State Of Haryana And Others vs Bhim Singh And Others
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Item Nos.217+220+222+223+109+111 (607 cases)
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M)
Decided on: 30.10.2026
State of Haryana and others …Appellant
Versus
Bhim Singh and others …Respondents
With
Sr. Case No. Sr. Case No. Sr. Case No.
No. No No
2. RFA-1026-2025 (O&M) 3. RFA-1046-2025 (O&M) 4. RFA-1076-2025 (O&M)
5. RFA-1080-2025 (O&M) 6. RFA-11-2026 (O&M) 7. RFA-114-2025 (O&M)
8. RFA-12-2026 (O&M) 9. RFA-13-2026 (O&M) 10. RFA-134-2025 (O&M)
11. RFA-1377-2025 (O&M) 12. RFA-1379-2025 (O&M) 13. RFA-1380-2025 (O&M)
14. RFA-1381-2025 (O&M) 15. RFA-1382-2025 (O&M) 16. RFA-1383-2025 (O&M)
17. RFA-1384-2025 (O&M) 18. RFA-1385-2025 (O&M) 19. RFA-1386-2025 (O&M)
20. RFA-1387-2025 (O&M) 21. RFA-1388-2025 (O&M) 22. RFA-1389-2025 (O&M)
23. RFA-139-2025 (O&M) 24. RFA-1390-2025 (O&M) 25. RFA-1391-2025 (O&M)
26. RFA-1392-2025 (O&M) 27. RFA-1393-2025 (O&M) 28. RFA-1394-2025 (O&M)
29. RFA-1395-2025 (O&M) 30. RFA-1396-2025 (O&M) 31. RFA-1397-2025 (O&M)
32. RFA-1398-2025 (O&M) 33. RFA-1399-2025 (O&M) 34. RFA-14-2026 (O&M)
35. RFA-140-2025 (O&M) 36. RFA-1400-2025 (O&M) 37. RFA-1401-2025 (O&M)
38. RFA-1402-2025 (O&M) 39. RFA-1403-2025 (O&M) 40. RFA-1404-2025 (O&M)
41. RFA-1405-2025 (O&M) 42. RFA-1406-2025 (O&M) 43. RFA-1407-2025 (O&M)
44. RFA-1408-2025 (O&M) 45. RFA-1409-2025 (O&M) 46. RFA-1410-2025 (O&M)
47. RFA-1411-2025 (O&M) 48. RFA-1412-2025 (O&M) 49. RFA-1413-2025 (O&M)
50. RFA-1414-2025 (O&M) 51. RFA-1415-2025 (O&M) 52. RFA-1416-2025 (O&M)
53. RFA-1424-2025 (O&M) 54. RFA-1428-2025 (O&M) 55. RFA-143-2025 (O&M)
56. RFA-1431-2025 (O&M) 57. RFA-1434-2025 (O&M) 58. RFA-1443-2025 (O&M)
59. RFA-145-2025 (O&M) 60. RFA-159-2025 (O&M) 61. RFA-171-2025 (O&M)
62. RFA-172-2025 (O&M) 63. RFA-173-2025 (O&M) 64. RFA-174-2025 (O&M)
65. RFA-181-2025 (O&M) 66. RFA-185-2025 (O&M) 67. RFA-186-2025 (O&M)
68. RFA-187-2025 (O&M) 69. RFA-189-2025 (O&M) 70. RFA-193-2025 (O&M)
71. RFA-194-2025 (O&M) 72. RFA-199-2025 (O&M) 73. RFA-200-2025 (O&M)
74. RFA-146-2025 (O&M) 75. RFA-147-2025 (O&M) 76. RFA-148-2025 (O&M)
77. RFA-149-2025 (O&M) 78. RFA-15-2026 (O&M) 79. RFA-152-2025 (O&M)
80. RFA-153-2025 (O&M) 81. RFA-154-2025 (O&M) 82. RFA-1563-2025 (O&M)
83. RFA-1565-2025 (O&M) 84. RFA-1566-2025 (O&M) 85. RFA-1580-2025 (O&M)
86. RFA-1581-2025 (O&M) 87. RFA-1582-2025 (O&M) 88. RFA-1589-2025 (O&M)
89. RFA-1590-2025 (O&M) 90. RFA-1591-2025 (O&M) 91. RFA-1594-2025 (O&M)
92. RFA-1596-2025 (O&M) 93. RFA-1603-2025 (O&M) 94. RFA-1604-2025 (O&M)
95. RFA-1605-2025 (O&M) 96. RFA-1606-2025 (O&M) 97. RFA-1610-2025 (O&M)
98. RFA-1625-2025 (O&M) 99. RFA-1626-2025 (O&M) 100. RFA-1629-2025 (O&M)
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -2-
101. RFA-1564-2025 (O&M) 102. RFA-1586-2025 (O&M) 103. RFA-16-2026 (O&M)
104. RFA-160-2025 (O&M) 105. RFA-161-2025 (O&M) 106. RFA-162-2025 (O&M)
107. RFA-165-2025 (O&M) 108. RFA-1650-2025 (O&M) 109. RFA-168-2025 (O&M)
110. RFA-169-2025 (O&M) 111. RFA-17-2026 (O&M) 112. RFA-170-2025 (O&M)
113. RFA-1717-2025 (O&M) 114. RFA-1718-2025 (O&M) 115. RFA-1719-2025 (O&M)
116. RFA-1721-2025 (O&M) 117. RFA-1722-2025 (O&M) 118. RFA-174-2026 (O&M)
119. RFA-175-2026 (O&M) 120. RFA-1762-2025 (O&M) 121. RFA-18-2026 (O&M)
122. RFA-19-2026 (O&M) 123. RFA-2-2026 (O&M) 124. RFA-20-2026 (O&M)
125. RFA-201-2025 (O&M) 126. RFA-203-2025 (O&M) 127. RFA-205-2025 (O&M)
128. RFA-206-2025 (O&M) 129. RFA-207-2025 (O&M) 130. RFA-208-2025 (O&M)
131. RFA-209-2025 (O&M) 132. RFA-21-2026 (O&M) 133. RFA-210-2025 (O&M)
134. RFA-211-2025 (O&M) 135. RFA-214-2025 (O&M) 136. RFA-219-2025 (O&M)
137. RFA-223-2025 (O&M) 138. RFA-224-2025 (O&M) 139. RFA-225-2025 (O&M)
140. RFA-226-2025 (O&M) 141. RFA-227-2025 (O&M) 142. RFA-228-2025 (O&M)
143. RFA-229-2025 (O&M) 144. RFA-23-2026 (O&M) 145. RFA-230-2025 (O&M)
146. RFA-24-2026 (O&M) 147. RFA-240-2025 (O&M) 148. RFA-241-2025 (O&M)
149. RFA-242-2025 (O&M) 150. RFA-243-2025 (O&M) 151. RFA-244-2025 (O&M)
152. RFA-245-2025 (O&M) 153. RFA-246-2025 (O&M) 154. RFA-247-2025 (O&M)
155. RFA-248-2025 (O&M) 156. RFA-25-2026 (O&M) 157. RFA-250-2025 (O&M)
158. RFA-251-2025 (O&M) 159. RFA-252-2025 (O&M) 160. RFA-253-2025 (O&M)
161. RFA-254-2025 (O&M) 162. RFA-255-2025 (O&M) 163. RFA-256-2025 (O&M)
164. RFA-257-2025 (O&M) 165. RFA-258-2025 (O&M) 166. RFA-259-2025 (O&M)
167. RFA-26-2026 (O&M) 168. RFA-260-2025 (O&M) 169. RFA-261-2025 (O&M)
170. RFA-263-2025 (O&M) 171. RFA-264-2025 (O&M) 172. RFA-266-2025 (O&M)
173. RFA-267-2025 (O&M) 174. RFA-27-2026 (O&M) 175. RFA-273-2025 (O&M)
176. RFA-274-2025 (O&M) 177. RFA-275-2025 (O&M) 178. RFA-28-2026 (O&M)
179. RFA-280-2025 (O&M) 180. RFA-297-2025 (O&M) 181. RFA-298-2025 (O&M)
182. RFA-299-2025 (O&M) 183. RFA-300-2025 (O&M) 184. RFA-301-2025 (O&M)
185. RFA-302-2025 (O&M) 186. RFA-303-2025 (O&M) 187. RFA-304-2025 (O&M)
188. RFA-305-2025 (O&M) 189. RFA-306-2025 (O&M) 190. RFA-307-2025 (O&M)
191. RFA-309-2025 (O&M) 192. RFA-312-2025 (O&M) 193. RFA-315-2025 (O&M)
194. RFA-316-2025 (O&M) 195. RFA-317-2025 (O&M) 196. RFA-320-2025 (O&M)
197. RFA-328-2025 (O&M) 198. RFA-329-2025 (O&M) 199. RFA-330-2025 (O&M)
200. RFA-337-2025 (O&M) 201. RFA-340-2025 (O&M) 202. RFA-341-2025 (O&M)
203. RFA-342-2025 (O&M) 204. RFA-345-2025 (O&M) 205. RFA-346-2025 (O&M)
206. RFA-347-2025 (O&M) 207. RFA-365-2025 (O&M) 208. RFA-282-2025 (O&M)
209. RFA-283-2025 (O&M) 210. RFA-29-2026 (O&M) 211. RFA-290-2025 (O&M)
212. RFA-292-2025 (O&M) 213. RFA-293-2025 (O&M) 214. RFA-294-2025 (O&M)
215. RFA-295-2025 (O&M) 216. RFA-3-2026 (O&M) 217. RFA-30-2026 (O&M)
218. RFA-31-2026 (O&M) 219. RFA-317-2023 (O&M) 220. RFA-1081-2024 (O&M)
221. RFA-1114-2024 (O&M) 222. RFA-1167-2024 (O&M) 223. RFA-1173-2025 (O&M)
224. RFA-118-2024 (O&M) 225. RFA-1195-2023 (O&M) 226. RFA-1197-2023 (O&M)
