 2014 (O&M) & other connected cases [2] 19M) and Village Devi Nagar, Hadbast No.37 (area 19K-10M),, Tehsil and District Ambala, was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated 26.03.2008 and 26.09.2008, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ''the the Act')) respectively, for public purpose, namely, ""for construction of Sewerage Treatment Plant for Ward No.5 and 31 at Village Patti Jattan/ Devi Nagar".
Nagar". The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ''the the LAC')) vide award dated 23.12.2008 assessed the market value of the acquired land at a rate of Rs.8,00,000/ Rs.8,00,000/- per acre, besides all other statutory benefits under the Act.
4. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ landowners filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be dismissed by the learned Reference Court vide its decision dated 20.04.2013, affirming the market value of the acquired land as assessed by the LAC.
5. Aggrieved of the decision of the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners.
CONTENTION(S):
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S) APPELLANT(S)-LANDOWNER(S):-
6. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/landowners submits that the learned Reference Court erred while discarding the sale MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.25 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-797 797-2014 2014 (O&M) & other connected cases [3] instances produced by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) on the ground that the said transactions tions were effected through property consultants in the names of developers and did not involve agriculturists as purchasers. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the learned Reference Court ought to have relied upon the sale price per acre as reflected cted in Exs. P-1 P to P-6 6 and not the status of the purchaser;
purchaser unless any doubt regarding the consideration mentioned therein was established on record.
6.1. Learned Senior counsel also points out that the learned Reference Court failed to take into account the site plan Ex.PW7/A which clearly depicted the location of the acquired land vis-a-vis the land forming part of the sale instances Exs.P Exs.P-1 to P-6.
6. He submits that a perusal of the site plan Ex. PW7/A established that the acquired land was abutting the National Highway leading from Delhi to Amritsar, whereas the land parcels forming part of the sale instances Exs. P-1 P to P-6 6 were situated at a distance of approximately 11 to 12 acres away from the said highway and thus, thus the acquired land was having comparatively ratively higher potential value. 6.2. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the learned Reference Court erred having taken into account the sale instance Exs.R1 to R3, wherein the alienation was made against the sale consideration equivalent to the Collector rate. He asserts that the sale instances Exs.R-1 Exs.R to Ex.R-3 3 were apparently executed for lesser sale MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.25 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-797 797-2014 2014 (O&M) & other connected cases [4] consideration to avoid the payment of stamp duty and did not reflect the prevailing market value at the relevant time, thus, were liable to be discarded.
carded. In view of the aforesaid, learned Senior counsel submits that the market value of the acquired land in the case(s) in hand was required to be re-assessed re assessed on the basis of the material evidence available on record in the form of sale deeds Exs. P P-1 to o P-
P 6 and the site plan Ex.PW7/A. He thus prays that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was to be set aside and the present appeals were to be allowed. ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S) RESPONDENT(S)-STATE:-
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing o on n behalf of the respondent(s) State submits that no interference was warranted with respondent(s)-State the well-reasoned reasoned award passed by the learned Reference Court Court,, the same being based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record in the form of sale deeds Exs.R Exs.R-1 to R-3 3 as per which, the price per acre of the land forming part of Devi Nagar was around Rs.8 lakhs per acre. He thus submits that the appeal(s) prefer preferred red at the instance of appellant(s)-landowner(s) appellant(s) landowner(s) were liable to be dismissed. No other argument was as advanced by learned counsel for the respondent(s) respondent(s)-State.
DISCUSSION AND REASONING: -
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.
p book. I find substance in the submissions made MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.25 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-797 797-2014 2014 (O&M) & other connected cases [5] on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant(s) appellant(s)-landowner(s).
9. A perusal of the record shows that the land in the case(s) in hand was acquired vide notification dated 26.03.2008 under Section 4 the Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''present present acquisition'), for public purpose, namely, ""for construction of acquisition'), Sewerage Treatment Plant for Ward No.5 and 31 in revenue estates of Village Patti Jattan and Village Devi Nagar, Tehsil and District Ambala. Admittedly, Admittedly, approximately eight months prior thereto,, vide separate notification dated 10.07.2007 under Section 4 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'previous 'previous acquisition acquisition'), '), land from the revenue estate of Village Patti Jattan, District Ambala was acquired acquir for public purpose, namely, "for "for development of new Sabzi Mandi (fruits and vegetable market,) Ambala Ambala".
". For convenience, a comparative chart of the minimum details pertaining to the two acquisitions are given below:-
below:
Previous Acquisition Present Acquisition ition Date of Notification u/s 4 10.07.2007 26.03.2008 Date of Notification u/s 6 21.01.2008 26.09.2008 Area 25 Acres 3 kanals 13 43K-9M marlas Village H.B.No.38, Patti Jattan H.B. Nos.37 and 38 Patti Distt. Ambala Jattan and Devi Nagar, Distt. Ambala Purpose Construction of new Fruit Construction of and Vegetable market, Sewerage Treatment Ambala. Plant for Ward Nos.5 and 31 at both villages.
Date of LAC Award 11.03.2008 23.12.2008 Compensation awarded Rs.12 lakhs per acre Rs.8 lakhs per acre.
by LAC upto depth of 2 acres
from G.T. Road and Rs.8
lakhs per acre for the
remaining.
Date of ld. Reference 21.09.2011 20.04.2013
MOHMED ATIK
2026.03.25 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgmemtt
RFA-797
797-2014
2014 (O&M) & other connected cases [6]
Court Award
Compensation awarded Rs.19.20 lakhs per acre Dismissed
by Reference Court upto depth of 2 acres
from Highway and Rs.16
lakhs per acre for the
remaining.
Order of High Court 26.04.2019 (RFA
(RFA-7876- 26.04.2019
2011)
Compensation awarded Rs.37.87 lakhs per acre Rs.31.50 lakhs per acre
by HC
Date of decision of 14.07.2021 14.07.2021
Hon'ble Supreme Court
Decision of Hon'ble Give liberty to both Rs.42,00,000/-
Apex Court parties to file review
petitions before High
Court
9.1. The above chart clearly reflects that the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its decision dated 14.07.2021 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.
2527-2541 2541-2021 titled as Jasmer Singh since deceased through his LRs etc. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.
ors.,, assessed the market value @ Rs.42 lakhs per acre in relation to the notification dated 10.07.2007 pertaining to the revenue estate of Village Patti Jattan. 9.2. Furthermore, from the perusal of the site plan Ex.PW7/A, it can be discerned that the land parcels forming part of both the previous and present acquisitions were abutting the National Highway leading from New Delhi to Amritsar and were located in close geographical proximity to each other. In such circumstances, the determination made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in relation to the previous acquisition commenced vide notification dated 10.07.2007 pertaining to the same revenue estate of Village Patti Jattan can be safely relied upon for assessing the market value in the present case(s).
MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.25 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-797 797-2014 2014 (O&M) & other connected cases [7]
10. Similarly, on the other hand, if the market value is assessed on the basis of the evidence available on record in the present case(s); it would be relevant to take note of the sale instances produced by the appellants and the respondents in order to substantiate their effective claims, the details thereof are extracted hereunder:
hereunder:-
SALE DEEDS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT(S) APPELLANT(S)-LANDOWNER(S) Exhibits Date of Area Sale Rate per acre Revenue of sale execution consideration Estate deeds Ex.P1 23.08.2007 4K-13M Rs.37,40,000/ Rs.37,40,000/- Rs.64,34,408.6/- Patti Jattan Ex.P2 0 05.10.2007 29K-11M Rs.2,32,70,625/ Rs.2,32,70,625/- Rs.63,00,000/- Patti Jattan Ex.P3 17.04.2008 3K-13M Rs.36,95,625/ Rs.36,95,625/- Rs.81,00,000/- Patti Sekhan Ex.P4 13.07.2007 9 marlas Rs.3,43,688/ Rs.3,43,688/- Rs.61,10,008/- Patti Jattan Ex.P5 23.08.2007 22K-18M Rs.4,49,60,000/ Rs.4,49,60,000/- Rs1,57,06,550/- Patti Jattan Ex.P6 23.09.2008 35K-7M Rs.4,64,29,688/ Rs.4,64,29,688/- Rs.1,05,07,426/- Patti Jattan SALE DEEDS PRODUED BY THE RESPONDENT(S) RESPONDENT(S)-STATE Ex.R1 10.01.2008 01K-11M Rs.1,70,000/ Rs.1,70,000/- Rs.8,00,000/- Devi Nagar Ex.R2 10.06.2008 00K-14M Rs.2,00,000/ Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.8,00,000/- Devi Nagar Ex.R3 22.01.2009 07K-14M Rs.8,00,000/ Rs.8,00,000/- Rs.8,00,000/- Devi Nagar 10.1. At first instance, it may be relevant to take note of the sale instances produced by the appellant(s) appellant(s)-landowner(s). As Exs.P-3 3 and P-5 5 pertained to the revenue estate of Village Patti Sekhan which was not part of the acquisition in the case(s) in hand, thus, the same need not be relied upon for the purpose of determining the market value. Further, Further, the sale deed dated 23.09.2008 (Ex. P-6)
6) pertained to MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.25 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-797 797-2014 2014 (O&M) & other connected cases [8] the period post notification under Section 4 of the Act, as such, it cannot be relied upon in the given facts facts.
10.2. With respect to the sale instances produced by the respondents in the form of Exs. R-1 1 to R R-3, 3, it may be pointed out here that the sale instances Exs. R-1 R 1 and R R-2 dated 10.01.2008 and 10.06.2008 respectively, pertaining to the revenue estate of Village Devi Nagar, reflected the base price per acre of Rs.8 lakhs per acre which is identical to the rates fixed by the Collector for the purpose of payment of stamp duty on the registration of sale deed deeds.
s. This Court is mindful of the fact that as a matter of common practice, the sale deeds are often executed at a value below the prevailing market rate to avoid the payment of stamp duty, thus, the aforementioned sale deeds cannot be considered as reliable piece of evidence reflecting the correct prevailing market value at relevant point of time time, in the humble opinion of this Court. The aforesaid view is supported by observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Haryana State Industrial Development Corp. v. Pran Sukh reported as 2010 (11) SCC 175.
175 The relevant paras 22 to 25 and 28 are extracted hereunder:
hereunder:-
"22. In our view, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by relying upon sale transaction Exhibit P1 for the purpose of fixing market value of the acquired land. Undisputedly, that sale transaction was between two corporate entities and the entire sale price was paid through bank drafts. It MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.25 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-797 797-2014 2014 (O&M) & other connected cases [9] is also not in dispute that the land which was subject-matter matter of Exhibit P1 is situated at village villag Naharpur Kasan and is adjacent to the acquired land. The Corporation and the State Government did not adduce any evidence to prove that the land sold vide Exhibit P1 was over over-valued valued with an oblique motive of helping the land owners to claim higher compensation.
sation. Therefore, we do not find any justification to discard or ignore sate deed Exhibit P1. The refusal of the learned Single Judge to rely upon other sale transactions in which sale price of the land was shown as Rs. 7 lakhs per acre also does not suffer er from any legal infirmity because its well-known known that transactions involving transfer of properties are usually undervalued with a view to avoid payment of the requisite stamp duty and registration chars.
23. However, we agree with the learned counsel for the land owners that the High Court should not have imposed cut of ¼th in one batch of appeals and 20% cut in the other batch of appeals qua the average sale price reflected by Exhibit P1 only on the ground that the area of the land acquired b by y the State Government was too large as compared to 12 acres land for which sale deed Exhibit P1 was executed.
