Kanta Devi Gumber vs State Of Haryana And Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Item No.123 (24 cases) RFA-75-2020 (O&M)
Decided on: 30.10.2026
KANTA DEVI GUMBER …Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA & Ors. …Respondents
With
Sr. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s)
No.

2. RFA-644-2021 (O&M) State of Haryana M/s Sarine Infrastructures
Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

3. RFA-645-2021 (O&M) State of Haryana & Anr. Ram Chander & Anr.

4. RFA-646-2021 (O&M) State of Haryana & Anr. Smt. Kanta Devi Gamber &
Ors.

5. RFA-648-2021 (O&M) State of Haryana & Anr. Kamal Mangla & Ors.

6. RFA-649-2021 (O&M) State of Haryana & Anr. M/s Haryana Steel Mogers
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

7. RFA-650-2021 with
XOBJR-83-2023
(O&M)
State of Haryana & Anr. Vinod Kumar & Ors.
8. RFA-651-2021 (O&M) State of Haryana & Anr. M/s KBM Land Developers
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

9. RFA-652-2021 (O&M) State of Haryana & Anr. Smt. Devender Kaur & Ors.

10. RFA-678-2021 (O&M) State of Haryana & Anr. Rajender Parshad Mittal &
Ors.

11. RFA-777-2021 (O&M) State of Haryana M/s DLF Limited & Anr.

12. RFA-789-2021 (O&M) State of Haryana & Anr. Yogesh Gupta & Anr.

13. RFA-135-2020 (O&M) Devender Kaur & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors.

14. RFA-183-2020 (O&M) M/s Haryana Steel State of Haryana & Ors.
Mogers Pvt. Ltd.


15. RFA-185-2020 (O&M) Rajender Parshad Mittal State of Haryana & Ors.
& Anr.

16. RFA-233-2020 (O&M) M/s KBM Land State of Haryana & Ors.
Developers Pvt. Ltd.

17. RFA-839-2020 (O&M) M/s DLF Limited Haryana Urban
Development Authority &
Anr.

18. RFA-1355-2021 (O&M) Yogesh Gupta State of Haryana & Ors.

19. RFA-792-2021 (O&M) State of Haryana & Anr. M/s Bhupendra Steels Pvt.
Ltd. & Anr.

20. RFA-988-2020 (O&M) Ram Chandra & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors.

21. RFA-784-2020 (O&M) Kamal Mangla & Anr. State of Haryana & Anr.

22. RFA-845-2020 (O&M) N.K. Kalra (deceased) State of Haryana & Ors.
through LRs & Anr.

23. RFA-1368-2021
M/s Sarine
Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.
State of Haryana and
Another
(O&M)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. Adarsh Jain, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur, Advocate and
Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate
for the appellant(s) ( in RFA-784-2020 ) and
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:03 for respondent (s) ( in RFA-645-2021 )
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-75-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -2-
Mr. Kunal Dawar, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Tanika Goyal, Advocate and
Ms. Zaheen Kaur, Advocate for landowner(s)
(in RFA-652-2021, RFA-678-2021, RFA-777-2021, RFA-789-
2021, RFA-135-2020, RFA-185-2020, RFA-839-2020, RFA-
845-2020 and RFA-1355-2021)

Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate (through V.C.)
for the appellant

Mr. Aakash Chaudhary, Advocate
for respondnet-DMRTC
(in RFAs No.789 and 902 of 2021)

Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate,
Ms. Kaanan Jain, Advocate
Ms. Indu Bala, Advocate
for landowners (in RFA-233-2020) and
for cross-objector (in XOBJR-83-2023)


Mr. Ravi Bhushan, Advocate
Mr. Sakal Sikri, Advocate, Mr. Siddhanth Arora, Advocate
for appellant(s) (in RFA-75-2020) and
for respondent(s) (in RFA-646-2021)

Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate
for appellant(s) ( in RFA-183-2020, RFA-988-2020) ;
for respondent(s) in RFA-645-2021 and
respondent No.1 in RFA-649-2021

Mr. Abhinash Jain, Additional 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 awards passed by learned
Additional District Judge, Faridabad (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-75-2020.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-75-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -3-

3. Tabulated details of the assessment made till date read as: -
Date of notification under Section 4 04.07.2012
Date of notification under Section 6 31.12.2012
Purpose of acquisition Metro station and parking sites from
Badarpur to YMCA Chowk, Faridabad
Location Villages – Mewla Maharajpur, Ajronda,
Mujessar, Faridabad, Sarai Khawaja and
Daultabad
District - Faridabad
Date of Collector’s (LAC) award 29.05.2013
Market value of the land in question ₹8,000/- per sq. yard for industrial land,
as per LAC (per sq. yard) ₹12,000/- per sq. yard for residential land and
₹16,000/- for commercial land;
Date of Reference Court (RC) Mujessar: 14.10.2019, 15.10.2019.
Awards 25.11.2019 and 28.08.2019
Note: Present appeals are confined to Village
Mujessar.
Market value as per RC (per sq. yard) Mujessar: ₹32,000/- per sq. yard



4. The State Government issued notification dated 04.07.2012
under Section 4 of the 1894 Act for the acquisition of land measuring 11 Kanal
2 Marla of Village Mujessar besides land of other Villages namely Mewla
Maharajpur, Ajronda, Faridabad, Sarai Khawaja and Daultabad, District
Faridabad for the construction of metro stations and parking sites from
Badarpur to YMCA Chowk, Faridabad. The said notification was followed by
notification dated 31.12.2012 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act.

5. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’), in terms
of provisions of 1894 Act, determined compensation payable to the
landowners. Feeling dissatisfied from the aforesaid award, they preferred
petitions before the Collector which were referred to the Court under Section
18 of the 1894 Act.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-75-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -4-


6. The landowners as well as State, in support of their contentions,
led their evidence. The State attempted to justify market value determined by
Collector, however, landowners vehemently pleaded that compensation
payable has been assessed on lower side.

7. The Reference Court while appreciating evidence led by both
sides, by impugned award adjudicated reference petitions. The Reference
Court by impugned awards has enhanced amount of compensation. The
landowners are claiming further enhancement and State is claiming otherwise.

8. Learned counsel for landowners submit that the Reference Court
has assessed market value @ ₹40,000/- per sq. yard and made deduction of
20% towards development. Consequently, net market value of the acquired
land has been assessed @ ₹32,000/- per sq. yard. There was no occasion to
impose cut of 20%. The landowners were not concerned with the
development especially when land in question was already developed. The
Reference Court has noticed that Divisional Level Price Fixation Committee
had determined market price of the land @ ₹50,000/- per sq. yard which was
acquired in 2010. This Court vide order dated 25.04.2024 passed in a bunch
of appeals including RFA-2532-2021 titled as ‘Hydraulics and Pneumatics
(India) LLP vs. State of Haryana & Anr.’ has assessed market value @
₹70,000/- per sq. yard. The Court has further granted severance charges @
50% of the assessed market value. Same market value of the acquired land
irrespective of its location should be determined. Applying order dated
25.04.2024 passed by this Court, market value of the land in question may be
assessed @ ₹70,000/- per sq. yard.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-75-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -5-

9. Per contra , learned State counsel submits that Divisional Level
Price Fixation Committee determined market price @ ₹50,000/- per sq. yard
for the land which was acquired for widening national highway. The acquired
land was abutting the national highway and carrying commercial value
whereas land in question is industrial which is evident from sale deed No.3814
dated 17.06.2011. The claimant while filing reference enclosed aforesaid sale
deed and it was marked as Ex.P-1. The claimant-M/s Sarine Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. purchased acquired land for a sum of ₹ 5.83 crore. The area
purchased was 14,497 sq. yards. The stamp duty was paid considering sale
consideration ₹11,94,00,209/-. The market price must be determined as per
sale deeds furnished by the landowners. There is no sale deed which is
disclosing market price as claimed by them. The claimant itself purchased
acquired land @ ₹4,021.52/- per sq. yard and is claiming compensation @
₹70,000/- per sq. yard. The Reference Court has wrongly relied upon
irrelevant evidence. Reliance may not be placed upon judgment of this Court
in Hydraulics and Pneumatics (India) LLP (supra) because there is distance
of more than 5 km between the land in question and land comprised in
aforesaid order. In the aforesaid case, the acquired land has been
assessed/treated as commercial whereas sale deed (Ex.P-4) produced by
landowner itself is disclosing it as industrial.

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.

11. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

12. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that delay in filing
any appeal which is part of present bunch may be condoned. Accordingly,
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-75-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -6-
delay, if any, in any case, stands condoned. The landowners shall not be
entitled to interest for the delayed period.

13. The landowners before the Reference Court led evidence in the
form of sale deeds. The State also produced few sale deeds. Tabulated details
of sale deeds produced by both sides read as:
By landowners
Sr.
No.
Exhibit Sale
deed
No.
Date Area Sale
consideration
(₹)
Per sq.
yard
1 Ex.P4 3342 29.6.2010 242 square yards of
Sector 11, Block D,
Faridabad
23,00,000 ₹9,500
2 Ex.P5 14047 24.2.2011 9.7 acres, Sector 11,
Faridabad
85,00,00,000 ₹18,250
3 Ex.P6 6330 22.8.2016 1375 square yards of
Sector 11, Block A
4,53,75,000 ₹33,000
4 Ex.P7 10501 24.12.2015 1443 sq. yards, Sector
11, Block A
4,76,19,000 ₹33,000
5 Ex.P8 11250 30.12.2016 1114.5 sq. yards,
Block B-1, Sector 11,
Faridabad
6,00,00,000 ₹53,859
6 Ex.P9 8390 6.10.2016 1000 sq. yards, Sector
11, Block A
33,00,00,000 ₹29,300
7 Ex.P10 13184 12.3.2013 462 sq. yards, Block
C, Sector 11,
Faridabad
20,00,00,000 ₹43,290
8 Ex.P11 11949 7.2.2013 1193 sq. yards, Block
C, Sector 11,
Faridabad
2,98,25,000 ₹25,000
9 Ex.P12 842 30.4.2014 1080.9 sq. yards,
Sector 11, Block A,
Faridabad
3,56,73,000 ₹33,000
10 Ex.P13 1367 1.6.2017 1000 sq. yards, Block
A-1, Sector 11,
Faridabad
3,30,00,000 ₹33,000
11 Ex.P14 2782 31.7.2017 500 sq. yards, Sector
11, Block A,
Faridabad
1,84,00,000 ₹36,800
12 Ex.P15 5467 25.8.2014 614 sq. yards, Sector
11, Block A
2,02,62,000 ₹33,000
13 Ex.P16 10786 21.12.2010 1767 sq. yards, Sector
11, Block A
2,05,00,000 ₹11,601


DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:03

I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-75-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -7-
By State
Sr.
No.
Exhibit Sale Deed Date Area (sq. Sale Per sq.
No. yards) Consideration (₹) yard (₹)
1 Mark A 11722 08.03.2011 150 495,000 ₹3,300
2 Mark B 4651 28.07.2011 150 1,000,000 ₹6,666
3 Mark C 1518 01.07.2010 667 2,200,000 ₹3,298
4 Mark D 13410 16.11.2011 333 1,665,000 ₹5,000
5 Mark E 4259 27.06.2012 2,420 4,500,000 ₹1,859
6 Mark F 17882 09.02.2012 150 850,000 ₹5,666


14. The aforesaid sale deeds are noticed in award dated 28.08.2019
whereby 8 reference petitions were adjudicated. Remaining petitions have
been adjudicated on the basis of aforesaid award dated 28.08.2019. M/s
Sarine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is one of the appellants. It purchased its
acquired as well as unacquired land vide sale deed No.3814 dated 17.06.2011.
The aforesaid sale deed as per LCR is Ex.P-1 and as per impugned award
dated 25.11.2019 is Ex.P-4. As per sale deed dated 17.06.2011, land in
question was NIT Industrial Area. It comprised 14497 sq. yards land along
with structure. Sale consideration was ₹5,83,00,000/-. Stamp duty was paid
considering sale price ₹11,94,00,209/-. It appears that transaction was made
for a sum of ₹5,83,00,000/, however, stamp duty was calculated on
₹11,94,00,209/-. The landowners adduced multiple exemplar sale deeds.
Except Ex.P-4, P-5 and P-16, all other sale deeds were executed post
notification issued under Section 4. As per Section 23, sale deeds executed
post notification issued under Section 4 ought not to be considered. The
Reference Court in para No.49 has considered Ex.P-10 dated 12.03.2013 and
Ex.P-11 dated 07.02.2013 as relevant pieces of evidence. Para No.49 reads
as:
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-75-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -8-
“49. The above referred sale deeds clearly indicate the market
value of the acquired land had increased during the year 2010
to 2017. As per sale deed Ex P10 dated 12.3.2013 the land of
sector 11 was sold out @ ₹43220/- per square yard. Further,
the sale deed Ex P11 dated 7.2.2013 reveals that 1193 square
yard land was sold @ ₹25,000/- per square yard. These sale
deeds are nearer to the notification published under Section 4
of the Act on 4.7.2012. therefore, the sale deed Ex P10 and Ex
P11 and other sale deeds referred to in table 19 can be
considered as a relevant factor for determining the market
value of the acquired land coupled with other evidence
available on the record.”

15. A scrutiny of Ex.P-10 and P-11 reveals that both the sale deeds
were comprising residential land. Sale deed dated 17.06.2011 (Ex.P-1 in
RFA-1368-2021) is disclosing type of land as industrial. A conjoint reading
of Ex.P-10, P-11 and P-1 in RFA-1368-2021 discloses that land in question
was not commercial at all. The Reference Court in Para No.51 has noticed that
the acquired land was exclusively meant for residential purposes. The
landowners during hearing have neither pleaded nor drawn attention of this
Court towards any document disclosing that the land in question was
commercial. They have further not disputed findings of the Reference Court
that land in question was residential. In these circumstances, it can be
concluded that land in question was either industrial or residential.

16. The Collector Rates of commercial property are substantially
higher than residential property. The Reference Court has relied upon report
dated 08.11.2013 of the Divisional Level Committee. The landowners are
also relying upon aforesaid report. As per aforesaid report, basic rate for the
commercial land of village Mujassar was ₹50,000/- per sq. yard whereas basic
rate for residential property was ₹30,000/- per sq. yard. It is apt to notice that
as per aforesaid report, basic rate of industrial land was ₹10,000/- per sq. yard.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-75-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -9-

17. The landowners are claiming that market value of their land
should be assessed as per judgment of this Court in Hydraulics and
Pneumatics (India) LLP (supra) . In the aforesaid case, this Court has
considered acquired land as commercial land. The Court has further relied
upon report dated 27.12.2010 of the Divisional Level Committee which
recommended market price for the commercial land @ ₹50,000/- per sq. yard.
The Reference Court had determined market price @ ₹70,000/- per sq. yard,
however, applied development cut of 20%. This Court has rejected decision
of the Reference Court qua development cut and assessed market value @
₹70,000/- per sq. yard.
17.1 In the present case, as observed hereinabove, land in question is
not commercial. It is situated at a distance of more than 5 km from the land
involved in the aforesaid case. The Reference Court has considered report
dated 08.11.2013 of the Divisional Level Committee which has determined
market price of the residential land @ ₹30,000/- per sq. yard. In such
circumstances, there is no occasion to rely upon aforesaid judgment. This
Court cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that land of every village carries its
own value. Market value for the land of one village cannot be determined
mechanically or arbitrarily as per market value for the land of another village.
Practically even different pieces of land of the same village fetch different
values which is evident from the fact that there is substantial difference in the
market value for the land meant for agricultural, residential, industrial and
commercial purposes. Industrial as well as commercial land is used for
business purposes still market price of the land meant for commercial purpose
is multi-fold than industrial land.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-75-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -10-
17.2 The landowners are relying upon aforesaid order, however,
ignoring that sale deed dated 30.12.2016 (Ex.P-8) which was executed four
years after the relevant date i.e. 04.07.2012 is disclosing market value @
₹53,859/- per sq. yard. If in 2016 value was ₹53,859/- it is impossible to
believe that value in 2012 was ₹70,000/- per sq. yard. The landowners cannot
be permitted to argue contrary to their own evidence.

18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Spl. Tehsildar, Land
Acquisition, Vishakapatnam Vs. Smt. A. Mangala Gowri, 1991(4) SCC 218
has clearly held that when bona fide or genuine sale transaction relating to the
self-same land is available, there is no justification to rely upon another award.
The Apex Court in the said case has noticed that one acre land was sold @ ₹5
per sq. yard and it cannot be expected that within a short span of 9 months, it
would fetch ₹10 per sq. yard. The Reference Court and High Court had
determined value @ ₹10 per sq. yard while relying upon another award
wherein market value @ ₹10 per sq. yard was determined. A part of the
acquired land itself was sold @ ₹5 per sq. yard. The Apex Court held that
High Court has committed error while ignoring sale consideration of the land
under acquisition. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:
“In a span of one year and four months, they sold @ Rs.5
per sq. yard. It is common knowledge that proposal for
acquisition would be known to everyone in the
neighbourhood, in particular, to the owners of the property
and it is not uncommon that sale transactions would be
brought into existence before the publication of Section
4(1) notification so as to form the basis to lay higher claim
for compensation. We do assume that Ex. B.10 is a genuine
and bona fide sale transaction. In respect of one acre of the
land in the self-same land when sold at Rs.5 per sq. yard,
DEEPAK BISSYAN
would it fetch in a short period of nine months, double the
2026.10.30 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-75-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -11-
market value, namely, @ Rs.10 per sq. yard. We have no
doubt that it would not get that price for 5 acres and odd
area. It is undoubted that in respect of a notification of
1961 in which another T.S. number in the locality, namely,
T. S. No. 1008, (sic) ultimately, the High Court awarded @
Rs.10 per sq. yard. Perhaps had there been no bona fide or
genuine sale transaction relating to the self-same land, the
reliance placed on that judgment may be justified but
exclusion of bona fide and genuine sale transactions in
respect of the same land under acquisition and to place
reliance on the award of some other land is obviously
illegal. When the claimants themselves sold as a willing
seller of an acre of land @ Rs.5 per sq. yard large extent
of five acres and odd under acquisition, if it is offered to be
sold as a block, it would not fetch higher rate but surely be
negotiated for a lesser rate if not the same market value @
Rs.5 due to time lag of nine months. No attempt was made
by the respondent to explain under what circumstances
they came to sell their lands @ Rs.5 per sq. yard when they
expect higher value @ Rs.10 per sq. yard. May be the
payment of Rs.10 per sq. yard, be windfall to the owner of
the land:- T 1008. Taking the totality of the facts and
circumstances, we hold that the High Court committed
grave error to completely ignore the sale transactions of
the lands under acquisition. In view of the time lag we have
no hesitation to conclude that the prevailing market value
of the land as on the date of the notification would be Rs.
6 per sq. yard.”
[Emphasis supplied]

19. Sale deed dated 17.06.2011 (Ex.P-1 in RFA-1368-2021)
comprises 14497 sq. yards area. Land of the aforesaid sale deed formed part
of the acquired land, thus, it was an important and more reliable evidence than
any other. It was executed on 17.06.2011 and notification under Section 4
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:03
was issued on 04.07.2012. Notification under Section 6 was issued on
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-75-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -12-
31.12.2012 and the Collector passed award on 29.05.2013. It means buyer
purchased land just one year prior to the notification under Section 4. Buyer
of the aforesaid land i.e. M/s Sarine Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is appellant in
RFA-1368-2021 and respondent in RFA-644-2021 .

20. As held by the Apex Court if genuine purchase price of the same
(acquired) land is available, it must be considered. In the present case, sale
deed (Ex.P-1 in RFA-1368-2021) comprising 14497 sq. yards area, forming
part of the acquired land is available, thus, it is required to be given due
weightage. This sale deed discloses that nature of the acquired land is
industrial. Market price as well as circle rate and price determined by the
Divisional Level Committee of the industrial land is less than the price of the
residential and commercial properties. It is even otherwise matter of common
knowledge that market price of the industrial land is less than residential and
commercial land. Industrial land cannot be used for commercial purposes. It
can be used for setting up industry unless and until there is CLU Certificate
from the competent authority. As per aforesaid sale deed, market price on the
basis of sale consideration comes to ₹4,021.52 per sq. yard and as per value
considered for calculating stamp duty comes to ₹8,236.20 per sq. yard.

21. The Reference Court as noticed hereinabove has recorded a
categoric finding that the acquired land was exclusively meant for residential
purposes. The landowners submitted sale deeds disclosing nature of the land
as ‘ residential’. The Reference Court has considered report dated 08.11.2013
of the Divisional Level Committee. As per aforesaid report, basic rate for
residential property was ₹30,000/- per sq. yard. The Reference Court has
further considered award No.6 dated 08.05.2015 which was passed by
Collector in respect of land falling within the revenue estate of Village
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:03 Mujassar i.e. village in question. Award dated 08.05.2015 was outcome of
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-75-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -13-
notification dated 12.02.2013 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The
Collector determined market value @ ₹10,000/- per sq. yard and further
awarded 100% solatium. In other words, market value along with solatium
was determined @ ₹20,000/- per sq. yard.
Award dated 08.05.2015 which related to notification dated
12.02.2013 issued under Section 4 determined market value @ ₹10,000/- per
sq. yard. Collector Rates for the year 2012-13 of residential property was
₹25,000/- per sq. yard. The Divisional Level Committee in its meeting dated
08.11.2013 determined market value for the residential land @ ₹30,000/- per
sq. yard. Report dated 08.11.2013 related to land acquired for widening of
Delhi-Faridabad-Mathura National Highway. The exemplar sale deed dated
24.02.2011 (Ex.P-5) comprising 9.7 Acres land of Sector 11, Faridabad which
was produced by the landowners disclosed market value @ ₹18,250/- per sq.
yard. Ex.P-11 dated 07.02.2013 revealed market value @ ₹25,000/- per sq.
yard. The landowners had adduced many other sale deeds. All the sale deeds
except Ex.P-10 dated 12.03.2013 and Ex.P-8 dated 30.12.2016 are disclosing
market value @ ₹33,000/- per sq. yard. The sale deeds which were executed
after 2-3 years from the Section 4 notification are disclosing market price @
₹33,000/- per sq. yard. It is apt to notice that report of the Divisional Level
Committee was prepared on 08.11.2013 i.e. post notification under Section 4
and it was not related to the land in question. These documents collectively
prove that market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under
Section 4 was not more than ₹30,000/- per sq. yard.

22. In the backdrop, despite availability of sale deed dated
17.06.2011 (Ex.P-1 in RFA-1368-2021), this Court finds it appropriate to treat
land in question as ‘ residential’ and assess market value @ ₹30,000/- per sq.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-75-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -14-
yard. Accordingly, market value of the land in question is determined @
₹30,000/- per sq. yard.

23. The Reference Court has not recorded findings with respect to
severance charges. The landowners are claiming that the State has acquired
front portion of their land resultantly value of their remaining land has
substantially diminished. They are having limited access whereas there was
free access prior to acquisition. Due to acquisition of front portion, they
deserve to be paid severance charges/damages as contemplated under Section
23. Every landowner cannot claim same amount of damages. The landowners
are claiming severance charges @ 50% of the value of the acquired land.
There is possibility that area bifurcated from the unacquired area is so small
that 50% of the amount of compensation or total compensation may be more
than total value of the bifurcated area. This may be understood with an
example. Landowner ‘X’ is having five acres land each and his four acres land
is acquired. Value of one acre land may be less than 50% of the enhanced
compensation or total compensation. If 50% of the compensation or enhanced
compensation is awarded, it would be apparently bad because it would be in
the public interest if bifurcated/unacquired one acre land is also acquired. The
Reference Court is further supposed to ascertain area owned and possessed by
the claimants, area vivisected from the unacquired area and area vivisected
from the acquired land, utilization of the land prior to the acquisition and post-
acquisition, change in the value of unacquired land on account of construction
of metro stations and parking area.

24. It is a batch of more than 20 cases and it is not possible for this
Court to examine each reference application as well as evidence led by
landowners in support of their claim qua severance charges/damages.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:03 Therefore, matter is remanded to the Reference Court with respect to
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-75-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -15-
severance charges. The Court shall consider claim of only those landowners
who had claimed severance charges in their reference application and led
evidence. No fresh evidence would be taken on record and amount of
severance charges/damages would be determined in the light of observations
made hereinabove.

25. Learned counsel for the appellant in RFA-784-2020 has raised
question of superstructure. This question has not been answered either by
Collector or the Reference Court. Learned State counsel does not dispute the
arrangement if the matter is remanded to the Reference Court to determine
question of compensation qua superstructure.

26. In the backdrop, matter is remanded to the Reference Court to
determine question of compensation qua superstructure. It is made clear that
the Reference Court would consider aforesaid question if the appellant had
raised this question in the reference application or led evidence.

27. In the wake of above discussion and findings, respective
appeals/cross-objections of the State as well as landowners are disposed of in
above terms.

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

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
October 30, 2026
Deepak DPA


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

DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment