Charan Dev And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another

-1-

RFA-535-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
*
227
Date of Decision: 03.09.2026

1. RFA-535-2025
CHARAN DEV AND OTHERS
…Appellants
Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
…Respondents
And

Sr.
No.
Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s)
2. RFA-538-2025 SUNITA RANI THROUGH
HER GPA MOHAN LAL &
OTHERS
STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER
3. RFA-540-2025 MADAN LAL & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER
4. RFA-545-2025 RANBIR STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER
5. RFA-546-2025 MEENA KUMARI STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER
6. RFA-547-2025 CHETAN DASS (DECEASED) STATE OF HARYANA &
THROGH HIS LRS ANOTHER
7. RFA-554-2025 ATMA RAM & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA &
OTHERS
8. RFA-558-2025 SMT SHAKUNTLA RANI STATE OF HARYANA &
ALIAS SHAKUNTLA DEVI ANOTHER
9. RFA-562-2025 URMILA DEVI & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA &
OTHERS
10. RFA-572-2025 KRISHNA STATE OF HARYANA &
OTHERS
JOGINDER SINGH & STATE OF HARYANA &
11. RFA-574-2025
ANOTHER OTHERS
12. RFA-575-2025 CHANDI RAM & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA &
OTHERS
13. RFA-578-2025 ANIL KUMAR & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER
14. RFA-583-2025 SATBIR SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.08 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-2-

RFA-535-2025
15. RFA-584-2025 NEELAM RANI & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER
16. RFA-585-2025 PALA (DECEASED) STATE OF HARYANA &
THROUGH HIS LRS ANOTHER
17. RFA-590-2025 CHANDRAWALI
(O&M) (DECEASED) THROUGH
HER LRS
STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER
18. RFA-592-2025 SHALESH KUMAR & STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER ANOTHER
19. RFA-604-2025 DAYA NAND STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER
STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER
20. RFA-605-2025 SURAJBHAN ALIAS SURJA
(O&M) (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS
LR & ANOTHER
21. RFA-606-2025 MOHAN LAL THROUGH ITS STATE OF HARYANA &
GPA KRISHAN LAL ANOTHER
22. RFA-615-2025 BHOOP SINGH STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER
23. RFA-660-2025 HARISH CHANDER STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER
24. RFA-665-2025 HARIOM STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER
25. RFA-676-2025 CHANDERPATI & STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER ANOTHER
26. RFA-677-2025 PASHI LAL (DECEASED)
THROUGH HIS LRS &
ANOTHER
STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER
27. RFA-681-2025 RAJMAL (DEACEASED) STATE OF HARYANA &
THROUGH HIS LR ANOTHER
28. RFA-723-2025 RAMPHAL ALIAS RAMLAL
(O&M) (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS
LRS
STATE OF HARYANA &
OTHERS
29. RFA-614-2026 HARI SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA &
(O&M) ANOTHER
30. RFA-642-2026 VIJENDER KUMAR & STATE OF HARYANA &
(O&M) OTHERS ANOTHER
31. RFA-643-2026 SMT BHATERI STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER
32. RFA-882-2026 AMAR SINGH (DECEASED)
(O&M) THROUGH HIS LRS &
OTHERS
STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER
33. RFA-1016-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & HARIOM
(O&M) ANOTHER
34. RFA-1181-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & SATBIR & OTHERS
(O&M) ANOTHER
35. RFA-1182-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & DAYANAND
(O&M) ANOTHER
36. RFA-1183-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & SHALESH KUMAR &
(O&M) ANOTHER ANOTHER
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.08 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-3-