227. RFA-1198-2023 (O&M) 228. RFA-1199-2023 (O&M) 229. RFA-1200-2023 (O&M)
230. RFA-1206-2023 (O&M) 231. RFA-1207-2023 (O&M) 232. RFA-1208-2023 (O&M)
233. RFA-1209-2023 (O&M) 234. RFA-130-2025 (O&M) 235. RFA-133-2023 (O&M)
236. RFA-173-2023 (O&M) 237. RFA-174-2023 (O&M) 238. RFA-1355-2023 (O&M)
239. RFA-1455-2023 (O&M) 240. RFA-1508-2023 (O&M) 241. RFA-1535-2023 (O&M)
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -3-
242. RFA-149-2023 (O&M) 243. RFA-157-2023 (O&M) 244. RFA-158-2023 (O&M)
245. RFA-160-2023 (O&M) 246. RFA-161-2023 (O&M) 247. RFA-162-2023 (O&M)
248. RFA-177-2023 (O&M) 249. RFA-178-2023 (O&M) 250. RFA-179-2023 (O&M)
251. RFA-180-2023 (O&M) 252. RFA-184-2023 (O&M) 253. RFA-185-2023 (O&M)
254. RFA-186-2023 (O&M) 255. RFA-189-2023 (O&M) 256. RFA-190-2023 (O&M)
257. RFA-191-2023 (O&M) 258. RFA-197-2023 (O&M) 259. RFA-198-2023 (O&M)
260. RFA-199-2023 (O&M) 261. RFA-203-2023 (O&M) 262. RFA-204-2023 (O&M)
263. RFA-205-2023 (O&M) 264. RFA-206-2023 (O&M) 265. RFA-208-2023 (O&M)
266. RFA-209-2023 (O&M) 267. RFA-218-2023 (O&M) 268. RFA-220-2023 (O&M)
269. RFA-221-2023 (O&M) 270. RFA-222-2023 (O&M) 271. RFA-223-2023 (O&M)
272. RFA-224-2023 (O&M) 273. RFA-225-2023 (O&M) 274. RFA-287-2023 (O&M)
275. RFA-290-2023 (O&M) 276. RFA-291-2023 (O&M) 277. RFA-292-2023 (O&M)
278. RFA-955-2023 (O&M) 279. RFA-1772-2023 (O&M) 280. RFA-195-2025 (O&M)
281. RFA-296-2025 (O&M) 282. RFA-318-2023 (O&M) 283. RFA-319-2023 (O&M)
284. RFA-320-2023 (O&M) 285. RFA-321-2023 (O&M) 286. RFA-322-2023 (O&M)
287. RFA-323-2023 (O&M) 288. RFA-324-2023 (O&M) 289. RFA-325-2023 (O&M)
290. RFA-326-2023 (O&M) 291. RFA-339-2023 (O&M) 292. RFA-438-2023 (O&M)
293. RFA-440-2023 (O&M) 294. RFA-442-2023 (O&M) 295. RFA-444-2023 (O&M)
296. RFA-447-2023 (O&M) 297. RFA-457-2023 (O&M) 298. RFA-458-2023 (O&M)
299. RFA-459-2023 (O&M) 300. RFA-460-2023 (O&M) 301. RFA-461-2023 (O&M)
302. RFA-462-2023 (O&M) 303. RFA-463-2023 (O&M) 304. RFA-464-2023 (O&M)
305. RFA-465-2023 (O&M) 306. RFA-466-2023 (O&M) 307. RFA-467-2023 (O&M)
308. RFA-468-2023 (O&M) 309. RFA-470-2023 (O&M) 310. XOBJR-7-2024 (O&M)
IN RFA-471-2023
311. RFA-471-2023 (O&M) 312. RFA-472-2023 (O&M) 313. RFA-473-2023 (O&M)
314. RFA-475-2023 (O&M) 315. RFA-477-2023 (O&M) 316. RFA-478-2023 (O&M)
317. RFA-480-2023 (O&M) 318. RFA-482-2023 (O&M) 319. RFA-483-2023 (O&M)
320. RFA-484-2023 (O&M) 321. RFA-485-2023 (O&M) 322. RFA-486-2023 (O&M)
323. RFA-487-2023 (O&M) 324. RFA-488-2023 (O&M) 325. RFA-489-2023 (O&M)
326. RFA-490-2023 (O&M) 327. RFA-491-2023 (O&M) 328. RFA-493-2023 (O&M)
329. RFA-494-2023 (O&M) 330. RFA-495-2023 (O&M) 331. RFA-497-2023 (O&M)
332. RFA-499-2023 (O&M) 333. RFA-500-2023 (O&M) 334. RFA-502-2023 (O&M)
335. RFA-504-2023 (O&M) 336. RFA-507-2023 (O&M) 337. RFA-508-2023 (O&M)
338. RFA-509-2023 (O&M) 339. RFA-510-2023 (O&M) 340. RFA-511-2023 (O&M)
341. RFA-512-2023 (O&M) 342. RFA-513-2023 (O&M) 343. RFA-514-2023 (O&M)
344. RFA-515-2023 (O&M) 345. RFA-517-2023 (O&M) 346. RFA-518-2023 (O&M)
347. RFA-519-2023 (O&M) 348. RFA-520-2023 (O&M) 349. RFA-521-2023 (O&M)
350. RFA-522-2023 (O&M) 351. RFA-527-2023 (O&M) 352. XOBJR-5-2024 (O&M)
IN RFA-528-2023
353. RFA-528-2023 (O&M) 354. RFA-538-2023 (O&M) 355. RFA-545-2023 (O&M)
356. RFA-597-2023 (O&M) 357. RFA-598-2023 (O&M) 358. RFA-697-2023 (O&M)
359. RFA-743-2023 (O&M) 360. RFA-744-2023 (O&M) 361. RFA-745-2023 (O&M)
362. RFA-746-2023 (O&M) 363. RFA-773-2023 (O&M) 364. RFA-774-2023 (O&M)
365. RFA-776-2023 (O&M) 366. RFA-777-2023 (O&M) 367. RFA-780-2023 (O&M)
368. RFA-781-2023 (O&M) 369. RFA-797-2023 (O&M) 370. RFA-561-2023 (O&M)
371. RFA-563-2023 (O&M) 372. RFA-564-2023 (O&M) 373. RFA-568-2023 (O&M)
374. RFA-569-2023 (O&M) 375. RFA-572-2023 (O&M) 376. RFA-576-2023 (O&M)
377. XOBJR-3-2024 (O&M) 378. RFA-577-2023 (O&M) 379. RFA-578-2023 (O&M)
IN RFA-577-2023
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -4-
380. RFA-582-2023 (O&M) 381. RFA-585-2023 (O&M) 382. RFA-586-2023 (O&M)
383. XOBJR-6-2024 (O&M) 384. RFA-587-2023 (O&M) 385. RFA-590-2023 (O&M)
IN RFA-586-2023
386. RFA-591-2023 (O&M) 387. RFA-599-2023 (O&M) 388. RFA-32-2026 (O&M)
389. RFA-33-2026 (O&M) 390. RFA-34-2026 (O&M) 391. RFA-35-2026 (O&M)
392. RFA-36-2026 (O&M) 393. RFA-37-2026 (O&M) 394. RFA-38-2026 (O&M)
395. RFA-39-2026 (O&M) 396. RFA-41-2026 (O&M) 397. RFA-42-2026 (O&M)
398. RFA-43-2026 (O&M) 399. RFA-44-2026 (O&M) 400. RFA-45-2026 (O&M)
401. RFA-46-2026 (O&M) 402. RFA-49-2026 (O&M) 403. RFA-50-2026 (O&M)
404. RFA-53-2026 (O&M) 405. RFA-356-2025 (O&M) 406. RFA-372-2025 (O&M)
407. RFA-373-2025 (O&M) 408. RFA-377-2025 (O&M) 409. RFA-397-2025 (O&M)
410. RFA-398-2025 (O&M) 411. RFA-404-2025 (O&M) 412. RFA-406-2025 (O&M)
413. RFA-408-2025 (O&M) 414. RFA-410-2025 (O&M) 415. RFA-413-2025 (O&M)
416. RFA-415-2025 (O&M) 417. RFA-418-2025 (O&M) 418. RFA-423-2025 (O&M)
419. RFA-436-2025 (O&M) 420. RFA-523-2025 (O&M) 421. RFA-524-2025 (O&M)
422. RFA-530-2025 (O&M) 423. RFA-543-2025 (O&M) 424. RFA-548-2025 (O&M)
425. RFA-552-2025 (O&M) 426. RFA-553-2025 (O&M) 427. RFA-555-2025 (O&M)
428. RFA-556-2025 (O&M) 429. RFA-561-2025 (O&M) 430. RFA-571-2025 (O&M)
431. RFA-582-2025 (O&M) 432. RFA-596-2025 (O&M) 433. RFA-659-2025 (O&M)
434. RFA-684-2025 (O&M) 435. RFA-685-2025 (O&M) 436. RFA-705-2025 (O&M)
437. RFA-708-2025 (O&M) 438. RFA-710-2025 (O&M) 439. RFA-711-2025 (O&M)
440. RFA-716-2025 (O&M) 441. RFA-721-2025 (O&M) 442. RFA-726-2025 (O&M)
443. RFA-727-2025 (O&M) 444. RFA-757-2025 (O&M) 445. RFA-760-2025 (O&M)
446. RFA-773-2025 (O&M) 447. RFA-777-2025 (O&M) 448. RFA-786-2023 (O&M)
449. RFA-875-2025 (O&M) 450. RFA-877-2025 (O&M) 451. RFA-883-2025 (O&M)
452. RFA-926-2023 (O&M) 453. RFA-998-2024 (O&M) 454. RFA-1000-2024 (O&M)
455. RFA-1010-2024 (O&M) 456. RFA-1013-2024 (O&M) 457. RFA-1064-2024 (O&M)
458. RFA-602-2023 (O&M) 459. RFA-603-2023 (O&M) 460. RFA-604-2023 (O&M)
461. RFA-605-2023 (O&M) 462. RFA-606-2023 (O&M) 463. XOBJR-8-2025 (O&M)
RFA-606-2023
464. RFA-607-2023 (O&M) 465. RFA-608-2023 (O&M) 466. RFA-609-2023 (O&M)
467. RFA-610-2023 (O&M) 468. RFA-611-2023 (O&M) 469. RFA-612-2023 (O&M)
470. RFA-613-2023 (O&M) 471. RFA-614-2023 (O&M) 472. RFA-615-2023 (O&M)
473. RFA-616-2023 (O&M) 474. RFA-617-2023 (O&M) 475. RFA-618-2023 (O&M)
476. RFA-619-2023 (O&M) 477. RFA-620-2023 (O&M) 478. RFA-623-2023 (O&M)
479. RFA-624-2023 (O&M) 480. RFA-625-2023 (O&M) 481. RFA-627-2023 (O&M)
482. RFA-628-2023 (O&M) 483. RFA-705-2023 (O&M) 484. RFA-706-2023 (O&M)
485. RFA-707-2023 (O&M) 486. RFA-708-2023 (O&M) 487. RFA-709-2023 (O&M)
488. RFA-710-2023 (O&M) 489. RFA-711-2023 (O&M) 490. RFA-712-2023 (O&M)
491. RFA-713-2023 (O&M) 492. RFA-714-2023 (O&M) 493. RFA-715-2023 (O&M)
494. XOBJR-22-2024 (O&M) 495. RFA-716-2023 (O&M) 496. RFA-717-2023 (O&M)
IN RFA-715-2023
497. RFA-718-2023 (O&M) 498. RFA-719-2023 (O&M) 499. RFA-720-2023 (O&M)
500. RFA-721-2023 (O&M) 501. RFA-722-2023 (O&M) 502. RFA-723-2023 (O&M)
503. RFA-724-2023 (O&M) 504. RFA-725-2023 (O&M) 505. RFA-726-2023 (O&M)
506. RFA-727-2023 (O&M) 507. RFA-728-2023 (O&M) 508. RFA-729-2023 (O&M)
509. RFA-784-2023 (O&M) 510. RFA-785-2023 (O&M) 511. RFA-786-2025 (O&M)
512. RFA-787-2023 (O&M) 513. RFA-788-2023 (O&M) 514. RFA-790-2023 (O&M)
515. RFA-791-2023 (O&M) 516. RFA-798-2023 (O&M) 517. RFA-799-2023 (O&M)
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -5-
518. RFA-800-2023 (O&M) 519. RFA-801-2023 (O&M) 520. RFA-802-2023 (O&M)
521. RFA-804-2023 (O&M) 522. RFA-805-2023 (O&M) 523. RFA-806-2023 (O&M)
524. RFA-807-2023 (O&M) 525. RFA-808-2023 (O&M) 526. RFA-809-2023 (O&M)
527. RFA-810-2023 (O&M) 528. RFA-811-2023 (O&M) 529. RFA-812-2023 (O&M)
530. RFA-813-2023 (O&M) 531. RFA-814-2023 (O&M) 532. RFA-815-2023 (O&M)
533. RFA-819-2023 (O&M) 534. RFA-820-2023 (O&M) 535. RFA-821-2023 (O&M)
536. RFA-822-2023 (O&M) 537. RFA-823-2023 (O&M) 538. RFA-824-2023 (O&M)
539. RFA-825-2023 (O&M) 540. RFA-826-2023 (O&M) 541. RFA-828-2023 (O&M)
542. RFA-829-2023 (O&M) 543. RFA-830-2023 (O&M) 544. RFA-831-2023 (O&M)
545. RFA-832-2023 (O&M) 546. RFA-833-2023 (O&M) 547. RFA-834-2023 (O&M)
548. RFA-835-2023 (O&M) 549. RFA-836-2023 (O&M) 550. RFA-837-2023 (O&M)
551. RFA-840-2023 (O&M) 552. RFA-841-2023 (O&M) 553. RFA-842-2023 (O&M)
554. RFA-843-2023 (O&M) 555. RFA-844-2023 (O&M) 556. RFA-845-2023 (O&M)
557. RFA-846-2023 (O&M) 558. RFA-852-2023 (O&M) 559. RFA-853-2023 (O&M)
560. RFA-863-2023 (O&M) 561. RFA-865-2023 (O&M) 562. RFA-866-2023 (O&M)
563. RFA-870-2023 (O&M) 564. RFA-4-2026 (O&M) 565. RFA-5-2026 (O&M)
566. RFA-6-2026 (O&M) 567. RFA-7-2026 (O&M) 568. RFA-8-2026 (O&M)
569. RFA-9-2026 (O&M) 570. RFA-375-2025 (O&M) 571. RFA-197-2025 (O&M)
572. RFA-198-2025 (O&M) 573. RFA-62-2025 (O&M) 574. RFA-1223-2026 (O&M)
575. RFA-1227-2026 (O&M) 576. RFA-167-2026 (O&M) 577. RFA-168-2026 (O&M)
578. RFA-169-2026 (O&M) 579. RFA-1050-2026 (O&M) 580. RFA-929-2023 (O&M)
581. RFA-942-2023 (O&M) 582. RFA-210-2023 (O&M) 583. RFA-211-2023 (O&M)
584. RFA-212-2023 (O&M) 585. RFA-907-2023 (O&M) 586. RFA-1201-2023 (O&M)
587. RFA-1202-2023 (O&M) 588. RFA-1203-2023 (O&M) 589. RFA-1204-2023 (O&M)
590. RFA-1205-2023 (O&M) 591. RFA-92-2025 (O&M) 592. RFA-898-2022 (O&M)
593. RFA-366-2026 (O&M) 594. RFA-1501-2023 (O&M) 595. RFA-945-2023 (O&M)
596. RFA-946-2023 (O&M) 597. RFA-979-2023 (O&M) 598. RFA-1538-2026 (O&M)
599. RFA-1539-2026 (O&M) 600. RFA-1672-2026 (O&M) 601. RFA-1544-2026 (O&M)
602. RFA-1686-2026 (O&M) 603. RFA-1715-2026 (O&M) 604. RFA-1716-2026 (O&M)
605. RFA-1717-2026 (O&M) 606. RFA-1720-2026 (O&M) 607. RFA-1780-2026 (O&M)
S
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. Abhinash Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate
for the landowners in RFA Nos.1203 & 1205 of 2023
Mr. Ravinder Kumar Rana, Advocate and
Mr. Hardeep Saini, Advocate for appellant(s)
(in RFA No.118 of 2024; RFA Nos.130, 195, 206, 209, 240, 250,
254, 256, 275, 341, 342, 372, 375, 404, 408, 418, 523 & 524 of
2025; and RFA Nos.1538, 1539, 1544, 1672, 1686, 1715, 1716,
1717, 1720 and 1780 of 2026)
Mr. Mohit Rathee, Advocate
for appellant(s) in RFA-926-2023) and
for respondent(s) in RFA-512-2023 & RFA-563-2023
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -6-
Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate
for the appellant(s) in RFA Nos.340, 345, 373, 406, 320, 347,
337, 315, 316, 415, 423, 436, 312, 877, 556, 555, 883, 875, 1026,
571, 553, 561, 246, 397, 398 of 2025 and
for respondent(s) in RFA Nos.806, 835, 840, 837, 846, 828, 812,
842 of 2023
Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocate for the appellant(s)
(in RFA-1076-2025)
Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate
for the landowners in RFAs No.317, 471, 528, 572, 577, 586,
606, 715, 1195, 1197, 1198, 1199, 1200, 1201, 1202, 1204, 1206,
1207, 1208, 1209, 942, 945, 946, 1508 of 2023; RFAs No.92,
114, 134, 140, 198, 201, 207, 208, 210, 242, 244, 245, 247, 252,
253, 255, 261, 267, 149, 165, 168, 170, 181, 194, 200, 282, 307,
309, 330, 365, 1173, 1201, 62 of 2025 and
for cross-objector(s) in XOBJR-8-2025, XOBJR-7-2025,
XOBJR-3-2024, XOBJR-5-2024, XOBJR-6-2024, XOBJR-22-
2024
Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate for appellant(s)
in RFA Nos.1355, 1455, 1535, 929, 210, 211, 212, 907, 149, 157,
158, 160, 161, 162, 177, 178, 179, 180, 184, 185, 186, 189, 190,
191, 197, 198, 199, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 218, 220, 221,
222, 223, 224, 225, 287, 290, 291, 292, 955, 1772, 538, 545, 598,
697, 743, 744, 745, 746, 777, 780 & 781 of 2023 and RFA
Nos.159, 160, 223, 257, 258, 259, 260, 264, 280, 298, 299, 300,
301, 302, 303, 305, 306, 329, 283, 290, 292, 294, 356 & 582 of
2025
Mr. Ravi Kumar Girdhwal, Advocate for appellant(s)
(in RFA Nos.145, 139, 143, 171, 173, 174, 185, 186, 187, 189,
199, 146, 147, 148, 152, 153, 154, 161, 162, 169, 203, 205, 211,
214, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 248, 251, 263, 266, 273, 274, 297,
304, 328, 293, 295, 296, 530 & 543 of 2025)
Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate
for appellant(s) in RFA Nos.1081, 1114, 1167, 998, 1000,
1010, 1013 & 1064 of 2024) and
for respondent(s) in RFA Nos.513, 517, 561, 564, 832, 833, 843,
846, 465, 483, 487, 500, 502, 507, 509, 339 & 510 of 2023
Mr. Shub Karman Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Manoj Kaushik, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 to 6 in RFA-618-2023);
for respondent No.1 in RFA-802-2023);
for appellant(s) in RFA-226-2025 and RFA-230-2025
Mr. Surinder Gaur, Advocate for appellant(s)
(in RFA Nos.685, 705, 708, 710, 711, 716, 721, 726, 727, 757,
684, 760, 773, 1563, 1565, 1566, 1580, 1581, 1582, 1589, 1590,
1591, 1594, 1596, 1603, 1604, 1605, 1606, 1610, 1625, 1626,
1629, 1564, 1650, 1717 & 1762 of 2025; and RFA No.1050 of
2026)
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -7-
Mr. Parveen Kaushik, Advocate for appellant(s)
(in RFA Nos.548, 786 & 436 of 2025)
Mr. Piyush Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant(s)
(in RFA-597-2023)
Mr. Manoj Dhankhar, Advocate
for appellant(s) in RFA Nos.596 and 659 of 2025) and
for respondent(s) in RFA No.461 of 2023
Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for respondent(s)/landowner(s)
(in RFA Nos.493, 318, 447, 508, 521, 569, 580, 602, 605, 614,
708, 711, 786 & 798 of 2023)
Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for respondents
(in RFA-517-2023)
Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate,
Ms. Savita Chahar, Advocate and
Mr. Mahesh Inder Preet, Advocate for respondent(s)
(in RFA-612-2023)
Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for respondent-Ramesh
(in RFA-811-2023)
Ms. Priya Sukhija, Advocate for
Mr. Ghulam Nabi Malik, Advocate for the respondent(s)
(in RFA-800-2023)
Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the respondents-landowners
(in RFA Nos.319, 325, 326, 440,457, 460, 463, 464, 467, 472,
478, 480, 486, 511, 515, 518, 524, 527 of 2023)
Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate and
Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for appellant(s) in RFA
Nos.773, 774, 776, 797, 500, 705, 712, 720 of 2023 and
for respondent(s) in RFA-712-2023, RFA-705-2023 &
RFA-720-2023
Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate with
Mr. Viransh Ghawari, Advocate and
Ms. Hemlata, Advocate for appellant(s)
(in RFA Nos.172, 193, 243, 377 & 197 of 2025)
Mr. Lakshay Malik, Advocate
for appellant(s) in RFA-410-2025 and
for respondent No.14 in RFA-564-2023
*
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J . (Oral)
1. These appeals under Section 74 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation &
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘ 2013 Act ’) are directed against awards
passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar-cum-the Land
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -8-
Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Authority (for short ‘ Authority ’).
The State is seeking reduction of the enhanced market value whereas
landowners are claiming otherwise.
2. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals as well
as cross-objections, 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.1376 of 2025.
3. The State Government issued notification dated 07.07.2011
under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘ 1894 Act ’) for the
acquisition of 895.67 acres land situated within the revenue estate of Villages
Jhajjar, Sikanderpur and Jondhi with intent to develop residential Sectors
Sectors 7, 9A and 10 of Jhajjar. The said notification was followed by
notification dated 06.07.2012 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act. Tabulated
details of the assessment made till date read as: -
Date of notification under
Section 4
07.07.2011
Date of notification under
Section 6
06.07.2012
Purpose of acquisition For development of residential
Sectors 7, 9A and 10, Jhajjar
Location Villages – Jhajjar, Sikanderpur
and Jondhi
Tehsil & District - Jhajjar
Area (Total) 895.67 Acres
(342.10+117.21+436.36)
Date of Award of
Collector (LAC)
04.07.2014
₹
28,13,951/-
Market value as per LAC
₹
( per acre)
Date of Reference Court 10.12.2024
(RC) Awards 31.10.2022
10.11.2022
Market value as per RC
(per acre)
₹
74,36,310/-
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -9-
4. The Collector vide award dated 04.07.2014 determined
compensation payable to the landowners. Market value of the acquired land
₹
was determined as 28,13,951/- per acre. Landowners were held entitled to
solatium and other statutory benefits. Feeling dis-satisfied from the aforesaid
awards, landowners preferred reference petitions under Section 64 of 2013
Act before the Authority constituted under Section 51 of 2013 Act. It is apt to
notice here that acquisition process was initiated under 1894 Act, however,
market value was determined under 2013 Act because award could not be
passed prior to 01.01.2014.
5. 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 value of their land
has been assessed on lower side.
6. The Authority, while appreciating evidence led by both sides, by
impugned common award adjudicated petitions. The Authority has assessed
₹
market value of the acquired land @ 74,36,310/- per acre. In this way, the
₹
Authority has enhanced market value from 28,13,951/- per acre (determined
₹
by Collector) to 74,36,310/- per acre. The State as well as landowners are in
appeal before this Court.
7. Learned Senior counsel for the landowners submits that the
Authority has not determined market price as per parameters laid down by the
Supreme Court in multiple cases. The Authority was supposed to consider
highest available sale deeds. The State issued notification under Section 4 of
1894 Act on 07.07.2011 and award under Section 11 could not be passed prior
to 01.01.2014, thus, as per Section 24(1)(a), the assessment was required to
be made as per provisions of the 2013 Act. As per Section 24 read with Section
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -10-
26, ‘ 01.01.2014 ’ is required to be considered as date of notification and
market value needs to be assessed accordingly. The Authority should consider
sale deeds of 2010, 2011 and 2012 i.e. 3 years preceding the date of deemed
notification. The Authority may not consider sale deeds executed during 2013
because ‘ 01.01.2014 ’ is considered as deemed date of notification under
Section 11 of 2013 Act read with Section 4 of 1894 Act. The landowners are
entitled to 12% per annum addition as provided under Section 30(2) read with
69(3) of 2013 Act besides solatium as provided under Section 30(3).
8. Per contra , learned State counsel submits that as per Explanation
1 to Section 26(1), the Authority is required to consider average of 3 years
preceding the year in which the acquisition is proposed. In the present case,
acquisition was proposed on 07.07.2011 by way of notification under Section
4 of 1894 Act, thus, sale deeds of 2011 cannot be considered. The landowners
cannot claim benefit of 12% addition for the period from July’ 2011 to
December’ 2013 if they are extended benefit of 100% solatium and
01.01.2014 is considered as deemed date of notification under Section 4 of
1894 Act. The Authority was supposed to consider average of sale price
prevailing during 2008, 2009 and 2010.
9. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
10. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that delay in filing or
re-filing any appeal which is part of present bunch may be condoned.
Accordingly, delay, if any, in any case, stands condoned.
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.
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -11-
12. A perusal of impugned award dated 10.12.2024 reveals that State
as well as landowners produced many sale deeds before the Authority which
found 25 sale instances relevant for consideration. It found that as per
Explanation 1 to Section 26, sale deeds executed during 08.07.2010 to
07.07.2011 cannot be considered and sale deeds executed during 07.07.2007
to 07.07.2010 are relevant. The Authority excluded few sale deeds executed
during aforesaid three years on the ground that these related to small pieces
of land, thus, represent transaction of residential or commercial property. It
found four sale deeds relevant as per Explanations of Section 26(1). In view
of Explanation 2 of Section 26(1), out of four sale deeds, two sale deeds were
₹
finally selected to calculate average sale price which came to 1,14,40,476/-
per acre. Considering the size of the area comprised in selected sale deeds, the
Authority applied 35% development cut and finally assessed market value @
₹
74,36,310/- per acre. The Authority has not granted benefit of multiplier
because it has been found that the acquired land is situated within the
boundaries of urban area of Jhajjar. The Authority has noticed notification
dated 23.01.2018 whereby State Government, as per Section 26(2) read with
First Schedule of the 2013 Act, has notified multiplier factor. Tabulated
details of the sale deeds considered by the Authority read as:
Date of
Registration
Exhibits Sale
Deed
No.
Area in Total
Marla
Consideration Value per acre
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Acre K M
P13, PZ1 769 23.05.2008 0 1 10 30 18,15,000/- 96,80,000/-
P17, P28, 3432 20.08.2007 0 4 3 83 50,00,000/- 96,38,554/-
P47, P111
P22, P56 4459 01.01.2020 0 1 5 25 18,90,625/- 1,21,00,000/-
P23, P26,
P55, P93
6971 27.02.2008 0 1 4 24 14,40,000/- 96,00,000/-
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -12-
Exhibits Sale
Deed
No.
Date of
Registration
Area in Total
Marla
Consideration Value per acre
(Rs.) (Rs.)
P27, P53, 373 29.04.2008 0 1 1 21 14,15,000/- 1,07,80,952/-
P95
P33 2744 03.09.2009 0 0 13 13 8,65,000/- 1,06,46,154/-
P34 4828 27.01.2010 0 0 11 11 7,48,000/- 1,08,80,000/-
P35 4230 21.12.2009 0 0 7 7 4,40,000/- 1,00,57,143/-
P36 3332 15.10.2009 0 0 16 16 9,94,000/- 99,40,000/-
P38 191 20.04.2010 0 0 10 10 7,12,000/- 1,13,92,000/-
P41 3624 09.11.2009 0 0 9 9 6,14,000/- 1,09,15,556/-
P42 2695 02.09.2009 0 0 5 5 3,46,000/- 1,10,72,000/-
P43
2696 02.09.2009 0 0 5 5 3,30,000/- 1,05,60,000/-
P44
2697 02.09.2009 0 0 5 5 3,30,000/- 1,05,60,000/-
P45
3976 02.12.2009 0 0 7 7 4,40,000/- 1,00,57,143/-
P46
4239 21.12.2009 2 0 18 338 25,35,000/- 12,00,000/-
P54, P96
608 14.05.2008 0 1 3 23 21,00,000/- 1,46,08,696/-
P94 7310 20.03.2008 0 1 13 33 22,00,000/- 1,06,66,667/-
P97
1381 27.06.2008 0 1 18 38 23,00,000/- 96,84,211/-
P140 4067 08.12.2009 0 0 5.5 5.5 3,96,000/- 1,15,20,000/-
P142 3803 19.11.2009 0 0 11 11 7,46,000/- 1,08,50,909/-
P154
5343 11.02.2009 0 0 7 7 4,20,000/- 96,00,000/-
P155 4938 04.02.2010 0 0 7 7 4,00,000/- 91,42,857/-
P156 4940 04.02.2010 0 0 3 3 2,00,000/- 1,06,66,667/-
P157
988 17.03.2010 0 0 7 7 4,20,000/- 96,00,000/-
13. This Court is of considered opinion that Authority constituted
under Section 51 of the 2013 Act is bound to adjudicate matters in accordance
with mandate of Sections 26 to 30 as well as 69. The Authority constituted
under Section 51, does not fall within definition of ‘ Court ’. It is not bound to
follow procedure prescribed under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short
‘ CPC ’). As per Section 60(1), it is vested with specific powers which are
vested in Court under CPC. An Authority constituted under an enactment does
not carry inherent powers as are vested in Courts. It is bound to follow
provisions of the statute under which it is constituted. Section 69(1) provides
that the Authority while determining amount of compensation shall take into
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -13-
consideration whether the Collector has followed the parameters set out under
Sections 26 to 30. Section 69 reads as:
“ 69. Determination of award by Authority. –
(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be
awarded for land acquired including the Rehabilitation and
Resettlement entitlements, the Authority shall take into
consideration whether the Collector has followed the
parameters set out under section 26 to section 30 and the
provisions under Chapter V of this Act.
(2) In addition to the market value of the land, as above
provided, the Authority shall in every case award an amount
calculated at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum on such
market value for the period commencing on and from the date
of the publication of the preliminary notification under section
11 in respect of such land to the date of the award of the
Collector or the date of taking possession of the land,
whichever is earlier.
Explanation. - In computing the period referred to in this sub-
section, any period or periods during which the proceedings
for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any
stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.
(3) In addition to the market value of the land as above
provided, the Authority shall in every case award a solatium of
one hundred per cent. over the total compensation amount.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
14. The Authority may or may not agree with the market price
determined by the Collector as per parameters set out under Sections 26 to 30,
however, it is bound to ascertain at the first instance whether the Collector has
followed parameters set out under Sections 26 to 30. In the case in hand, the
Authority has attempted to follow parameters laid down under Sections 26 to
30. Sections 26, 30 and First Schedule to 2013 Act are relevant for the
adjudication of the present appeals. The same are reproduced below:
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -14-
“ 26. Determination of market value of land by Collector . –
(1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing
and determining the market value of the land, namely:-
(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale
deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the
area, where the land is situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land
situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area;
or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon
under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition
of lands for private companies or for public private
partnership projects, whichever is higher:
Provided that the date for determination of market value shall
be the date on which the notification has been issued under
section 11.
Explanation 1. - The average sale price referred to in clause
(b) shall be determined taking into account the sale deeds or
the agreements to sell registered for similar type of area in the
near village or near vicinity area during immediately
preceding three years of the year in which such acquisition of
land is proposed to be made.
Explanation 2. - For determining the average sale price
referred to in Explanation 1, one-half of the total number of
sale deeds or the agreements to sell in which the highest sale
price has been mentioned shall be taken into account.
Explanation 3. - While determining the market value under this
section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1
or Explanation 2, any price paid as compensation for land
acquired under the provisions of this Act on an earlier
occasion in the district shall not be taken into consideration.
Explanation 4. - While determining the market value under this
section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1
or Explanation 2, any price paid, which in the opinion of the
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -15-
Collector is not indicative of actual prevailing market value
may be discounted for the purposes of calculating market
value.
(2) The market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall be
multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule.
(3) Where the market value under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2) cannot be determined for the reason that-
(a) the land is situated in such area where the
transactions in land are restricted by or under any other
law for the time being in force in that area; or
(b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as
mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) for similar
land are not available for the immediately preceding
three years; or
(c) the market value has not been specified under the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by the appropriate
authority, the State Government concerned shall specify
the floor price or minimum price per unit area of the
said land based on the price calculated in the manner
specified in sub-section (1) in respect of similar types of
land situated in the immediate adjoining areas.”
Provided that in a case where the Requiring Body offers its
shares to the owners of the lands (whose lands have been
acquired) as a part compensation, for acquisition of land, such
shares in no case shall exceed twenty-five per cent. of the value
so calculated under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-
section (3) as the case may be:
Provided further that the Requiring Body shall in no case
compel any owner of the land (whose land has been acquired)
to take its shares, the value of which is deductible in the value
of the land calculated under sub-section (1):
Provided also that the Collector shall, before initiation of any
land acquisition proceedings in any area, take all necessary
steps to revise and update the market value of the land on the
basis of the prevalent market rate in that area.”
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -16-
[Emphasis Supplied]
“ 30. Award of solatium . - (1) The Collector having
determined the total compensation to be paid, shall, to arrive
at the final award, impose a "Solatium" amount equivalent to
one hundred per cent. of the compensation amount.
Explanation. - For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared
that solatium amount shall be in addition to the compensation
payable to any person whose land has been acquired.
(2) The Collector shall issue individual awards detailing the
particulars of compensation payable and the details of
payment of the compensation as specified in the First Schedule.
(3) In addition to the market value of the land provided under
section 26, the Collector shall, in every case, award an amount
calculated at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum on such
market value for the period commencing on and from the date
of the publication of the notification of the Social Impact
Assessment study under sub-section (2) of section 4, in respect
of such land, till the date of the award of the Collector or the
date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
“THE FIRST SCHEDULE
[See section 30 (2)]
COMPENSATION FOR LAND OWNERS
The following components shall constitute the minimum
compensation package to be given to those whose land is
acquired and to tenants referred to in clause (c) of section 3 in
a proportion to be decided by the appropriate Government.
Serial Component of
No. compensation
package in
respect of land
acquired
under the Act
Manner of
determination of
value
Date of
determination
of value
(1) (2) (3) (4)
1. Marker value
of land
To be determined
as provided under
section 26.
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -17-
2. Factor by
which the
market value is
to be
multiplied in
the case of
rural areas.
1.00 (One) to 2.00 (Two) based on
the distance of project from urban
area, as may be notified by the
appropriate Government.
3. Factor by
which the
market value is
to be
multiplied in
the case of
urban areas
1 (One).
4. Value of assets
attached to
land or
building
To be determined
as provided under
section 29.
5. Solatium Equivalent to one
hundred per cent
of the market
value of land
mentioned against
serial number I
multiplied by the
factor specified
against serial
number 2 for rural
areas or serial
number 3 for
urban areas plus
value of assets
attached to land or
building against
serial number 4
under column (2).
6. Final award in Market value of
rural areas land mentioned
against serial
number I
multiplied by the
factor specified
against serial
number 2 plus
value of assets
attached to land or
building
mentioned against
serial number 4
under column (2)
plus solatium
mentioned against
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -18-
serial number 5
under column (2).
7. Final award in Market value of
urban areas land mentioned
against serial
number I
multiplied by the
factor specified
against serial
number 3 plus
value of assets
attached to land or
building
mentioned against
serial number 4
under column (2)
plus solatium
mentioned against
serial number 5
under column (2).
8. Other
component, if
any, to be
included
Note. - The date on which values mentioned under column
(2) are determined should be indicated under column (4)
against each serial number.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
15. Section 26 provides mode and manner of determination of
market price. Section 26 is deviation from Section 23 of 1894 Act. Under
Section 23 of 1894 Act, parameters were not prescribed to determine market
price. Section 26 is evolution of 2013 Act. As per Section 26, the Collector
has to determine circle rate, if any, specified for the registration of sale deeds.
He has to further ascertain average sale price for similar type of land situated
in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area. He is further required to ascertain
consented amount of compensation, if any. Explanations 1 & 2 have
prescribed procedure to determine average sale price under Section 26(1)(b).
Highest of three i.e. (i) collector rate prescribed for stamp duty, (ii) average
sale price and (iii) consented amount of compensation is considered as market
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -19-
value of the land. Explanation 1 provides that average sale price shall be
determined taking into account sale deeds executed during three years
immediately preceding the year of proposed acquisition. It means sale deeds
registered during the year of proposed acquisition cannot be considered.
Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation v.
Vincent Daniel and others, 2025 (7) SCC 798 has held that transactions older
than three years would be excluded. Paragraph 23 of the judgment read as:
“23. Explanation 1 states that the determination of the
average sale price under Clause (b) must be based on sale
deeds or agreements to sell registered for similar type of lands
in the same vicinity, during the immediately preceding three
years from the year in which acquisition was proposed. Thus,
transactions older than three years would be excluded.
Explanation 2 states that to determine the average sale price
under Explanation 1, one-half of the total sale deeds or
agreements to sell in which the highest sale price is mentioned,
shall be taken into account. This also implies that there should
be multiple deeds available for reference. Singular deals may
not supply adequate and reliable data. Explanation 3 states
that while determining the market value under Section 26 and
the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or 2, the
price paid as compensation for land acquired under the
provisions of this Act on an earlier occasion in the district,
shall not be taken into consideration. Thus, referring to
compensation paid for an earlier acquisition in the concerned
district is expressly barred.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
16. In the case in hand, the Authority has considered sale deeds
which were executed during 07.07.2007 to 07.07.2010 as notification under
Section 4 of 1894 Act was issued on 07.07.2011. It is apt to notice here that
Collector failed to pass award by 31.12.2013, thus, provisions of 2013 Act
became applicable qua determination of amount of compensation. There are
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -20-
divergent opinions of this Court with respect to cut-off date in the aforesaid
situation. In State of Haryana and another v. Rajbir and another, 2022 Law
Finder (P&H) 2363 , this Court has considered that date of notification would
be cut-off date though market price is determined as per 2013 Act. In Krishan
Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2024 (3) RCR (Civil) 57 , a
different opinion has been formed by this Court. In the said case, it has been
held that 01.01.2014 is cut-off date where award could not be passed by
31.12.2013. In aforesaid judgments, expression ‘ immediately preceding 3
years of the year in which such acquisition of land is proposed to be made ’
has not been considered. As per proviso to Section 26(1), market value needs
to be considered on the date of notification issued under Section 11, however,
mode and manner has been prescribed in Explanations 1 & 2. Explanation 1
categorically provides that sale deeds of the year in which acquisition is
proposed should be excluded. As conceded by both sides, on being confronted
with provisions of Sections 4 to 9 of 2013 Act, acquisition is proposed in the
year in which notification under Section 4 of 2013 Act is issued. In view of
mandate of Explanation 1, it is hereby held that for calculating average market
price, sale deeds of 3 years preceding the year of proposed acquisition are
required to be considered.
17. Expression ‘ year ’ has not been defined in 2013 Act, thus,
General Clauses Act, 1897 needs to be considered. As per Section 3(66) of
the said Act, ‘ year ’ means British Calendar year. British Calendar year is
st st
sprawled from 1 January to 31 December. In a particular case, notification
under Section 4 may be issued in the month of January and in another case in
the month of November-December. There would be drastic difference
between both the notifications with respect to year to be excluded. The
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -21-
Legislature has not defined expression ‘ year ’ in 2013 Act and Courts cannot
add or subtract any word or expression from the statutory provisions. The
Courts are bound to read provisions as such unless and until plain reading
makes the provisions otiose or unworkable. This Court, in the present case,
does not find such a situation, thus, is of the opinion that year would not be
counted as 12 months or 365 days. It would be counted as Calendar year and
even financial year cannot be considered. The Authority in the impugned
award has wrongly excluded sale deeds executed during 365 days prior to the
notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act.
The aforesaid aspect may be examined from another angle.
Under 1894 Act, sale deeds executed close to the Section 4 notification were
preferred than older or subsequent. Under 2013 Act, date for determination of
market value is date of notification under Section 11, however, as per
Explanation 1 to Section 26, average sale price of 3 years preceding the year
in which acquisition is proposed are considered. As per 2013 Act, acquisition
is proposed under Section 4. Section 11 notification which is pari materia
with notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act is issued after completion of
Social Impact Assessment Study and acceptance of report by the Government.
As agreed by both sides, year in which notification under Section 4 for the
Social Impact Assessment Study is issued, is the year of proposed acquisition.
There is gap of 12-15 months between the notifications issued under Sections
4 and 11, thus, possibility of execution of collusive sale deeds is minimized
and there is no harm if expression ‘ year ’ is read in the manner as defined under
General Clauses Act, 1897 instead of equating to 12 months or 365 days.
18. In the case in hand, notification was issued under 1894 Act, thus,
there was no question of notification under Section 4 of 2013 Act. As per
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -22-
Section 24 of 2013 Act, compensation has to be determined as per 2013 Act
because award was not passed prior to 01.01.2014 i.e. date of implementation
of 2013 Act. Under 1894 Act, no Social Impact Assessment Study was made
and straightaway notification under Section 4 used to be issued. To
implement provisions of the 2013 Act, with respect to Section 4 notification
issued under 1894 Act, it is inevitable as well as practicable to consider year
of Section 4 notification as year in which acquisition is proposed.
Accordingly, sale deeds of 2011 need to be excluded for the purpose of
determination of market value as per Section 26 of 2013 Act. The Authority
has excluded sale deeds executed during 07.07.2010 to 07.07.2011 whereas
sale deeds executed during 01.01.2011 to 07.07.2011 need to be
excluded/ignored. Sale deeds executed during 2008, 2009 & 2010 must be
considered to calculate average market price.
19. If as contended by landowners, sale deeds of year of proposed
acquisition are not ignored, unscrupulous ones may exploit the situation and
cause irreparable loss to the State exchequer. Under 1894 Act, sale deeds close
to the date of notification under Section 4 were preferred. Under 1894 Act,
there was no concept of Social Impact Assessment Study whereas under 2013
Act it is mandatory to conduct Social Impact Assessment Study. The
appropriate Government is required to join stakeholders including
landowners. This is a time-consuming process and normally starts 12-15
months prior to the notification under Section 11 of 2013 Act (Section 4 of
1894 Act is pari materia to Section 11 of 2013 Act). People with oblique
motive would execute sale deeds as soon as process of Social Impact
Assessment study would commence. This Court while adjudicating appeals
filed by landowners as well as State has noticed that landowners, to claim
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -23-
maximum compensation, execute one or two collusive sale deeds. Due to lack
of proper assistance and required inquiry on the part of Revenue Officers,
reliance is placed upon highest sale price. To avoid this situation, the
Legislature has mandated that sale deeds of the year in which acquisition is
proposed shall be excluded from the data to be considered. If applying
judgments under 1894 Act, sale deeds executed close to the notification under
Section 11 of 2013 Act are considered, the assessed market value would be
multifold than actual market value contemplated under Section 26, thus, it is
inevitable to ignore sale deeds executed during the year in which acquisition
is proposed.
20. First Schedule of 2013 Act envisages different components of the
compensation. Its Column No.3 titled as ‘ Manner of determination of value ’
provides for market value of the land as determined under Section 26 and
Column No.4 provides for ‘ Date of determination of value ’. It is apt to notice
here that as per proviso to Section 26, date of notification under Section 11 is
date of determination of market value of the land whereas date of
determination of damages, caused to the landowners on account of acquisition
of their land, would be date of taking possession. Proviso to Section 26(1)
provides that date of notification under Section 11 would be date of
determination of market value for the land. Explanations prescribe mode and
manner of determination of value. Legislature as per its wisdom has decided
to exclude sale deeds executed during the year in which acquisition is
proposed. Consideration of sale deeds executed during the year of proposed
acquisition or thereafter would be contrary to the statutory provisions e.g. if
notification under Section 4 is issued in 2014 and notification under Section
11 is issued in 2015, neither sale deeds of 2014 nor of 2015 can be considered
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -24-
because 2014 is the year of proposed acquisition. The Legislature has
prescribed mechanism to determine market value and if value is determined
applying parameters laid down under 1894 Act, it may amount to unjust
enrichment to the landowners because under the old Act there was no
provision of multiplier factor, solatium was 30% instead of 100%.
21. Ordinarily market price of a particular piece of land, may be
urban area, increases maximum by 10-15% per annum. In case of agricultural
land, there is slow and steady growth in the value. Any exorbitant or
exceptional increase in the market value does not represent correct value.
Exceptional increase in the value should be ignored. Keeping in mind these
facts, the Legislature has mandated to ignore sale deeds of the year in which
acquisition is proposed. If applying judgments delivered under 1894 Act, the
market value is determined under Section 26 of 2013 Act, it would be contrary
to the scheme of 2013 Act and disregard of mandate of Section 26. The Courts
are bound by plain language of the Act. Intention may be scrutinized where
plain language is not clear. In the case of Section 26, plain reading is
supporting policy and intention of the Legislature, thus, there is no occasion
to make any other interpretation. It may also amount to addition/deletion of
words in Section 26 which is impermissible in law.
22. As per above quoted Sections read with Section 69, the Collector
as well as authority at the first instance is required to determine market price
as per parameters laid down in Section 26. As per explanation 4, the Collector
while determining market value or average sale price referred to in
Explanation 1 or 2 may take corrective measures. He may reduce or enhance
the market price. The Supreme Court in Vincent Daniel (supra) has held that
the Collector may reduce as well as enhance the market price. The Supreme
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -25-
Court has further clarified that expression ‘ and ’ used in Explanation 4 should
be read as ‘ or ’ and the Collector may consider theory of deduction, principle
of belting, advantages or disadvantages attached to the acquired land. This
Court is of the opinion that market price determined under Section 26 may not
be ipso facto accepted, however, Collector as well as Authority, at the first
instance, is bound to determine market price as per parameters laid down
under Section 26. Relevant extracts of the judgment read as: -
“24. Explanation 4 requires specific attention, as it brings
the element of discretion while computing the market value
under Section 26(1) to the forefront. Explanation 4 is divided
into two parts. The first part refers to sub-section (1) to Section
26 - the higher value determined as per Clauses (a), (b) and
(c) of Section 26(1) of the Acquisition Act, 2013. The second
part is specific to the average sale price referred to in Clause
(b) to Section 26(1) read with Explanations 1 and 2. In either
case, where the Collector is of the opinion that the value/price
computed by applying these provisions is not indicative of the
actual prevailing market value, they may discount or enhance
it to arrive at the accurate market value.
25. Explanation 4 uses the word "and" in conjoining the
values referred to in the two parts of the Explanation. This is
done to expand the scope of application of the Collector's
discretion to the entire provision, as is also evident from the
phrase "while determining the market value under this
section". The discretion should not be interpreted as restricting
the discretion to only the average sale price under
Explanations 1 and 2. The two parts must be given a disjunctive
reading, attracting the application of Explanation 4 when
either of the values does not reflect the actual market value.
Thus, though the word "and" is used to connect the two parts,
it should be read as "or" to effectuate the legislative intent.
26. This interpretation is also supported by the use of the
same phrase in both Explanations 3 and 4. The first part of
Explanation 3, which refers to determining the market value
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -26-
under this Section, will apply with equal vigour to both Clauses
(b) and (c) of Section 26(1) of the Acquisition Act, 2013. The
latter part of Explanation 3 - as in the case of Explanation 4,
which refers to Explanations 1 and 2 - will specifically apply
to Clause (b).
27. Under Explanation 4, the formation of the Collector's
opinion and any discounting or enhancing of the value must be
supported by recorded reasons. At this stage, if the Collector
chooses to make adjustments to the market value under
Explanation 4, the theory of deduction, the principle of belting
and other material factors will also be taken into account. The
reason for this is two-fold. First, because the calculation of
accurate market value is not an exact science, and therefore
the Collector must be mindful of the unique factors which affect
the valuation of a piece of land. Secondly, apart from Clause
(b) to Section 26(1), the mandatory procedure of computation
under the other two Clauses, (a) and (c), does not take into
account these theories and factors, which may result in
inaccuracy. Though not determinative in the facts of the
present case, a contrary interpretation may cause injustice to
the landowners in many situations.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
In the present case, the Collector did not assess market price as
per provisions of Section 26. The Authority was bereft of complete data of
sale deeds executed during 2008, 2009 & 2010. The landowners as well as
State produced very few sale deeds, consequently, the Authority passed
impugned order as per available data. This Court is of the considered opinion
that it is pious duty of the Collector to consider complete available data of sale
deeds and registered agreements to sell. Neither the Collector considered
complete data nor submitted before the Authority. In such circumstances, this
Court vide order dated 13.08.2026 directed the Collector to prepare a chart
disclosing transaction value as well as value per acre of all the sale deeds
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -27-
which were executed during 2010 to 2012. The Collector prepared its report
dated 13.10.2026 which was taken on record vide order dated 14.10.2026.
Copy of aforesaid report is available with the counsel for the landowners.
23. Reduction or addition in the market price assessed as per Section
26 may be made, however, subject to recording of reasons. The reasons
recorded by Collector as well as Authority shall be subject to judicial scrutiny
under Section 74 of the 2013 Act.
24. Learned State counsel has vehemently pleaded that as per
Section 26(1)(b) market price for similar type of land situated in the nearest
village or nearest vicinity area deserves to be considered. There is a substantial
gap between the land acquired for Sector 7 and the land acquired for Sector
9A & 10. Sale deeds which are relevant for the determination of market value
of land of Sector 7 cannot be considered for Sectors 9A and 10. Similar fact
is relevant qua Sector 9A & 10.
It is true that while determining average price, similar type of
land situated in the nearest village should be considered. In Section 26(1)(b),
expression ‘ nearest village or nearest vicinity area’ has been used. Market
price for the land of nearest village can be considered if sale deeds of the
village in question are not available. Expression ‘ nearest vicinity area’ used
in aforesaid Section cannot be ignored. In any case, Section 26(1)(b) cannot
be interpreted in such a manner that sale price for the land of the
adjacent/nearest village is considered despite availability of sale price for the
land of the same village. Not only every village is an independent village but
also every locality carries its own value. In the same village and even on the
same road two pieces of land may fetch different market price. The Authority
should consider sale price for land situated in the nearest vicinity area. If sale
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -28-
deeds of nearest vicinity area are not available, sale deeds of the nearest
village may be considered. It must also be kept in mind that similar type of
land can be considered e.g. agricultural land of a village cannot be compared
with residential or industrial or commercial land. Similarly, land abutting the
National Highway or State Highway cannot be compared with land situated
at a far away place from the National Highway. Thus, as per statutory
provisions, sale price of the land of nearest vicinity area has to be considered
and there is no occasion to consider sale deeds of other areas. Purpose of
determination of market price under 2013 Act is to determine fair
compensation and not to determine compensation as maximum as possible. If
on one hand, there are land losers, it cannot be ignored that on the other hand
there is taxpayers’ money. Balance needs to be maintained.
25. There is no evidence contrary to the findings recorded by the
Authority qua multiplier factor, thus, findings qua multiplier factor are hereby
upheld.
26. Section 30(2) provides that Collector shall issue individual
awards detailing the particulars of compensation payable and details of
payment of the compensation as specified in the First Schedule. Section 30(3)
provides that in addition to the market value of the land provided under
Section 26, the Collector shall assess addition @ 12% per annum. Section
69(2) also provides that in every case, the Authority shall award additional
amount @ 12% per annum in addition to market value. At the cost of
repetition, Sections 30(3) and 69(2) are reproduced as below:-
Section 30(3): In addition to the market value of the land
provided under section 26, the Collector shall, in every case,
award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per cent. per
annum on such market value for the period commencing on
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -29-
and from the date of the publication of the notification of the
Social Impact Assessment study under sub-section (2) of
section 4, in respect of such land, till the date of the award of
the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land,
whichever is earlier.
Section 69(2): In addition to the market value of the
land, as above provided, the Authority shall in every case
award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per cent. per
annum on such market value for the period commencing on
and from the date of the publication of the preliminary
notification under section 11 in respect of such land to the date
of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession
of the land, whichever is earlier.
Explanation. - In computing the period referred to in this sub-
section, any period or periods during which the proceedings
for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any
stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.”
As per above quoted Section 30(3), 12% per annum addition has
to be calculated for the period commencing from the date of publication of
notification under Section 4(2) till the date of award or date of taking
possession whichever is earlier. As per Section 69(2), 12% per annum
addition has to be calculated from the date of publication of notification under
Section 11 to the date of award of the Collector or date of taking possession
of the land whichever is earlier. There seems contradiction between the
aforesaid sub-sections. As per Section 30(3), liability of additional
compensation commences from the date of notification under Section 4(2)
whereas it commences from the date of notification under Section 11 as per
Section 69(2). In the case in hand, there was no notification under Section 4(2)
of 2013 Act, thus, date of notification i.e. 07.07.2011 issued under Section 4
of 1894 Act is the relevant date. The landowners have claimed that 01.01.2014
should be treated as deemed date of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -30-
read with Section 11 of 2013 Act. If 01.01.2014 is considered as deemed date
of notification under Section 11 of 2013 Act, the landowners would not be
entitled to additional compensation for the period commencing from
07.07.2011 to 31.12.2013. On being confronted with this fact, learned counsel
for the landowners pleaded that they may not be denied benefit of additional
compensation for the aforesaid period because it would be a substantial loss.
This Court has held hereinabove that average sale price of 2008, 2009 & 2010
has to be considered, thus, there is no rhyme or reason to deny landowners
12% per annum addition for the period commencing from 07.07.2011 i.e. date
of notification under Section 4 till 31.12.2013. It is made clear that their
entitlement to additional compensation @ 12% per annum is undisputed for
the period from 01.01.2014 to 04.07.2014 i.e. date of Collector’s award.
27. This Court vide order dated 13.10.2026 passed in a bunch of
appeals including Amarjit Kaur v . State of Punjab and another, RFA
No.1785 of 2023 has held that sale deeds of three years are to be collected and
50% sale deeds of three years in which highest sale price has been disclosed
shall be selected for counting average market value. It is irrespective of
number of the year. The selected sale deeds may be of one year or more years
out of total available data of three years.
On being confronted with aforesaid judgment, learned counsel
for both sides agreed that 50% sale deeds disclosing highest price may be part
of any year out of data of three years.
28. The Collector, as per directions of this Court, has submitted data
of sale deeds executed during 2010, 2011 & 2012. The Authority, while
passing impugned award has excluded sale deeds executed during 07.07.2010
to 07.07.2011. As returned hereinabove, sale deeds executed in 2011 need to
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -31-
be excluded. The Collector has produced data with respect to sale deeds of
residential as well as agricultural land. The acquired land was agricultural
land, thus, sale deeds of only agricultural land can be considered. As held
hereinabove, the Collector/Authority must consider average sale price of sale
deeds executed during 2008, 2009 & 2010. In this backdrop, there is also need
to consider location of land comprised in the exemplar sale deeds.
29. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties plead that matter
may be remanded to the Authority to calculate market value as per data of
aforesaid years. This Court finds substance in their submissions because
tabulated details of sale deed of 2008 & 2009 are not on record and calculation
need to be made as per data of 2008, 2009 & 2010.
30. In the wake of above discussion and findings, all the appeals are
hereby allowed by way of remand. Matter is remanded back to the Authority
to pass fresh orders keeping in mind:
i) Notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act was issued on
07.07.2011 and as per Explanation 1 of Section 26 of 2013
Act, 3 years preceding the year in which acquisition was
proposed would be 2008, 2009 & 2010;
ii) Sale deeds of the nearest vicinity area and in case of non-
availability of such deeds, sale deeds of nearest village shall
be considered;
iii) 50% of the aforesaid sale deeds in which the highest sale price
has been mentioned shall be considered;
iv) Explanation 4 of Section 26 of 2013 Act while finalizing the
market value would be considered;
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.
RFA-1376-2025 (O&M) & connected cases -32-
v) Landowners would be entitled to 12% per annum addition as
per Section 30(3) read with Section 69(2) of 2013 Act for the
period commencing from 07.07.2011 to 04.07.2014.
31. The Collector would furnish statement of sale deeds executed
during 2008 & 2009 besides data of 2010 which is already submitted before
this Court. The aforesaid data would be relating to the agricultural land. The
landowners would be free to point out sale deeds executed during aforesaid
years, however, not included in the data furnished by the Collector.
32. The landowners would not be required to refund already paid
compensation, however, it would be subject to final order passed by the
Authority. The parties, at the first instance, shall appear before the Authority
on 01.12.2026 and thereafter, as directed by the Authority.
33. This Court has noticed that before the Reference
Court/Authority, there is no representation of the requiring body and awards
are passed. Requiring body deserves to be heard. In the present case, requiring
body is Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (‘HSVP’) which besides State
counsel would be joined in the proceedings before the Authority.
34. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
30.10.2026
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.