Subhash Chand Gupta vs State Of Haryana And Others

RFA-276-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Item No.221 (27 cases) RFA-276-2020 (O&M)
Decided on: 02.11.2026
Subhash Chand Gupta …Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others …Respondents
With
Sr. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s)
No.

2. RFA-281-2020 Rohit Bhandari and State of Haryana and
(O&M) others others

3. RFA-306-2020 M/s Sterling Tools State of Haryana and
(O&M) Limited others

4. RFA-309-2020 Darshan Kumar State of Haryana and
(O&M) Luthra and another others

5. RFA-310-2020 M/s Pooja Forge Ltd. State of Haryana and
(O&M) others

6. RFA-1317-2021 Dhanraj Jain and State of Haryana and
(O&M) another others

7. RFA-2416-2021 Nisha Jain State of Haryana and
(O&M) others

8. RFA-2712-2021 M/s G.D. Industrial State of Haryana and
(O&M) Engineers another

9. RFA-2658-2021 M/s Selecto System State of Haryana and
(O&M) Private Limited others

10. RFA-782-2022 Khusi Ram (deceased)
(O&M) through LR(s) and
others
State of Haryana and
others

11. RFA-744-2026 M/s Elofic Industries State of Haryana
(O&M) Limited

12. RFA-2488-2021 Varun @ Varun State of Haryana and
(O&M) Baishla and others another

13. RFA-2417-2021 Gaurav Jain State of Haryana and
(O&M) others

14. RFA-2282-2021 State of Haryana and M/s G.D. Industrial
(O&M) others Engineers

15. RFA-2283-2021 State of Haryana and M/s Selecto System
(O&M) others Private Limited

16. RFA-2284-2021 State of Haryana and M/s Mohan Overseas
(O&M) another Pvt. Ltd. and others

17. RFA-2285-2021 State of Haryana and Rohit Bhandari and
(O&M) another others

18. RFA-2286-2021 State of Haryana and M/s Mitra Industries
(O&M) others Pvt. Ltd. and others

19. RFA-2288-2021 State of Haryana and Dhanraj Jain and
(O&M) others another

20. RFA-2289-2021 State of Haryana and M/s Pooja Forge Ltd.
(O&M) another
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.

RFA-276-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -2-
Sr. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s)
No.

21. RFA-2290-2021 State of Haryana Khushi Ram and others
(O&M)

22. RFA-2291-2021 State of Haryana and Darshan Kumar Luthra
(O&M) another and others

23. RFA-2295-2021 State of Haryana M/s Sterling Tools
(O&M) Limited and others

24. RFA-2296-2021 State of Haryana and Subhash Chand Gupta
(O&M) another and others

25. RFA-782-2021 State of Haryana Gaurav Jain
(O&M)

26. RFA-901-2021 State of Haryana Nisha Jain
(O&M)

27. XOBJR-173-2021
(O&M)
IN RFA-2286-2021
State of Haryana and M/s Mitra Industries
another Pvt. Ltd. and others

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. Adarsh Jain, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for the appellant
(in RFA-1317-2021, RFA-2416-2021 & RFA-2417-2021)
Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Gurpreet Randhawa, Advocate,
Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate and
Mr. Abhinav Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant(s)
(in RFA-2658-2021)
Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate,
Ms. Kaanan Jain, Advocate,
Ms. Indu Bala, Advocate
Mr. Amit Nautiyal, Advocate and
Mr. Raviet, Advocate
for the landowners/appellant(s) in RFA-276-2020, RFA-281-
2020, RFA-309-2020, RFA-306-2020, RFA-3124-2019 and
for respondent(s) in RFA-2285-2021, RFA-2291-2021 & RFA-
2283-2021


Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate and
Ms. Suverna Mutneja, Advocate for the landowner(s)
(in RFA-744-2026)

Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the appellant(s)
(in RFA-310-2020)
Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate and
Mr. Harshdeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant(s)
(in RFA-2712-2021)

Mr. Manoj Sood, Advocate for the respondent(s)
In RFA-2286-2021 and for cross-objector(s)
in XOBJR-173-2021

Mr. Abhinash Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
*
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.

RFA-276-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -3-
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 referred to as ‘ Reference
Court ’). The landowners are seeking enhancement of the amount of
compensation whereas State is claiming otherwise.


2. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals as well
as cross-objection(s), 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.276 of 2020.

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
Area 26 Kanals 16 Marlas (3.35 Acres)
Location Villages – Mewla Maharajpur
District - Faridabad
Date of Collector’s (LAC)
award
29.05.2013
₹
8,000/- per sq. yard for
₹
industrial area, 12,000/- per sq.
yard for residential area and
₹
16,000/- for commercial land.
Date of Reference Court (RC) 21.09.2019
Award
Market value of the land in
question as per LAC (per sq.
yard)
₹
40,000/- per sq. yard
Market value as per RC (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 26
Kanals 16 Marlas (3.35 Acres) of Village Mewla Maharajpur besides land of
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.

RFA-276-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -4-
other villages namely Majessar, 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 dis-satisfied from the award, they preferred petitions
before the Collector which were referred to the Court under Section 18 of the
1894 Act.

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 Senior Counsel for the appellants/landowners
vehemently and vigorously pleaded that land in question was commercial,
thus, its value could not be determined either as residential or industrial. This
Court in RFA No.2532 of 2021 titled as ‘ Hydraulics and Pneumatics (India)
LLP v. State of Haryana and another ’ has assessed market value @
₹
70,000/- per sq. yard. In the said case, acquired land was treated as
commercial. This Court vide order dated 30.10.2026 passed in a bunch of
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.

RFA-276-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -5-
appeals including RFA No.75 of 2020 , titled as ‘ Kanta Devi Gumber v. State
of Haryana and others ’ has treated acquired land as residential and assessed
market value @ 30,000/- per sq. yard. Land of the landowners by no means
can be treated as residential or industrial, thus, they are entitled to
compensation @ 70,000/- per sq. yard besides severance charges.

9. Per contra , learned State counsel submits that land in question
was industrial. Sale deeds relied upon by the landowners are disclosing that
land in question was either industrial or residential.

10. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Landowners before the Reference Court led evidence in the form
of sale deeds. Tabulated details of the sale deeds produced by them are
reproduced as below:
Sr.
Exhibit Sale
deed
No.
Date Area Sale Per
consideration
sq. yard
No.
₹
15,50,00,000 30,140/-
1. Ex.PA 17867 1.2.2012 5142.5 sq. yards
Village Mewla
Maharajpur
Faridabad
₹
16,37,00,000 25892.68/-
2. Ex.PB 9436 7.9.2009 6322.25 sq. yard
of Village Mewla
Maharajpur
Faridabad
₹
3. Ex.P2 9083 3.8.2012 3163 sq. yards 12,06,68,450 38,150/-


MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.

RFA-276-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -6-

14. As per judgment of this Court in Hydraulics and Pneumatics
(India) LLP (supra) , the landowners are entitled to compensation @
₹
70,000/- per sq. yard, if it is held that acquired land was commercial. They
₹
are entitled to compensation @ 30,000/- per sq. yard if it is held that land in
question was residential. They would not be entitled to compensation more
₹
than 10,000/- per sq. yard if it is found that land in question was industrial.
The Reference Court while passing impugned order has held that the acquired
land had characteristics of commercial property. The findings are based upon
the fact that acquired land was ear-marked for Special Economic Zone
(‘SEZ’) by Government of India. The State has placed on record sale deeds
disclosing that land in question was industrial.

15. The Reference Court without examining sale deeds whereby land
in question was purchased by the landowners has concluded that land in
question was having characteristics of commercial property. Potentiality to
use a particular piece of land as commercial is one aspect whereas a property
has already been declared or treated as commercial is another aspect. A
perusal of exemplar sale deeds produced by the landowners does not reveal
that land in question was commercial. Learned State counsel has drawn
attention of this Court to sale deeds disclosing that land in question was
registered as industrial. Nature of each piece of land is required to be
determined. One appellant i.e. Endee Woolen and Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. in RFA
No.2657 of 2021 has accepted that its land is not commercial and may be
treated as residential. This shows that entire piece of acquired land cannot be
mechanically treated as commercial. There is need to examine evidence led
by each landowner to ascertain nature of the land.
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.

RFA-276-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -7-

16. 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 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.

17. It is a batch of more than 25 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 nature of land and severance
charges/damages.
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.

RFA-276-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -8-

18. This Court finds it appropriate to remand the matter back to
Reference Court to return categoric findings whether land in question, at the
time of issuance of notification under Section 4, was commercial or industrial
or residential. The Reference Court shall keep in mind that there is
fundamental difference between commercial and industrial property though
both are used for business purposes. There is substantial difference in the
value of land ear-marked for industrial purposes vis-à-vis commercial
purposes. Land ear-marked for industrial purposes can only be used for
industrial purposes and it cannot be used as per choice of the owner i.e. for
either residential or commercial purposes. To ascertain actual nature of the
land, Reference Court may consider available sale deeds especially sale deeds
executed at the time of purchase of land by the claimants and subsequent
documents submitted by them before different Authorities with respect to
nature of land.

19. The Reference Court shall consider claim of severance charges
of only those landowners who had claimed 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.

20. Parties at the first instance shall appear before the Reference
Court on 02.12.2026 and thereafter, as directed by said Court.

21. 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
bodies are Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (‘HSVP’) and Delhi Metro Rail
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.

RFA-276-2020 (O&M) & connected cases -9-
Authority Limited which shall be joined in the proceedings before the
Reference Court.

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


(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
02.11.2026
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.