Rajveer vs State Of Haryana And Ors

RFA-2301-2015 (O&M) & connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Item No.207 (39 cases) RFA-2301-2015 (O&M)
Decided on: 12.11.2026
Rajveer …Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others …Respondents
With
Sr. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s)
No.

2. RFA-2302-2015 (O&M) Heera Singh State of Haryana and
others

3. RFA-2303-2015 (O&M) Jaipal @ Jai Dayal State of Haryana and
others

4. RFA-2304-2015 (O&M) Aruna State of Haryana and
others

5. RFA-2617-2015 (O&M) Bala Devi and State of Haryana and
others others

6. RFA-2618-2015 (O&M) Subhash Chand State of Haryana and
others

7. RFA-2619-2015 (O&M) Manoj Kumar State of Haryana and
and another others

8. RFA-2620-2015 (O&M) Balwant Singh State of Haryana and
others

9. RFA-3069-2015 (O&M) Laxmi Narain and State of Haryana and
others others

10. RFA-3076-2015 (O&M) Nihali Devi and State of Haryana and
others others

11. RFA-3082-2015 (O&M) Samunder Singh State of Haryana and
and others others

12. RFA-3408-2015 (O&M) Keshar Devi and State of Haryana and
others others

13. RFA-3071-2015 (O&M) Lila Ram and State of Haryana and
others others

14. RFA-3072-2015 (O&M) Ram Sahai
(deceased)
through LRs
State of Haryana and
others

15. RFA-3074-2015 (O&M) Mukesh State of Haryana and
others

16. RFA-3070-2015 (O&M) Nahar Singh and State of Haryana and
another others

17. RFA-3075-2015 (O&M) Parhlad State of Haryana and
others

18. RFA-3077-2015 (O&M) Sumer State of Haryana and
others

19. RFA-3078-2015 (O&M) Kailash Chand State of Haryana and
and others others

20. RFA-3080-2015 (O&M) Subhash Chand State of Haryana and
others

21. RFA-3079-2015 (O&M) Har Chand and State of Haryana and
another others
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.13 13:06
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.

RFA-2301-2015 (O&M) & connected cases -2-
Sr. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s)
No.

22. RFA-3081-2015 (O&M) Vikram State of Haryana and
others

23. RFA-3215-2015 (O&M) Hoshiyar Singh State of Haryana and
and others others

24. RFA-2621-2015 (O&M) Dharampal State of Haryana and
others

25. RFA-3068-2015 (O&M) Suresh and others State of Haryana and
others

26. RFA-3073-2015 (O&M) Janki Devi State of Haryana and
others

27. RFA-3083-2015 (O&M) Manohar Lal State of Haryana and
others

28. RFA-3085-2015 (O&M) Om Parkash and State of Haryana and
another others

29. RFA-3084-2015 (O&M) Basti Ram and State of Haryana and
others others

30. RFA-4461-2015 (O&M) Surajbhan @
Surja (deceased)
through LRs and
others
State of Haryana and
others

31. RFA-6276-2015 (O&M) Mahipal and State of Haryana and
another others

32. RFA-5646-2015 (O&M) Rameshwar and State of Haryana and
another others

33. RFA-1263-2016 (O&M) Richhpal @
Manohar and
others
State of Haryana and
others

34. RFA-1264-2016 (O&M) Shailender Singh State of Haryana and
others

35. RFA-1148-2016 (O&M) Indraj (deceased) State of Haryana and
through LRs others

36. RFA-1262-2016 (O&M) Ravi Parkash State of Haryana and
others

37. RFA-3966-2017 (O&M) Mahender Singh State of Haryana and
others

38. RFA-1279-2022 (O&M) Daya Ram and State of Haryana and
another others

39. RFA-529-2025 (O&M) Bimla Devi State of Haryana and
others

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s)
(in RFA-2301-2015, RFA-2303-2015, RFA-2304-2015,
RFA-2617-2015, RFA-2618-2015, RFA-2619-2015,
RFA-2620-2015, RFA-2621-2015)

Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate for the appellant(s)
(in RFA-3068-2015, RFA-3069-2015, RFA-3070-2015,
RFA-3071-2015, RFA-3072-2015, RFA-3073-2015,
RFA-3074-2015, RFA-3075-2015, RFA-3076-2015,
RFA-3077-2015, RFA-3078-2015, RFA-3079-2015,
RFA-3080-2015 & RFA-3408-2015)
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.13 13:06
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.

RFA-2301-2015 (O&M) & connected cases -3-
Mr. Tapan Kumar, Advocate for the appellant(s)
(in RFA-1263-2016, RFA-1264-2016, RFA-1262-2016 &
RFA-1148-2016)

Mr. S.K. Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant(s)
(in RFA-3966-2017)
Mr. Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate for the appellant(s)
(in RFA-1279-2022)
Mr. Sabhya Gupta, Advocate
for Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant(s)
(in RFA-529-2025)
Mr. Abhinash Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
*
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J . (Oral)

1. These appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short ‘ 1894 Act ’) are directed against awards dated 27.11.2014 and
24.02.2025 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul (hereinafter
referred to as ‘ Reference Court ’) has not granted compensation as claimed
by appellants/landowners.


2. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, with
the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common
order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from
RFA No.2301 of 2015.

3. Tabulated details of the assessment made till date read as: -
Date of notification under 23.02.2007
Section 4
Date of notification under 20.02.2008
Section 6
Purpose of acquisition Development of Sectors 9 &
Sector 10, Mahendragarh
Area 142.72 Acres
Location Villages –Kharia & Payga
District- Mahendragarh
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.13 13:06
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.

RFA-2301-2015 (O&M) & connected cases -4-
Date of Collector’s (LAC) Award No.70 dated 09.02.2010
award
Award No.71 dated 19.02.2010
₹
12,00,000/-
Market value as per LAC
(per acre)
Date of Reference Court (RC) 27.11.2014
Award
24.02.2025
₹
Market value as per 12,00,000/-
Reference Court (per acre)


4. The State Government issued notification dated 23.02.2007
under Section 4 of the 1894 Act for the acquisition of land measuring 142.72
Acres situated in Villages Kharia & Payga, District Mahendragarh with intent
to develop Sectors 9 & Sector 10, Mahendragarh. The said notification was
followed by notification dated 20.02.2008 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act.

5. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘ Collector ’) vide
Awards dated 09.02.2010 and 19.02.2010, in terms of provisions of 1894 Act,
determined compensation payable to the landowners. Market value of the
₹
acquired land was determined @ 12,00,000/- per acre. Landowners were
held entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits. 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 awards adjudicated reference petitions. The Reference
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.13 13:06
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.

RFA-2301-2015 (O&M) & connected cases -5-
Court vide awards dated 27.11.2014 and 24.02.2025 has dismissed
landowners’ claim for enhancement.

8. Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate appeared and filed his Power of
Attorney on behalf of appellant(s) in RFA No.2301 of 2015, RFA No.2303 of
2015, RFA No.2304 of 2015 with no objection from previous counsel. The
same are taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate
place.

9. Learned counsel for the landowners submits that Reference
Court despite availability of numerous evidence on record has rejected
reference petitions. The Reference Court has rejected Exhibits P-11 & P-12
on the ground that these sale deeds were executed post Section 4 notification
and there is no evidence whether entire payment was made to the landowners
or not. The findings recorded by the Reference Court are contrary to the
mandate of Section 51A of 1894 Act. Sale deeds were duly proved and there
was no contrary evidence led by the State, thus, there was no occasion to
disbelieve contents of the aforesaid sale deeds. The consideration was paid by
way of cheques and there was no evidence that cheques were dishonoured.
Exhibits P-11 & P-12 were executed approximately four to six months after
the issuance of Section 4 notification. Land comprised in Exhibits P-11 & 12
was 112 Kanals and 16 Marlas. The Reference Court has further rejected
Exhibit P-18 which was executed on 29.12.2006 i.e. prior to the issuance of
Section 4 notification. Land comprised in Exhibit P-18 is 2 Kanals 13 Marlas
and it is an agricultural land. The Reference Court has rejected aforesaid sale
deed on the ground that land comprised in aforesaid deeds is situated abutting
the highway. Part of the acquired land is also situated close to the highway.
The Reference Court has wrongly rejected aforesaid sale deeds. Cumulative
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.13 13:06
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.

RFA-2301-2015 (O&M) & connected cases -6-
reading of Exhibits P-11, 12 & 18 make it clear that market value could not
₹
be less than 18,00,000/- per acre.

10. Learned State counsel reiterates findings of the Reference Court
and submits that there is no factual or legal infirmity in the impugned award.
He further submits that it is factually correct that no evidence was led by the
State in the form of exemplar sale deeds.

11. All the arguments raised by both sides have been recorded in the
presence of counsel for the parties. They have not raised any other argument.

12. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

13. From the perusal of record, it is evident that Reference Court has
concluded that landowners did not submit any credible/cogent evidence, thus,
reference petitions were liable to be rejected. Section 4 notification was issued
on 23.02.2007. The landowners submitted multiple sale deeds. Acquisition
,
related to land situated in two villages i.e. Kharia & Payga District
Mahendragarh. Land acquired was agricultural. The Collector determined
₹
market value @ 12,00,000/- per acre. Most of the exemplar sale deeds were
executed post Section 4 notification. There are four sale deeds which were
executed prior to or close to Section 4 notification. These sale deeds have been
discussed in the impugned award. Tabulated details of these sale deeds are as
below:
Exhibit Sale Deed
No. & Date
Area Consideration
Per Acre
Nature of
land
P-11 2244
30.08.2007
₹
( )
₹
( )
59K
11M
1,33,98,750/- 18,00,000/- Chahi
P-12 1189
25.06.2007
53K
5M
1,19,81,250/- 18,00,000/- Chahi
P-18 3485
29.12.2006
2K
13M
13,50,000/- 40,75,741.69 Agricultural
(Chahi)
P-27 1127
16.06.2005
1K
12M
5,81,000/- 29,05,000/- Residential
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.13 13:06
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.

RFA-2301-2015 (O&M) & connected cases -7-

14. Exhibits P-11 & P-12 were executed in June-August’ 2007. Both
the sale deeds were executed in favour of same buyer i.e. M/s Baderwal Infra
Project Private Limited (a private builder). 112 Kanals and 16 Marlas land
was purchased by aforesaid sale deeds. By no stretch of imagination, it can be
called that land comprised in aforesaid sale deeds represented a small piece of
land. Sale deed (Exhibit P-12) was executed on 25.06.2007 and Section 4
notification was issued on 23.02.2007. It means there was gap of only 4
months between the date of execution of sale deed and Section 4 notification.
Practically, sale deeds are not executed on the date of transaction whereas are
executed after 3-4 months from the date of oral or written agreement to sell.
The market price disclosed in aforesaid sale deed is commensurate to market
value determined by the Collector, thus, there seems no reason to disbelieve

aforesaid sale deeds.

15. There is another aspect of the matter. Sale deed (Exhibit P-27)
may be ignored because it related to a residential plot, however, Exhibit P-18
cannot be outrightly ignored. The Reference Court has rejected aforesaid sale
deed on the sole ground that land comprised therein is situated abutting the
highway. Small part of the acquired land is also close to highway. Exhibit
P-18 comprised 2 Kanals 13 Marlas’ land and it was executed on 29.12.2006
i.e. 2 months prior to Section 4 notification. On account of location and area
₹
involved, even if 55% cut is imposed, market value would come to 18.33
Lakhs. It justifies determination of value as per Exhibits P-11 & 12.

16. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the
considered opinion that present appeals deserve to be allowed and accordingly
allowed. Impugned award is hereby set aside. Market value of the acquired
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.13 13:06
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.

RFA-2301-2015 (O&M) & connected cases -8-
₹
land is determined @ 18,00,000/- per acre. Landowners shall be entitled to

statutory benefits as per 1894 Act.

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


(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
12.11.2026
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

MOHIT KUMAR
2026.11.13 13:06
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this order/judgment.