24. In a matter like the present one, it cannot be ignored that the land was acquired for setting up an Industrial Model Township at Manesar an and d after developing the land, the Corporation was bound to sell the plots at much higher price to the existing or MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.25 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-797 797-2014 2014 (O&M) & other connected cases [10] prospective industrial entrepreneurs. In this scenario, the learned Single Judges committed an error by applying ¼th or 20% cut on market value determined for the purpose of payment of compensation to the land owners.
25. This approach is in consonance with the law laid down in Shubh Ram v. State of Haryana (2010)1 SCC 444, the relevant portions of which are extracted below :-
"16.
16. Therefore, wh when en deduction is made from the value of a small residential plot towards the development cost, to arrive at the value of a large tract of agricultural or undeveloped land with development potential, the deduction has nothing to do with the purpose for which the land is acquired. The deduction is with reference to the price of the small residential plot, to work back the value of the large tract of undeveloped land. On the other hand, where the value of acquired agricultural land is determined with reference to the sale price of a neighbouring agricultural land, no deduction need be made towards "development cost".
17. It is no doubt true that this Court in some decisions has observed that purpose of acquisition will also be relevant. But it is made in a different context. The Land Acquisition Collectors in some cases adopt belting methods for valuation of land, with reference to a focal point, that is, either with reference to MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.25 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-797 797-2014 2014 (O&M) & other connected cases [11] the distance from the main road, or distance from a developed area. Lands that adjoin a developed area or a main road are given a higher value than a land farther away from the road or the deve developed loped area. The Land Acquisition Collectors also award different compensation depending upon whether the acquired land is a dry land or wet/irrigated land.
18. When different categories of lands (or lands with different situational advantages) are acquired for the same purpose, say for forming of a residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a uniform rate of compensation should be awarded for all lands acquired under the same notification."
28. Since this Court had stayed execution of the award subject to the condition of deposit of compensation amount at the rate of Rs. 10 lakhs per acre and we are informed that in compliance of the interim orders, the Corporation had deposited the compensation amount at the rate of Rs. 10 lakhs per acre, we direct it to deposit the balance amount with the Land Acquisition Collector by 31.1.2011 in the form of cheques drawn in the name of land owners and/or their legal representatives. With a view to ensure that the land owners are not fleeced by the middleman, we deem it proper to issue following further directions:
directions:-MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.25 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt
RFA-797 797-2014 2014 (O&M) & other connected cases [12]
(i) The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tahsildar, who shall get in touch with all the land owners and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation.
(ii) The concerned officers shall also instruct the land owners and/or their legal representatives to open savings bank account in case they already do not have such account.
(iii) The bank account numbers of the land owners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months.
(iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners."
10.3. Moreover, keeping in view the law laid down in Horrmal (deceased eceased through his LRs) and others Vs. State of Haryana and ors., reported as 2024 (4) RCR (Civil) 758 the highest valued sale exemplar needs to be relied upon while assessing the market value in the compulsory land acquisition cases cases. Since ince the sale instances produced by the appellant(s)/landowner(s) on the record in the form of Exs.P-1, Exs.P P-2 and P-4 4 fetched higher sale consideration in comparison to the sale instances Ex.R Ex.R-1 and R-2, these cannot be relied upon for assessing the market vvalue alue in the case(s) in hand.
Further, the sale deed dated 22.01.2009 (Ex.R (Ex.R-3),
3), pertained to the period post notification under Section 4 of the Act, thus, was MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.25 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-797 797-2014 2014 (O&M) & other connected cases [13] otherwise liable to be ignored in the present case.
11. As regards to the remaining sale instanc instances es produced by the appellant(s)/landowner(s) in the form of Ex. P P-1 1 dated 23.08.2007, Ex. P-2 dated 05.10.2007 5.10.2007 and Ex. P-4 dated 13.07.2007, 13.07.2007 the same pertained to Village Patti Jat Jattan, an, which formed part of the revenue estates under acquisition in the prese present nt case(s); were prior to the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 26.03.2008 and also in close proximity in time. 11.1. Furthermore, from a perusal of the site plan Ex. PW7/A, it is evident that the land parcels covered by sale instances Exs. P-1, P P-2 2 and P-4 P were located nearby to the acquired land and thus evidently possessed similar nature.
nature. Rather, the acquired land parcel wass abutting G.T. Road leading from New Delhi to Amritsar; whereas the land forming part of the sale instances Ex Exs.P-1, P-2 and P-4 were we located at a distance of approximately 11 to 12 acres away therefrom, thus, apparently the acquired land in comparison carried higher potential value vis-à-vis the land parcels forming part of the aforementioned sale instances. In su such ch circumstances, the sale instances produced by the appellant(s)/landowner(s) in the form of Exs.P-1, 1, P-2 P and P-4 4 being the best evidence available on record; it would be appropriate to place reliance upon the same for purpose of determining the market value value in case(s) in hand.
12. Keeping in view the discussion made above, and the fact MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.25 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-797 797-2014 2014 (O&M) & other connected cases [14] that it is time and again emphasized by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the objective of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is to grant just and fair compensation to the landowners landowners and to determine such definitive value, some guesstimation work has to be done by the Court, since the value of sale consideration reflected in sale instances Exs. P-1, P P-2 2 and P-4 P 4 pertained to the period from July 2007 to October 2007 and the base price thereof were closely range range-bound bound between Rs.61,00,000/ per acre to Rs.64,34,409/ Rs.61,00,000/- Rs.64,34,409/- per acre, this Court is of the opinion that taking average of the three sale instances would be the most appropriate way to determine the market price in the case(s) in hand.
d. The aforesaid view is also derived from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Bharat "Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Phoolvati Dharambir Agarwal" reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2162, whereby it was held that the Courts can deviate from the general principle of taking the highest sale instance by taking average of the sale deed(s) and the same would depend upon the facts of the case. The relevant portions of paragraphs 17 and 20 are extracted hereinbelow:
"17. We may also hasten to add that though the general practice is of considering the highest sale Exemplar, but, many a time, Courts take an average of relevant sale instances to arrive at the nearest possible market value of the acquired land. Averaging of sale instances, as per judicial preceden precedents, ts, is not wholly impermissible.....MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.25 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt
RFA-797 797-2014 2014 (O&M) & other connected cases [15] .......True it is that where multiple exemplars are relied upon, and such exemplars relate to adjoining or nearby areas having similar potentiality, the highest bona fide exemplar ought to be the benchmark for estimation of the he fair and just value. It is equally true that the Courts do not possess a magic wand to determine the exact and the definitive value of the land and in the process of guess work, the Court would rely upon every possible material brought on record by the parties. Applying the principle of guesstimate for fixation of fair and just market value of the acquired land, we thus deem it appropriate to rely upon (i) the sale instance(s) of highest consideration with appropriate deduction; (ii) the valuation report (Exhibit "C35") which stipulates the fair market value of the land @ Rs.2,50,000/- per ground; and (iii) the average of all the examplars relied upon by the respondent-
respondent claimants. Hence, we are of the firm opinion that the fair and just market value of the acquired land at the relevant time was about Rs.2,50,000/ Rs.2,50,000/- per ground.
Having held so, we set aside the deductions of 15% towards largeness of the area or 10% as development charges as made by the High Court....."
12.1 Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of Goa reported as (2010) 13 SCC 710 and in the latest decision of Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs and others v. State of Haryana reported as 2024(4) RCR(Civil) 758 held that tha where there are several sale instances of similar nature of land with prices ranging in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken as representing the market price. The relevant extract of MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.25 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-797 797-2014 2014 (O&M) & other connected cases [16] Horrmal's case (supra) (supra) is extracted hereunder:
hereunder:-
"28. This view has been reiterated in Sh. Himmat Singh v.
State of M.P., (2013) 16 SCC 392 where a three-judge judge bench of this Court consolidated various precedents to affirm that in circumstances where there are multiple sale deeds available for consideration, tthe he Court shall rely on the highest valued exemplars unless the prices fall within a narrow range, in which case calculating an average of the values therein may be more congruous."
13. Accordingly, for the award of just and fair compensation to the landowners landowners in the case(s) in hand, this Court deems it fit to take average of the following three sale deeds produced on record, for determining the market value in the present case(s), which comes to Rs. 62,81,472/-
62,81,472/ per acre as per calculation made hereunder:
hereunder:-
Exhibit on Sale consideration Rate per acre sale deeds (In Rs.) (In Rs.) Ex.P1 37,40,000.00 64,34,409.00 Ex.P2 2,32,70,625.00 63,00,000.00 Ex.P4 3,43,688.00 61,10,008.00 Total Average 62,81,472.00 (Rs. 1,88,34,409.00÷ 3) 62,81,472.00
14. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of previous acquisition commenced vide notification dated 10.07.2007 pertaining to the revenue estates of Village Patti Jattan vide its decision dated 14.07.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2527 2527-2541-2021 in Jasmer (supra), applied deduction of 1/3rd while making Singh's case (supra), MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.25 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-797 797-2014 2014 (O&M) & other connected cases [17] assessment of market value. The relevant paragraph therefrom is extracted hereunder:-
hereunder:
"However, as regards deduction provided by the High Court to the extent of 40 per cent, we find the same to be excessive. The lands were in close proximity to the road and the town/city limits. Therefore, we accede to the submission made by the counsel for the claimants/land owners that the deduction should not, in the given facts, exceed one-
one third. In other ther words, the just deduction will be one-
one third of the market price determined by the High Court being Rs.63,00,000/- per acre. That deduction amount comes to Rs.21,00,000/ Rs.21,00,000/- per acre.
Accordingly, the award in relation to the lands covered under the first notification stands modified taking the fair market price at Rs.42,00,000/ Rs.42,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-Two Two Lakhs) per acre (i.e., Rs.63,00,000/ Rs.63,00,000/- minus Rs.21,00,000/-).
). In addition, the claimants/land claimants/land-owners owners would be entitled to other statutory benefits as awarded by the he High Court."
14.1. Applying the same to Rs.62,81,472/ Rs.62,81,472/- per acre, the average base price derived from the sale instances Exs.P Exs.P-1, P-2 2 and P-4, 4, the price per acre comes to Rs.41,87,648/ Rs.41,87,648/-. [62,81,472 x 1/3].
15. It is pertinent to mention here that the market value assessed in accordance with the evidence on record in the present case(s) does not significantly differ from the market value assessed for the Village Patti Jattan, District Ambala vide notification dated 10.07.2007 under Section 4 of the Act in the previous acquisition i.e. MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.25 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-797 797-2014 2014 (O&M) & other connected cases [18] Rs. 42,00,000/-
42,00,000/ per acre, thus, the market value in the present case(s) is also assessed to be Rs.42,00,000/ Rs.42,00,000/- per acre.
16. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, the landowners are thus held entitled to Rs.42,00,000/ Rs.42,00,000/- per acre. The appellant(s) landowner(s) are also awarded consequential / statutory appellant(s)/landowner(s) benefits and interest as provided in the 1894 Act (as amended u up--to-
date), especially the interest on solatium as well.
17. Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross cross-objection(s) objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at libertyy to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court.
18. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
16.03.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sanjay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether Reportable? Yes/No
Sr. No. Case No.
1. RFA-798-2014
2014 (O&M)
2. RFA-799-2014
2014 (O&M)
3. RFA-800-2014
2014 (O&M)
4. RFA-801-2014
2014 (O&M)
16.03.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sanjay JUDGE
MOHMED ATIK
2026.03.25 15:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgmemtt