Improvement Trust Sangrur vs Neelam Rani And Anr

217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-5452-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.11.2026


Improvement Trust, Sangrur
...Petitioner
Versus
Neelam Rani and Another
...Respondents
And

Sr. Case No. Petitioner (s) Respondent(s)
No.

2. CWP-18953-2021 (O&M) Jagdev Kumar Sharma Land Acquisition Collector
and Another

3. CWP-24968-2019 (O&M) Satwinder Pal Singh Land Acquisition Collector
and Another

4. CWP-2499-2019 (O&M) Dharam Pal (Deceased) Land Acquisition Collector
through LRs and Another

5. CWP-24997-2019 (O&M) Neelam Rani Land Acquisition Collector
and Another

6. CWP-2501-2019 (O&M) Dheeraj Chawdhry State of Punjab and Others

7. CWP-25095-2019 (O&M) Mohinder Pal Land Acquisition Collector
and Another

8. CWP-2537-2019 (O&M) Roshan Lal State of Punjab and Others

9. CWP-2563-2019 (O&M) Bimla Devi (Deceased) Land Acquisition Collector
through LRs and Another

10. CWP-2612-2019 (O&M) Krishan Kumar Land Acquisition Collector
and Another

11. CWP-32056-2019 (O&M) Karam Singh Land Acquisition Collector
and Another

12. CWP-3918-2019 (O&M) Amrit Lal (Deceased) Land Acquisition Collector
through LRs and Another

13. CWP-5032-2019 (O&M) Karnail Singh Land Acquisition Collector
and Another

14. CWP-9522-2019 (O&M) Kiran Bala (Deceased) State of Punjab and Others
through LRs

15. CWP-5046-2019 (O&M) Manjit Singh and Others State of Punjab and Others

16. CWP-5089-2019 (O&M) Surinder Mohan State of Punjab and Others

17. CWP-5142-2019 (O&M) Lal Singh State of Punjab and Others

18. CWP-5562-2019 (O&M) Improvement Trust, Mohinder Pal Singh &
Sangrur Another

19. CWP-5578-2019 (O&M) Improvement Trust, Satwinder Pal Singh and
Sangrur Another

20. CWP-5955-2019 (O&M) Gurdeep Singh & President, Land Acquisition
Another Tribunal

21. CWP-6111-2019 (O&M) Improvement Trust, Karam Singh (deceased)
Sangrur through LRs & Another

22. CWP-6140-2019 (O&M) Improvement Trust, Amrit Lal (Deceased) through
Sangrur LRs & Another
PRINCE CHAWLA
2026.11.13 11:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-5452-2019 (O&M) -2-

23. CWP-7000-2019 (O&M) Improvement Trust, Raj Rani and Another
Sangrur

24. CWP-7055-2019 (O&M) Improvement Trust, Manjit Singh and Others
Sangrur

25. CWP-7294-2019 (O&M) Improvement Trust, Bimla Devi (Deceased)
Sangrur through LRs and Another

26. CWP-7318-2019 (O&M) Improvement Trust, Dharam Pal (deceased)
Sangrur through LRs and Another

27. CWP-7374-2019 (O&M) Improvement Trust, Jagdev Kumar Sharma and
Sangrur Another

28. CWP-7412-2019 (O&M) Improvement Trust, Krishan Kumar and another
Sangrur

29. CWP-7500-2019 (O&M) Improvement Trust, Usha Rani and Others
Sangrur

Improvement Trust,
30. CWP-7675-2019 (O&M) Surinder Mohan and Others
Sangrur

31. CWP-7687-2019 (O&M) Improvement Trust, Karnail Singh and Another
Sangrur

32. CWP-7689-2019 (O&M) Improvement Trust, Lal Singh and Others
Sangrur

33. CWP-7690-2019 (O&M) Improvement Trust, Dheeraj Chaudhry and Others
Sangrur

34. CWP-7747-2019 (O&M) Improvement Trust, Gurdeep Singh and Others
Sangrur

35. CWP-7765-2019 (O&M) Improvement Trust, Roshan Lal and Others
Sangrur

36. CWP-7829-2019 (O&M) Improvement Trust, Kiran Bala and Others
Sangrur


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL


Present:- Mr. J.S. Toor, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP Nos.5452, 5562, 5578, 6111, 6140, 7000, 7055,
7294, 7318, 7374, 7412, 7500, 7675, 7687, 7689, 7690,
7747, 7765 and 7829 of 2019.

Mr. Tarun Jindal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP Nos.2499, 2501, 2537,
2563, 2612, 5032, 5046, 5089, 5142 and 9522 of 2019;
for the respondent in CWP Nos.7055, 7294, 7318, 7412,
7675, 7687, 7689, 7690, 7765 and 7829 of 2019.

Mr. Rishab Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.18953 of 2021;
for the respondent in CWP No.7374 of 2019.

Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate and
Ms. Aanchal Arora, Advocate
for respondent No.1 in CWP No.7500 of 2019.

PRINCE CHAWLA
2026.11.13 11:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-5452-2019 (O&M) -3-
Mr. Ajay Poonia, Advocate for
Mr. V.G. Jauhar, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.32056 of 2019;
for respondent No.1 in CWP No.6111 of 2019.

Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.5955 of 2019.

Mr. Gaurav, Advocate and
Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP Nos.24968, 24997 and 25095 of 2019;
for respondent No.1 in CWP Nos. 5562 and
5578 of 2019.

Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate
for respondent No.8 in CWP No.7055 of 2019.

Mr. Sabhya Gupta, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate
for the respondent in CWP No.6140 of 2019.

Mr. Puru Jarewal, DAG, Punjab.



JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)


1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions,
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 CWP-5452-2019.

2. The petitioner-Improvement Trust, Sangrur (for short
‘Trust’) through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of impugned award dated
08.08.2018 (Annexure P-1) whereby learned Land Acquisition Tribunal,
Improvement Trust Sangrur (for short ‘Tribunal’) has awarded enhanced
amount of compensation.

3. The present matters relate to acquisition under Punjab Town
Improvement Act, 1922 (for short ‘1922 Act’). Section 36 of 1922 Act is
corresponding to Section 4 and Section 41 is corresponding to Section 6
PRINCE CHAWLA
2026.11.13 11:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-5452-2019 (O&M) -4-
of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’). The Local
Government issued notification dated 15.05.2006 for the acquisition of 17
Acre 5 Kanal 5 Marla land situated in the Village Sangrur. The said
notification was followed by award dated 09.05.2008 whereby value of
₹25 lakh
land was assessed at the rate of per acre. Feeling dis-satisfied
from the aforesaid award, landowners preferred petitions before the
Collector which were referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal under
Section 18 of the 1894 Act.
The Tribunal while appreciating evidence led by both sides,
by impugned award adjudicated reference petition. The Tribunal by
impugned award dated 08.08.2018 has enhanced market value of the
₹
acquired land to 35 lakh per acre.

4. Learned counsel for the landowners submit that prior to
acquisition in question, the respondent made acquisition on two
₹
occasions. The previously acquired land was sold @ 50,000/- per square
yard. Land in question is adjoining to the previously acquired land. The
Reference Court has not appreciated evidence on record and
mechanically assessed market price. The Reference Court has assessed
₹ ₹
market price @ 35 lakh per acre and Collector had assessed @ 25 lakh
per acre. The landowners were having very small pieces of land, thus,
value of their land could not be determined on the basis of total area
acquired i.e. 17 Acre 5 Kanal 5 Marla. As per exemplar sale deeds,
₹
market value comes to 48 lakh per acre. The Trust sold previously
₹
acquired land to Income Tax Department @ 1,400/- per square yard
₹
whereas market value of the land in question has been assessed @ 923/-
per square yard.
PRINCE CHAWLA
2026.11.13 11:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-5452-2019 (O&M) -5-
Per contra
5. , learned counsel for the Trust submits that land to
Income Tax Department was sold after development. There is cost of
acquisition as well as cost of development. Hidden cost is also involved,
thus, market value cannot be determined on the basis of Trust’s sale price.
₹
The exemplar sale deeds are disclosing value not more than 48 lakh per
acre and area comprised in exemplar sale deeds is very small vis-à-vis
area acquired.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

7. A perusal of record reveals that the Trust on different
occasions acquired land for setting up residential as well as
non-residential colonies. The Trust vide sale deed dated 14.11.2002 sold
4397.25 square yard area to the Income Tax Department for a sum of
₹ ₹
61,56,150/- ( 1400/- per square yard). Notification in question was
issued on 15.05.2006. As per judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court,
development cut ranging from 20% to 70% may be imposed. Exemplar
₹
sale deeds are disclosing market value @ 48 lakh per acre. Area
comprised in exemplar sale deeds is 150-200 sq. yards. Area acquired is
17 acres, thus, size cut is necessary.

8. The Trust itself sold a good piece of land in 2002 vide sale
deed dated 14.11.2002. The aforesaid sale deed was duly cited before the
Tribunal. The Trust incurred cost of development and change of land use.
Land in question is not a pure agriculture land. It falls within municipal
limits and is close to residential complex namely Captain Karam Singh
Nagar which was developed by the Trust. Land in question is also close
to Office of Income Tax Department. Sale price of fully developed units
may not be considered, however, sale of 4397.25 square yard plot to
Income Tax Department cannot be ignored.
PRINCE CHAWLA
2026.11.13 11:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-5452-2019 (O&M) -6-

9. Learned counsel for the Trust, during hearing, has pleaded
that maximum development cut needs to be imposed and if required cut is
₹
imposed, market value would come to less than 35,00,000/- per acre.
The Trust is claiming that there should be development
cost, however, ignoring doctrine of escalation. There is gap of about four
years in the aforesaid sale deed and notification under Section 4. If
aforesaid contention is accepted and gap of four years between the
aforesaid sale deed and notification under Section 4 is considered, market
₹
value of the land in question would be more than 35,00,000/-.

10. This Court considering development cut and 4 years’
escalation finds it appropriate to determine market value of the acquired
land @ 41 lakh per acre. It is apt to notice that exemplar sale deeds too
support aforesaid market price. The landowners shall be entitled to
statutory benefits on the enhanced amount of compensation.
allowed
11. Appeals of the landowners are in above terms and
dismissed
appeals of the Trust are hereby . To avoid further interest
liability, it would be in the interest of Trust to release enhanced amount of
compensation without delay.

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


(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
11.11.2026
Prince Chawla

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





PRINCE CHAWLA
2026.11.13 11:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document