Mahesh Kumar And Ors. vs State Of Pb. And Anr.

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

RFA-3883-2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.11.2026

Mahesh Kumar and another ...Appellant(s)

Versus


Punjab State and others ...Respondent(s)
And



Sr. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s)
No.

2. RFA-3884-2006 (O&M) Yogesh Kumar Punjab State and others

3. RFA-3885-2006 (O&M) Seemant Sood and Punjab State and others
another

4. RFA-4235-2006 (O&M) Gurbax Singh Punjab State and others

5. RFA-4236-2006 (O&M) Banto alias Amarjit Punjab State and others
Kaur

6. RFA-4237-2006 (O&M) Sajjan Singh Punjab State and others

7. RFA-4451-2006 (O&M) Manohar Lal and Punjab State and others
others

8. RFA-4452-2006 (O&M) Dharam Pal and others Punjab State and others

9. RFA-4850-2009 (O&M)
with XOBJR-59-CI-2011
(O&M)
Chief Project
Manager, Railway
Electrification and
another
Punjab State and others

10. RFA-4851-2009 (O&M) Chief Project
Manager, Railway
Electrification and
another
Mahesh Kumar and
others

11. RFA-4852-2009 (O&M) Chief Project
Manager, Railway
Electrification and
another
Banto and others

12. RFA-4853-2009 (O&M)
with XOBJR-65-CI-2011
(O&M)
Chief Project
Manager, Railway
Electrification and
another
Surinder Singh and others

13. RFA-4854-2009 (O&M) Chief Project
Manager, Railway
Electrification and
another
Gurbax Singh and others

14. RFA-4855-2009 (O&M) Chief Project
Manager, Railway
Electrification and
another
Dharam Pal and others



-2-
RFA-3883-2006 (O&M) and other connected matters


15. RFA-4856-2009 (O&M) Chief Project
Manager, Railway
Electrification and
others
Manohar Lal and others

16. RFA-4857-2009 (O&M) Chief Project
Manager, Railway
Electrification and
another
Yogesh Kumar and others

17. RFA-4858-2009 (O&M) Chief Project
Manager, Railway
Electrification and
another
Seemant Sood and others

18. RFA-4859-2009 (O&M) Chief Project
Manager, Railway
Electrification and
another
Sajjan Singh and others


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate and
Mr. Ajay S. Dhiman, Advocate
for the appellant(s)
in RFA Nos.4235, 4236, 4237, 4451 and 4452 of 2006;
for the respondents
in RFA Nos.4852, 4855, 4854, 4856 and 4859 of 2009.

Mr. Pushpinder Singh Chouhan, Advocate for
Mr. Vikas Jain, Advocate
for the appellant(s)
in RFA Nos.3883, 3884 and 3885 of 2006.

Mr. Puru Jarewal, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel
for UOI.


JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)


1. These appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) are directed against award dated 03.04.2006
passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, Punjab
(hereinafter called as ‘Reference Court’). The landowners are seeking
enhancement of the amount of compensation whereas Department of
Railways is claiming otherwise.



-3-
RFA-3883-2006 (O&M) and other connected matters


2. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals,
with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this
common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are
.
borrowed from RFA 3883 of 2006

3. Tabulated details of the assessment made till date read as: -
Date of notification under Section 4 09.06.1999
Date of notification under Section 6 05.07.1999
Purpose of acquisition Construction of Traction Sub-Station at Kurali
in connection with Railway electrification of
Sirhind-Nangal Dam Section.
Location Village –Kurali
Tehsil- Kharar
District- Rupnagar
Area (Total) 16 Kanals (2 Acre)
Date of Collector Award (LAC) 26.04.2001
₹
Market value as per LAC ( per acre) 10,00,000/-
Date of Reference Court (RC) Award 03.04.2006
₹
Market value as per RC ( per acre) 16,45,715/-


4. The State Government issued notification dated 09.06.1999
under Section 4 of the 1894 Act for the acquisition of 16 Kanals (2 Acre)
land situated in Village Kurali, H.B No.121, District Rupnagar with
regard to the construction of Traction Sub-Station at Kurali in connection
with Railway electrification of Sirhind-Nangal Dam Section. The said
notification was followed by notification dated 05.07.1999 issued under
Section 6 of 1894 Act.

5. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’) vide
Award dated 26.04.2001 in terms of provisions of 1894 Act, determined
compensation payable to the landowners. Market value of the acquired
₹
land was determined @ 10,00,000/- per acre. Landowners were held
entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits. Feeling dis-satisfied from
the aforesaid award, landowners preferred petitions before the Collector
which were referred to the Court under Section 18 of the 1894 Act.



-4-
RFA-3883-2006 (O&M) and other connected matters


6. The Reference Court while appreciating evidence led by both
sides, by impugned award adjudicated reference petitions. The Reference
Court by impugned award dated 03.04.2006 has assessed the market
₹
value of the acquired land @ 16,45,715/- per acre.

7. Learned counsel for the landowners submit that the
Reference Court has wrongly imposed 40% cut. Land was acquired for
the purpose of construction of traction sub-station in connection with
railway electrification of Sirhind-Nangal Dam section. Land was not
acquired for the purpose of residential or commercial complex, thus, there
was no occasion to impose cut and, in any case, it could not be more than
20%. The Reference Court has rightly ignored sale deeds adduced by the
Railways because value disclosed in aforesaid sale deeds is much less
than value assessed by the Collector, thus, as per Section 25, aforesaid
sale deeds could not be considered.

Per contra
8. , learned counsel for the respondent-Railway
submits that the Reference Court has determined market value of the
agricultural land on the basis of plots and that too very small in size. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved cut from 15% to 70%. The
Reference Court has rightly imposed 40% cut.

9. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
ad idem
10. Learned counsel for the parties are that delay in
filing any appeals which is part of present bunch may be condoned.
Accordingly, delay, if any, in any case, stands condoned. It is clarified
that appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period.



-5-
RFA-3883-2006 (O&M) and other connected matters


11. A perusal of record reveals that the Railway has acquired 02
Acres agricultural land situated in Village Kurali, Tehsil Kharar, District
Rupnagar. Land was acquired for the purpose of construction of
traction/sub-station to electrify Sirhind-Nangal Dam Section. The
landowners produced multiple sale deeds to establish that market value of
₹
the acquired land was not less than 30 lakh per acre. The Reference
Court has rejected sale deeds relating to houses and shops. The Court has
considered sale deeds Ex. P-8, P-9, P-11, P-13, P-19 and P-21. Tabulated
details of aforesaid sale deeds read as:
Exhibit Date of Sale Amount ( ₹) Area (Kanal-Marla) Average per acre ( ₹ )
P-8 05.05.1998 30,00,000/- 1-1 22,85,714/-
P-9 12.06.1998 1,40,000/- 0-7 32,00,000/-
P-11 10.01.1997 1,30,000/- 01-1/2 32,00,000/-
P-13 20.02.1998 10,000 0-1/2 32,00,000/-
P-19 14.05.1997 1,50,000 0-7-1/2 3,20,00,000/-
P-21 27.01.1997 2,00,000/- 0-10 32,00,000/-


12. The Court has noticed that land comprised in aforesaid sale
deeds is very small. It is apt to notice here that sale deed Ex. P-13 is
comprising ½ Marla land and Ex. P-11 is comprising 1 ½ Marla. Market
₹
price disclosed in the sale deeds Ex. P-9, P-11, P-13, P-19 and P-21 is 32
₹
lakh per acre. Market price disclosed in Ex. P-8 is 22,85,714/- per acre.
The Reference Court has considered average of Ex. P-8 and P-9. Decision
of Reference Court to consider average of Ex. P-8 and P-9 is justified
because Ex. P-11, P-13, P-19 and P-21 as well as Ex. P-9 are disclosing
₹
same price i.e. 32 lakh per acre. Area comprised in Ex. P-9 is very small
i.e. 7 Marlas whereas area comprised in Ex. P-8 is 1 Kanal 1 Marla. In
these circumstances, it is just and fair to consider average
of Ex. P-8 and P-9.



-6-
RFA-3883-2006 (O&M) and other connected matters


13. Grievance of the landowners is that the Reference Court has
imposed higher cut whereas Railway is claiming otherwise. The
landowners are claiming that land was not acquired for residential or
commercial purposes, thus, no cut was warranted. Contention of the
landowners is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. It is not a case
where development cut should be imposed. It is a case where exemplar
sale deeds are comprising plots whereas acquired land is agricultural land.
Area comprised in exemplar sale deeds is very small e.g. Ex. P-13 is
comprising ½ Marla i.e. 15 Square Yard. By no stretch of imagination ½
Marla land can be treated as residential or industrial or agriculture land. It
is bound to be a commercial property which is normally used for a small
shop. It is only Ex. P-8 which is comprising 1 Kanal 1 Marla land.
Aforesaid piece of land also represents either residential or commercial
property. It cannot be called as agricultural land. It is a carved-out plot
though may be lying vacant during the relevant period. It is a well-known
fact that small parcels of land either agricultural or industrial or
commercial fetch higher value than tracts because of availability of more
buyers for small pieces of land. It is further well-known fact that plots
either residential or commercial carry much more value than agricultural
land irrespective of the fact that agricultural land is falling within
municipal limits.

14. The Reference Court has imposed cut of 40% over average
of Ex. P-8 and P-9. Land comprised in Ex. P-9 is mere 7 Marla and land
comprised in Ex. P-8 is 1 Kanal 1 Marla. Market price disclosed in
Ex. P-8 ought to be considered, however, the Reference Court has



-7-
RFA-3883-2006 (O&M) and other connected matters

considered average of Ex. P-8 and P-9. As held hereinabove, there seems
no reason to ignore average of Ex. P-8 and P-9. Ultimately, question
remains of quantum of cut. Reference Court has imposed 40% cut.
Considering the nature of land comprised in Ex. P-8 and P-9 as well as
size thereof, this Court does not find it appropriate to reduce cut as
imposed by the Reference Court.

15. In the wake of above discussion and findings, appeals of
both sides and cross-objections filed by the landowners deserve to be
dismissed and are hereby dismissed .

16. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.


(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
12.11.2026
Prince Chawla
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No