RFA-535-2025
37. RFA-1184-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & MOHAN LAL
(O&M) ANOTHER
38. RFA-1185-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & RAJMAL (DECEASED)
(O&M) ANOTHER THROUGH HIS LR
39. RFA-1186-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & HARI SINGH & OTHERS
(O&M) ANOTHER
40. RFA-1187-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & CHANDERPATI &
(O&M) ANOTHER ANOTHER
41. RFA-1188-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & RAJBALA
(O&M) ANOTHER
42. RFA-1189-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & VIJENDER KUMAR &
(O&M) ANOTHER OTHERS
43. RFA-1190-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & PALA (DECEASED)
(O&M) ANOTHER THROUGH LRS
44. RFA-1191-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & GRAM PANCHAYAT
(O&M) ANOTHER TOSHAM
45. RFA-1209-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & KRISHNA
(O&M) OTHERS
46. RFA-1335-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & URMILA DEVI &
(O&M) OTHERS ANOTHER
47. RFA-1336-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & BALWAN (DECEASED)
(O&M) OTHERS THROUGH LR &
ANOTHER
48. RFA-1337-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & CHANDI RAM & OTHERS
(O&M) OTHERS
49. RFA-1338-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & CHETAN DASS
(O&M) ANOTHER (DECEASED) THROUGH
HIS LRS
50. RFA-1339-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & JOGINDER SINGH &
(O&M) OTHERS ANOTHER
51. RFA-1340-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & ANIL KUMAR & OTHERS
(O&M) ANOTHER
52. RFA-1341-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & SAVITRI & OTHERS
(O&M) OTHERS
53. RFA-1342-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & PASHI LAL (DECEASED)
(O&M) ANOTHER THROUGH HIS LRS &
ANOTHER
STATE OF HARYANA &
54. RFA-1343-2025 ATMA RAM & OTHERS
(O&M) ANOTHER
55. RFA-1344-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & BHATERI
(O&M) ANOTHER
56. RFA-1296-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & CHANDRAWALI
(O&M) ANOTHER
57. RFA-1297-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & HARISH CHANDER
(O&M) ANOTHER
58. RFA-1298-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & MEENA KUMARI
(O&M) ANOTHER
59. RFA-1299-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & SHAKUNTLA RANI
(O&M) ANOTHER
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.08 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-4-

RFA-535-2025
60. RFA-1300-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & JI RAM
(O&M) ANOTHER
61. RFA-1301-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & RANBIR
(O&M) ANOTHER
62. RFA-1302-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & RAMPHAL ALIAS RAM
(O&M) ANOTHER LAL & OTHERS
63. RFA-1303-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & MAHENDER SINGH
(O&M) ANOTHER
64. RFA-1304-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & BHOOP SINGH
(O&M) ANOTHER
65. RFA-1305-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & SUNITA RANI & OTHERS
(O&M) ANOTHER
66. RFA-1306-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & SURAJBHAN ALIAS
(O&M) ANOTHER SURJA & ANOTHER
67. RFA-1307-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & NEELAM RANI &
(O&M) ANOTHER OTHERS
68. RFA-1308-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & CHARAN DEV & OTHERS
(O&M) ANOTHER
69. RFA-1309-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & MADAN LAL & OTHERS
ANOTHER
70. RFA-1310-2025 STATE OF HARYANA & AMAR SINGH & OTHERS
(O&M) ANOTHER

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. Akash Yadav, Advocate
for the appellants/landowners

Mr. Abhinash Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana and
Mr. Abhishek Yadav, DAG, Haryana.
*

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. These appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) are directed against awards passed by the
Reference Court. Tabulated details of the assessment made till date read as:-
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.08 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-5-

RFA-535-2025
Date of notification under Section 4 11.02.2011
Date of notification under Section 6 10.09.2011
Purpose of Acquisition Construction of road from New Bye-Pass
Tosham-Bhiwani Road to Tosham-Hisar road
crossing Tosham-Bawani Khera Road &
Tosham Hansi Road in Bhiwani
Location Village: Tosham
Tehsil: Tosham
District: Bhiwani
Area 378 Kanal 9 Marla
Date of order of Collector (LAC) 22.06.2012
₹
Market value as per LAC (per acre) 12,00,000/-
Date of Reference Court (RC) order 18.02.2025
₹
Market value as per RC (per acre) 27 lakh upto 2 acres
₹
24 lakh beyond 2 acres
Along with 20% severance charges

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. The State as well as landowners have laid challenge to impugned
award. The landowners are seeking enhancement whereas respondent-State
is seeking reduction in market value determined by the Reference Court. For
the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from RFA-535-
2025 .
3. The appellants-landowners through instant appeal are seeking
modification of award dated 18.02.2025 whereby learned Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Authority-cum-Additional District Judge, Bhiwani (hereinafter
called as ‘Reference Court’) has not determined amount of compensation as
claimed by them.
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.08 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-6-

RFA-535-2025
4. The State Government issued notification dated 11.02.2011
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) for
the acquisition of 378 Kanal 9 Marla of land situated within the revenue
estate of Village Tosham, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani with intent to
construct road from New Bye-Pass Tosham-Bhiwani Road to Tosham-Hisar
road crossing Tosham-Bawani Khera Road & Tosham-Hansi Road in
Bhiwani. The said notification was followed by notification dated
10.09.2011 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act.
5. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’) vide Award
dated 22.06.2012, in terms of provisions of 1894 Act, determined
compensation payable to the landowners. Market value of the acquired land
₹
was determined at the rate of 12,00,000/- per acre. Landowners were held
entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits. Feeling dissatisfied from the
aforesaid award, landowners preferred petitions before the Collector which
were referred to Court under Section 18 of the 1894 Act.
6. The landowners as well as the State, in support of their
contentions, led their evidence. The State attempted to justify market value
determined by Collector, however, landowners vehemently pleaded that
value of their land has been assessed on lower side.
7. The Reference Court while appreciating evidence led by both
sides, by impugned common award adjudicated reference petitions. The
Reference Court has assessed market value of the acquired land @
₹ ₹
27,00,000/- upto 2 Acres depth from road and 24,00,000/- beyond 2 Acres.
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.08 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-7-

RFA-535-2025
The Court has further awarded severance charges @ 20% of the market
value. The landowners as well as State are in appeal before this Court.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants-landowners submits that
Reference Court was supposed to rely upon order dated 01.03.2016 passed
by this Court in RFA No.6989 of 2014 as modified by Hon’ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 17.04.2018 whereby value of the adjoining land was
₹
determined @ 73,91,062/- per acre. The Reference Court could make
location cut, however, order dated 01.03.2016 passed by this Court could not
be absolutely ignored. The Reference Court has ignored aforesaid order on
the ground that land acquired under aforesaid order was 7 or 8 Acres (correct
figure is 8.34 Acre) whereas land in question is 47 Acres. In RFA No.6989
of 2014 , the acquired land was adjoining main road and value of a smaller
residential plots was taken into consideration whereas in the present case,
sale deeds of larger area are available. The Reference Court has made
artificial distinction. The appellants are similarly situated with landowners
in RFA No.6989 of 2014 .
Per contra
9. , learned State counsel submits that order dated
01.03.2016 passed by this Court in RFA No.6989 of 2014 cannot be relied
‘
upon. The Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar and Others Versus State of
Haryana’, 2018(13) SCC 96 has clearly held that previous award cannot be
mechanically relied upon. In RFA No.6989 of 2014 , the acquired land was
abutting the main road. This Court in aforesaid case relied upon value of a
smaller residential plot. In the present case, the appellants as well as State
have submitted multiple exemplar sale deeds wherein area involved is larger
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.08 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-8-

RFA-535-2025
₹
and value per acre comes to even less than 10,00,000/- per acre. The
Reference Court had adopted very liberal approach and made addition of
50% in the collector rate which was fixed for agricultural land to be utilized
for setting up stone crusher.
ad idem
10. Learned counsel for the parties are 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 shall
not be entitled to interest for the delayed period.
11. 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.
12. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
13. From the perusal of record, it is evident that the Reference Court
has rejected exemplar sale deed produced by landowners as well as State.
Most of the sale deeds produced by both sides related to period post
notification issued under Section 4. As per Section 23(1), sale deeds
executed after issuance of notification under Section 4 should not be
considered. As per law laid down by the Supreme Court, sale deeds executed
post notification under Section 4 may be relied upon where sale deeds
executed prior to notification under Section 4 are not available. The
Reference Court has rejected other sale deeds produced by landowners on
the ground that area involved is very small. The respondent had produced
sale deeds involving larger area, however, value disclosed was very small. It
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.08 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-9-

RFA-535-2025
was almost equal to collector rate. The Reference Court has considered
Collector rate of 2010-2011. As per Collector rate, if land is purchased for
setting up a stone crusher or any other industry, market value for the stamp
₹
duty would be 16,00,000/- per acre. The Reference Court has relied upon
aforesaid rate to conclude that determination of higher Collector rate where
land is utilized for stone crusher reveals that there is potentiality in the
acquired land and it cannot be assessed at Collector rate fixed for agricultural
land or at a value disclosed in the sale deeds relied upon by the State. The
Reference Court has further formed an opinion that value should be assessed
at 150% of Collector rate because Collector rate does not disclose correct
value. Benefit of potentiality should be given especially in view of the fact
that acquired land is in the proximity of mines and crushers. Land in question
was acquired for the construction of Bye-Pass which crossed Tosham-Hansi
Road. There are Petrol Pump, Police Station, Mini Secretariat, Civil Court,
SDM residence in the close vicinity of the acquired land.
14. The State is not disputing the fact that if acquired land was to
be registered for the crusher or any other industry, the Collector rate for
₹ ₹
stamp duty was 16,00,000/- per acre. This rate was 18,00,000/- per acre
where land was adjoining the existing State Highway. It is further undisputed
that there were shops, residential colony, Police Station, Mini Secretariat,
Civil Court and SDM residence in the close vicinity of the acquired land.
The acquired land was further closed to mines and crushers. Land in question
could be utilized for crushers and other industrial units. These factors
collectively indicate that acquired land was potential, thus, market value
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.08 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-10-

RFA-535-2025
could not be assessed equal to collector rate. The Reference Court has rightly
made addition of 50% considering locational factors as well as potentiality
of the land.
15. The appellants are claiming that value of their land should be
assessed at par with land acquired for drainage. The Reference Court has
duly considered claim of the appellants. Indubitably, land acquired for the
drainage was abutting the main road. The total area involved in the previous
acquisition was 8.33 Acre whereas in the present case, it was 47 Acre. In the
previous award, market value was assessed on the basis of value of a small
piece of residential area. The Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar (supra) has
clearly held that previous award cannot be mechanically relied upon. Though
2013 Act is inapplicable in the present case still reference of Explanation 3
of Section 26(1) may be made. As per aforesaid explanation, previous award
of the same district cannot be considered for determining market value. In
the present case, multiple sale deeds of same type of land were available.
Sale consideration disclosed in those sale deeds is much less than Collector
rate where land is got registered for utilizing as crusher. In such
circumstances, sale consideration disclosed in the relied upon sale deeds
could not be made basis to determine market value and at the same moment
market value could not be assessed on the basis of previous award which was
based upon sale deed of a residential plot. Factum of area involved and
location cannot be ignored. In the previous award, the acquired land was
abutting the main road whereas land in question was away from highway
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.08 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-11-

RFA-535-2025
which is evident from the fact that it was utilized for Bye-Pass and as per
revenue record, it was agricultural land.
16. The Reference Court has awarded severance charges to the tune
of 20% of market value. The state is not disputing the fact that acquired land
was bifurcated into two pieces, thus, landowners suffered loss on account of
severance. The Reference Court has awarded severance charges @ 20% of
market value which seem to be just and fair. It is apt to notice that none of
the contesting parties has heartily disputed question of severance and
quantum of acquisition.
17. In the wake of above discussion and findings, the appeals filed
by both sides stand dismissed . The Reference Court has not made it clear
whether land of all the landowners was bifurcated or not. To avoid further
litigation and confusion, it is made clear that the Executing Court before
releasing compensation may examine this aspect. The landowners whose
land was not bifurcated would not be entitled to severance charges.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
03.09.2026
SDK

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.08 19:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document