Arvind Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

210 RFA-3672-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 04.11.2026

ARVIND KUMAR AND ORS ...Appellants
Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ...Respondents

And
Sr. Case Number Appellant(s) Respondent(s)
No.
2. RFA-135-2018 Raj Kumar Bhatia State of Haryana & Ors.
3. RFA-1669-2018 Ram Kumar Yadav State of Haryana & Ors.
4. RFA-253-2018 Rohit & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
5. RFA-3812-2016 State of Haryana & Anr. Rohit & Ors.
6. RFA-3852-2016 State of Haryana & Anr. Mohinder Singh & Ors.
7. RFA-3853-2016 State of Haryana & Anr. Kalyan Singh (deceased) through
LRs & Ors.
8. RFA-3854-2016 State of Haryana & Anr. Chandera Singh & Ors.
9. RFA-3855-2016 State of Haryana & Anr. Rajinder Singh & Ors.
10. RFA-3856-2016 State of Haryana & Anr. Jai Singh (deceased) through LRs
& Anr.
11. RFA-3857-2016 State of Haryana & Anr. Smt. Sarla Devi & Ors.
12. RFA-3858-2016 State of Haryana & Anr. Smt. Bhagwant Kaur & Ors.
13. RFA-3859-2016 State of Haryana Smt. Phulpati & Ors.
14. RFA-3860-2016 State of Haryana & Anr. Bhajna & Anr.
15. RFA-3861-2016 State of Haryana & Anr. Arvind Kumar & Ors.
16. RFA-3862-2016 State of Haryana & Anr. Smt. Vimla Devi & Ors.
17. RFA-3863-2016 State of Haryana & Anr. Rajinder Singh & Anr.
18. RFA-3864-2016 State of Haryana & Anr. The Hisar Nagar Parishad Area
House Building Society through
its President & Ors.
19. RFA-3861-2017 Mohinder Singh & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors.
20. RFA-3862-2017 Rajinder Singh State of Haryana & Ors.
21. RFA-3906-2017 Bhajna State of Haryana & Ors.
22. RFA-3949-2016
(O&M)
State of Haryana & Anr. Ashwani Kumar And Others
23. RFA-3951-2016
(O&M)
State of Haryana Vijay Singh & Ors.
24. RFA-3952-2016
(O&M)
State of Haryana & Anr. Arvind Kumar & Ors.
25. RFA-3953-2016
(O&M)
State of Haryana & Anr. Ajay Kharinta & Ors.
26. RFA-3954-2016
(O&M)
State of Haryana Holy Education Society Hisar
through its Secretary & Anr.
27. RFA-4712-2017 State of Haryana & Anr. D.A.V. College Managing
(O&M) Committee New Delhi through its

Chief Secretary & Ors.
28. RFA-500-2018 Kalyan Singh (deceased)

through LRs & Ors.
State of Haryana & Ors.
29. RFA-5005-2017 Rajinder Singh & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
30. RFA-5006-2017 Ajay Kharinta & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors.
31. RFA-5007-2017 Bhagwant Kaur & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
32. RFA-5054-2017
(O&M)
Jai Singh (deceased)
through LRs
State of Haryana & Ors.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.05 14:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

-2-
RFA-3672-2016 (O&M) and connected cases

33. RFA-5433-2017 State of Haryana & Anr. Ram Kumar Yadav & Anr
34. RFA-5434-2017 State of Haryana & Anr. Raj Kumar Bhatia & Anr
35. RFA-903-2017 Holy Education
Society, Hisar through
its Secretary
State of Haryana & Ors.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate,
Mr. Amit Duhan, Advocate and
Mr. Sushil K. Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant(s) (in RFAs No.3672, 3681 of 2016, RFA-
5434-2017, RFAs No.135 and 1669 of 2018)
for respondent (s) (in RFA-3681-2016, RFA-5434-2017)

Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate,
Mr. Prateek Garg, Advocate, Ms. Anita Kumari, Advocate,
Mr. Gaurav Singh Dahiya, Advocate,
Ms. Nitasha Singla, Advocate and
Ms. Nitika Gupta, Advocate
for the appellant(s) ( in RFA-903-2017, RFA-253-2018)
for the respondent(s) ( in RFAs No.3854, 3951, 3954 of 2016 )

Mr. Lajpat Rai Sharma, Advocate,
Ms. Monika Khatri, Advocate for
Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate
for the appellant(s) ( in RFAs No.3906, 5054, 5005, 5007,
5006, 3861, 3862 of 2017 and RFA-500-2018 ).

Mr. Akshit Pathania, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana

*
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 22.03.2016
passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar (hereinafter called as
‘Reference Court’). The landowners are seeking enhancement of the
amount of compensation whereas the State is claiming otherwise.

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 No.3672 of 2016.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.05 14:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

-3-
RFA-3672-2016 (O&M) and connected cases


3. Tabulated details of the assessment made till date read as: -
Date of notification under Section 4 21.06.2006
Date of notification under Section 6 20.06.2007
Purpose of acquisition For construction of open Channel Carriage
Storm Water Discharge, Zone- III, Hisar.
Location Villages: Dabra and Hisar
Tehsil & District- Hisar
Area (Total) 11.62 Acre
Date of award of Collector (LAC) 28.02.2008
Market value as per LAC (₹ per acre) 8,00,000/- Dabra
9,00,000/- Hisar
Date of Reference Court (RC) Award 22.03.2016
Market value as per RC (₹ per acre) 12,48,720/-


4. The State Government issued notification dated 21.06.2006
under Section 4 of the 1894 Act for the acquisition of 11.62 acre land
situated in Villages Dabra and Hisar, Tehsil & District Hisar with intent to
construct open Channel Carriage Storm Water Discharge, Zone-III, Hisar.
The said notification was followed by notification dated 20.06.2007
issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act.

5. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’) vide
Award dated 28.02.2008, in terms of provisions of 1894 Act, determined
compensation payable to the landowners. Market value of the acquired
land was determined @ ₹8,00,000/- per acre for Village Dabra and
₹9,00,000/- per acre for Village Hisar. 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.

DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.05 14:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

-4-
RFA-3672-2016 (O&M) and connected cases


6. The Reference Court while appreciating evidence led by both
sides, by impugned award adjudicated reference petitions. The Reference
Court by impugned award dated 22.03.2016 has assessed market value of
the acquired land @ ₹ 12,48,720/- per acre.

7. Learned counsel for the landowners submit that the
Reference Court wrongly declined to rely upon sale deed dated
01.12.2004 (Ex.P-9). The Reference Court has considered Ex.P-16 dated
28.09.2006 as best piece of evidence. Ex.P-9 has been rejected on the
presumption that no stamp duty was payable, thus, possibility of
execution of sale deed at higher price may not be ruled out. There was no
occasion to disbelieve aforesaid sale deed. No buyer is going to disclose
higher sale consideration in the sale deed just because he has paid
consideration out of compensation received by him qua acquisition of his
another piece of land.

8. Learned State Counsel on being confronted with findings
recorded in para No.24 by the Reference Court expressed his inability to
refute that there was no occasion to disbelieve sale deed dated 01.12.2004
(Ex.P-9).

9. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that delay in
filing any appeal which is part of present bunch may be condoned.
Accordingly, delay, if any, in any case, stands condoned. It is clarified
that appellant(s) shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period.

10. All the arguments raised by both sides have been recorded in
the presence of counsel for the parties. They have not raised any other
argument.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.05 14:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

-5-
RFA-3672-2016 (O&M) and connected cases


11. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

12. The Reference Court has rejected Ex.P-9 dated 01.12.2004
on the assumption that no stamp duty was payable by buyer, thus,
possibility of sham and false amount of consideration cannot be ruled out.
Para No.24 of the impugned award reads as:
“24. Ex.P9 is the sale deed dated 1.12.2004 with regard
to 3 kanal 9 marla land, out of rectangle No.52 killa No.1-
2 which was sold for a consideration of Rs.13,67,000/-.
Thus, per square yard rate of the land was 694.93, round
figure of the same is Rs.695/- per sq. Yard. However, this
sale deed cannot be made criteria for ascertaining the
market value of the acquired land, because from contents
of this sale deed, it is evident that no stamp fee was paid by
the purchaser as they purchased the land out of usufruct of
the land which was acquired by State for carving out the
sector. Thus, possibility cannot be ruled out that sham and
false amount of consideration could have been mentioned
in this sale deed. Thus, I agree with the contention of
learned Govt. Pleader for the respondents.”

13. Aforesaid findings recorded by the Reference Court are
incorrect because of hereinafter recorded more than one reasons. Ex.P-9
was executed on 01.12.2004 and notification under Section 4 was issued
on 21.06.2006, thus, there was no possibility of execution of sale deed at
higher sale price to get maximum amount of compensation. The buyer
had paid consideration out of compensation received by him on account
of acquisition of his land. It means he was having accounted money. The
seller was not exempt from capital gain tax payable under the Income Tax
Act, 1961. No seller is going to record consideration more than what is
actually received when he is liable to pay income tax under heading
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.05 14:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

-6-
RFA-3672-2016 (O&M) and connected cases

‘Capital Gain’. It further amounts to disapproval of sale deed without any
evidence. In such circumstances, there was no occasion to disbelieve sale
deed dated 01.12.2004. As per doctrine of escalation evolved by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the landowners are entitled to escalation. There
is gap of almost 18 months between the execution of Ex.P-9 and
notification under Section 4. This Court, as conceded by landowners,
finds it appropriate to extend benefit of escalation of 12% for the
aforesaid period. Market value as per aforesaid sale deed after
calculating escalation would come to ₹778/- per sq. yard. The Reference
Court has calculated market value @ 50% of the sale consideration
disclosed in sale deed Ex.P-16. The same principle is applied qua
Ex.P-9. It is apt to notice here that compensation @50% of the market
value disclosed in the exemplar sale deed has been calculated because
respondent acquired 44 feet front portion and out of which 15 feet was
used for construction of garbage channel. The remaining area was not
used by the State. Ld. Additional District Judge visited the spot and
found that acquired land is used by landowners for parking and other
purposes. Entire front portion used for garbage was covered by the
landowners. This Court finds itself in agreement with aforesaid finding,
thus, 50% of the aforesaid assessed market value is determined as market
value of the acquired land which comes to ₹389/- per sq. yard. The
landowners shall be entitled to statutory benefits as granted by the
Reference Court on the enhanced amount of compensation.

14. Appeals of the landowners are allowed in above terms and
appeals of the State are hereby dismissed.

DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.05 14:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

-7-
RFA-3672-2016 (O&M) and connected cases


15. Before parting with the judgment, this Court would hasten to
notice that in the present case Ld. Additional District Juge visited the spot
which helped him to adjudicate the matter. It would be appropriate for all
the Ld. Additional District Judges discharging function of the Reference
Court under Section 18 of 1894 Act or Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
& Resettlement Authority under Section 51 of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 to visit the site so that actual position may be
ascertained.

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


(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
November 04, 2026
Deepak DPA

Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No

DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.05 14:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment