Chandgi And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors

-1-

RFA-8-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
*
206
Date of Decision: 01.09.2026

1. RFA-8-2017
CHANDGI AND OTHERS
…Appellants
Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
…Respondents
And

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

2. RFA-1884-2018 (O&M) VISHAL STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

3. RFA-2709-2017 UMED SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

4. RFA-63-2018 UMED SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

5. RFA-5166-2017 UMED SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

6. RFA-641-2017 SURENDER & OTHERS HARYANA STATE & OTHERS

7. RFA-337-2024 (O&M) SURENDER (DECEASED) STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
THROUGH LRS & OTHERS

8. RFA-1019-2019 SURAJMAL & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA, THROUGH
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER &
OTHERS

9. RFA-5377-2017 SUKHDEVI & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

10. RFA-5375-2017 SUKHDEVI STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

11. RFA-69-2018 SUDHAN SINGH & STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
OTHERS

12. RFA-5581-2017 SUBE SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

13. RFA-1865-2017 SITA RAM & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

14. RFA-93-2018 SHRI NIWAS & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

15. RFA-3856-2017 SHAKUNTLA & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

16. RFA-5554-2017 SHAKUNTLA & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

17. RFA-5547-2017 SATPAL & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

18. RFA-5516-2017 SATBIR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

19. RFA-2248-2018 SATBIR & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

20. RFA-5376-2017 SANTOSH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

21. RFA-640-2017 SANT LAL & ANOTHER HARYANA STATE & OTHERS

22. RFA-3827-2017 SAMUNDER STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

23. RFA-3828-2017 RATTAN SINGH & STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
OTHERS

24. RFA-1283-2018 RANDHIR SINGH
(DECEASED) THROUGH
LRS & OTHERS
STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-2-

RFA-8-2017

25. RFA-122-2024 (O&M) RAMESHWAR & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

26. RFA-4142-2017 RAMESH STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

27. RFA-1975-2017 RAM NIWAS & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

28. RFA-639-2017 RAM NARAYAN HARYANA STATE & OTHERS

29. RFA-4175-2017 RAM KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

30. RFA-2708-2017 RAJESH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

31. RFA-5519-2017 PHOOL SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

32. RFA-2247-2018 OM PARKASH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

33. RFA-92-2018 OM PARKASH & STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
ANOTHER

34. RFA-125-2024 (O&M) OM PARKASH & STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
ANOTHER

35. RFA-5546-2017 OM PARKASH STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

36. RFA-637-2017 NORANG & ANOTHER HARYANA STATE & OTHERS

37. RFA-3649-2017 MUKESH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

38. RFA-4966-2017 MOHINDER KAUR & STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
OTHERS

39. RFA-5529-2017 MOHINDER & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

40. RFA-117-2024 (O&M) MANGE RAM & STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
ANOTHER

41. RFA-5555-2017 MAHENDER SINGH & STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
OTHERS

42. RFA-3650-2017 MAHABIR & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

43. RFA-5530-2017 MAHABIR & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

44. RFA-642-2017 LAL SINGH & ANOTHER HARYANA STATE & OTHERS

45. RFA-2704-2017 KUNDAN STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

46. RFA-4144-2017 KULDEEP & OTHERS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

47. RFA-5580-2017 KULDEEP & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

48. RFA-1074-2024 (O&M) KRISHNA DEVI & STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
OTHERS

49. RFA-2705-2017 KRISHNA & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

50. RFA-644-2017 KRISHAN & ANOTHER HARYANA STATE & OTHERS

51. RFA-64-2018 KARTAR SINGH & STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
OTHERS

52. RFA-317-2018 KAMLA & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

53. RFA-5544-2017 KAMLA STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

54. RFA-5542-2017 JAIVIR SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

55. RFA-636-2017 JAIBIR HARYANA STATE & OTHERS

56. RFA-5543-2017 JAI SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

57. RFA-5545-2017 JAI SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

58. RFA-957-2019 (O&M) HAWA SINGH STATE OF HARYANA, THROUGH
COMMISSIONER HISAR &
OTHERS

59. RFA-643-2017 HARPHOOL HARYANA STATE & OTHERS

60. RFA-2707-2017 GEETA & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

61. RFA-5531-2017 DILBAG & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

62. RFA-4940-2017 DALIP SINGH & OTHERS HARYANA STATE & OTHERS
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-3-

RFA-8-2017

63. RFA-2710-2017 CHARAN SINGH & STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
ANOTHER

64. RFA-316-2018 CHANNO DEVI & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

65. RFA-3826-2017 CHAMEL SINGH & STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
ANOTHER

66. RFA-5541-2017 BIR SINGH & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

67. RFA-2706-2017 BHOPAL & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

68. RFA-65-2018 BHARAT SINGH & STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
ANOTHER

69. RFA-638-2017 BALWAN & OTHERS HARYANA STATE & OTHERS

70. RFA-824-2017 BALBIR SINGH
(DECEASED) THROUGH
LRS & OTHERS
STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

71. RFA-116-2024 (O&M) AJMER & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

72. RFA-823-2018 STATE OF HARYANA
THROUGH DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER HISAR &
OTHERS
MANGAL SINGH & OTHERS

73. RFA-846-2018 STATE OF HARYANA
THROUGH DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER HISAR &
OTHERS
DALBIR & OTHERS

74. RFA-3479-2018 STATE OF HARYANA
THROUGH COLLECTOR,
HISAR & OTHERS
SUMAN & OTHERS

75. RFA-3480-2018 STATE OF HARYANA
THROUGH COLLECTOR,
HISAR & OTHERS
KRISHAN KUMAR (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS & OTHERS

76. RFA-3478-2018 STATE OF HARYANA
THROUGH COLLECTOR
HISAR & OTHERS
RAM DHARI & OTHERS

77. RFA-4663-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & SATPAL & OTHERS
OTHERS

78. RFA-4660-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & OM PARKASH
OTHERS

79. RFA-4666-2017 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & KAMLA & OTHERS
OTHERS

80. RFA-4668-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & KAMLA
OTHERS

81. RFA-4659-2017 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & JAIVIR SINGH & OTHERS
OTHERS

82. RFA-4665-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & JAI SINGH & OTHERS
OTHERS

83. RFA-4667-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & JAI SINGH & OTHERS
OTHERS

84. RFA-4664-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & DALIP SINGH & OTHERS
OTHERS

85. RFA-4661-2017 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA & CHANNO DEVI & OTHERS
OTHERS

STATE OF HARYANA &
86. RFA-4662-2017 BIR SINGH & ANOTHER
OTHERS

87. RFA-3350-2017 HARYANA STATE
THROUGH COLLECTOR,
HISAR & OTHERS
BADO & OTHERS

88. RFA-3469-2017 HARYANA STATE AZAD & OTHERS
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-4-

RFA-8-2017
THROUGH COLLECTOR,
HISAR & OTHERS

89. RFA-3339-2017 HARYANA STATE
THROUGH COLLECTOR,
HISAR & OTHERS
SURESH

90. RFA-3351-2017 HARYANA STATE
THROUGH COLLECTOR,
HISAR & OTHERS
SURAJ MAL & OTHERS

91. RFA-3344-2017 HARYANA STATE
THROUGH COLLECTOR,
HISAR & OTHERS
SHAKUNTALA & OTHERS

92. RFA-3343-2017 HARYANA STATE
THROUGH COLLECTOR,
HISAR & OTHERS
SAMUNDER

93. RFA-3345-2017 HARYANA STATE
THROUGH COLLECTOR,
HISAR & OTHERS
RATTAN SINGH & OTHERS

94. RFA-3349-2017 HARYANA STATE
THROUGH COLLECTOR,
HISAR & OTHERS
RAMESH

95. RFA-3348-2017 HARYANA STATE
THROUGH COLLECTOR,
HISAR & OTHERS
RAM NIWAS & OTHERS

96. RFA-3406-2017 HARYANA STATE
THROUGH COLLECTOR,
HISAR & OTHERS
RAM KUMAR

97. RFA-3347-2017 HARYANA STATE
THROUGH COLLECTOR,
HISAR & OTHERS
MOHINDER KAUR & OTHERS

98. RFA-3342-2017 HARYANA STATE
THROUGH COLLECTOR,
HISAR & OTHERS
KULDEEP & OTHERS

99. RFA-3346-2017 HARYANA STATE
THROUGH COLLECTOR,
HISAR & OTHERS
HAWA SINGH

100. RFA-3340-2017 HARYANA STATE
THROUGH COLLECTOR,
HISAR & OTHERS
BALBIR (DECEASED) THROUGH
LRS & OTHERS

101. RFA-3341-2017 HARYANA STATE
THROUGH COLLECTOR,
HISAR
CHAMEL SINGH & ANOTHER

102. RFA-3407-2017 HARYANA STATE
THROUGH COLLECTOR
HISAR & OTHERS
PAWAN KUMAR & ANOTHER

103. RFA-3891-2019 (O&M) HARYANA STATE
THROUGH COLLECTOR
HISAR & ANOTHER
SATBIR SINGH & OTHERS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. Ashok Arora, Advocate for appellant(s)
(In RFA-8-2017 & RFA-1865-2017 )

Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate with
Ms. Anita Kumari, Advocate for appellant(s)
(In RFA Nos.3826, 3827, 3856 & 3828 of 2017 )

SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-5-

RFA-8-2017
Mr. Gaurav Singh Dahiya, Advocate with
Ms. Nitasha Singla, Advocate,
Ms. Nitika Gupta, Advocate and
Mr. Sukhwinder Singh, Advocate for appellant(s)
(In RFA-3826-2017 )

Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for appellant(s)
(In RFA Nos.1074, 116, 117, 122, 125 & 337 of 2024 )

Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for appellant(s)
(In RFA Nos.5541, 5543, 5542, 5544, 5545, 5546
& 5547 of 2017 and RFA Nos.316 & 317 of 2018 )

Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate with
Mr. Ajay K. Yadav, Advocate for appellant(s)
(In RFA Nos.5375, 5377, 5376 & 5516 of 2017 )

Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate for appellant(s)
(In RFA Nos.5554, 5555, 5580 & 5581 of 2017 )

Mr. Ankur Malik, Advocate with
Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate for appellant(s)
(In RFA Nos.1975, 4966 & 824 of 2017 )

Mr. Sandeep Goyat, Advocate
For appellant(s) (In RFA Nos.4142, 4144 & 4175 of 2017 )
For respondent(s) (In RFA-3891-2019 )

Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate with
Mr. Robin Mahiwal, Advocate and
Mr. Yuwan Singla, Advocate for appellant(s)
(In RFA Nos.1884, 2247 & 2248 of 2018 )

Mr. Inder Pal Goyat, Advocate for appellant(s)
(In RFA Nos. 2704, 2705 to 2710, 3649, 3650, 5529,
5530 & 5531 of 2017 )

Mr. Harinder Malik, Advocate for appellant(s)
(In RFA-4940-2017 )

Ms. Monika Khatri, Advocate and
Mr. Seenu Rapriya, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for appellant(s)
(In RFA Nos.636 to 644 of 2017 )

Mr. Abhinash Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
With Mr. Abhishek Yadav, DAG, Haryana

Mr. Davinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.8
(In RFA-3891-2019 )
*
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-6-

RFA-8-2017
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. These appeals are directed against awards passed by the
Reference Court. The landowners are claiming that assessed market value
needs to be enhanced and State is claiming otherwise. Tabulated details of
the assessment made till date read as: -

Date of notification under 03.11.2011
Section 4
Date of notification under 03.05.2012
Section 6

Purpose of Acquisition 1. Construction of O.P. Jindal Nalwa Distributary

2. Construction of Gunjar Minor
Location Villages: Bhojraj,
Dahima, Gunjar

Tehsil - Hisar

District - Hisar
Village: Dhamana

Tehsil - Hisar
Villages: Ladwa,
Satrod Kalan

Tehsil - Hisar

District - Hisar
Village: Kanwari

Tehsil - Hisar

District - Hisar

District - Hisar

Area 19.69 Acres 6.83 Acres 13.66 Acres 14.34 Acres
Date of order of Collector 13.08.2012 16.08.2012 31.08.2012 12.07.2012
(LAC)
Market value as per LAC ₹ 12,00,000/-
(per acre)
Dhamana: Kanwari: Ladwa:
07.09.2016 06.12.2016 12.09.2016
14.02.2017
15.02.2017
18.05.2018
Satrod Kalan:
14.11.2017
Date of Reference Court Bhojraj:
(RC) Award 22.02.2017
Dahima:
12.05.2017
Gunjar:
28.07.2016
Dhamana: Kanwari: Ladwa:
₹ 18.10 lakh ₹ 18 lakh ₹ 20 lakh
Satrod Kalan:
₹ 40 lakh

Market value as per RC Bhojraj:
(per acre) ₹ 24 lakh
Dahima:
₹ 13.10 lakh
Gunjar:
₹ 13.10 lakh

2. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals filed
by landowners as well as State, 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-8-2017 .
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-7-

RFA-8-2017

3. The appellants-landowners through instant appeal are seeking
modification of award dated 28.07.2016 whereby learned Additional District
Judge, Hisar (hereinafter called as ‘Reference Court’) has not determined
amount of compensation as claimed by them.

4. The State Government issued notification dated 03.11.2011
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) for
acquisition of land situated within the revenue estate of Villages Dahima,
Gunjar, Dhamana, Kanwari, Ladwa & Satrod Kalan Tehsil & District Hisar
with intent to construct O.P. Jindal Nalwa Distributary. Land of Village
Bhojraj was acquired for the construction of Gunjar Minor. The said
notification was followed by notification dated 03.05.2012 issued under
Section 6 of 1894 Act.
5. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’) vide
Award dated 13.08.2012, in terms of provisions of 1894 Act, determined
compensation payable to landowners. Market value of the acquired land was
₹12,00,000/-
determined at the rate of per acre irrespective of the location
and village. Landowners were held entitled to solatium and other statutory
benefits. Feeling dissatisfied from aforesaid award, landowners preferred
petitions before the Collector which were referred to 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 the Collector, however, landowners vehemently pleaded that value of
their land has been assessed on the lower side.
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-8-

RFA-8-2017
7. The Reference Court while appreciating evidence led by both
sides, by afore-stated impugned awards adjudicated reference petitions. The
Reference Court has assessed village wise market value of the acquired land.
No severance charges have been granted except in case of Village Bhojraj.

The State as well as landowners are in appeal before this Court.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants-landowners submit that
Reference Court has declined to rely upon sale deed (Ex. P-2) dated
18.03.2011 qua all the villages on the ground that it relates to Village Satrod
Kalan. The Reference Court has relied upon aforesaid sale deed while
determining market value of the land of Village Satrod Kalan. The
respondent has acquired land of many villages and all the villages are
adjoining to each other, thus, Reference Court was supposed to determine
value of land of all the villages on the basis of best available sale deed i.e.
Ex. P-2. The area comprised in Ex. P-2 is 20 Kanal and it is dated 18.03.2011
i.e. prior to date of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act. The Reference
Court has relied upon proceedings of the meeting held on 11.01.2012 under
the chairmanship of Mr. M.P. Bansal, Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar
wherein rate of the land was fixed. The Reference Court has rightly ignored
Collector rate because it was on the lower side. The severance charges have
been denied on the ground that claim is not supported by any documentary
evidence like Aks Shajra . The Court has ignored testimony of Mr. S.K.
Singla, SDO (RW-1) who conceded that land of Santosh Sukhdevi, Om
Parkash, Ajmer S/o Dilbag, Ram Pyari, Shanti Devi, Vikramjeet, Surajbhan,
Mange Ram, Bagho, Vishal & Sita Ram has been bifurcated. The Reference
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-9-

RFA-8-2017
Court has considered as if respondent’s witness had denied bifurcation of
land of all the landowners.
9. Per contra , learned State counsel submits that Reference Court
with respect to all the villages has relied upon outcome of meeting of
officials wherein market rate was determined, however, with respect to
Villages Gunjar and Dahima has considered State Government’s policy
₹
dated 07.09.2010 whereby minimum floor rate 12,00,000/- per acre rate
was fixed. The Reference Court has further granted severance charges to the
extent of 50% in case of Village Bhojraj. There is no finding recorded by
Reference Court still mechanically 50% severance charges are granted. The
Court has not further pointed out landowners who are entitled to said amount.
10. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that delay in filing
any appeal which is part of present bunch may be condoned. Accordingly,
delay, if any, in any case, stands condoned. It is clarified that appellants shall
not be entitled to interest for the delayed period.
11. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
12. Before adverting to the issues raised by both sides, it would be
apposite to mention here that Village Bhojraj relates to notification dated
03.11.2011 issued under Section 4 of 1894 Act whereby 2.39 Acres land was
proposed to be acquired for the construction of Gunjar Minor. Land of other
villages was acquired vide notification dated 03.11.2011 for the construction
of O.P. Jindal Nalwa Distributary.
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-10-

RFA-8-2017
13. On being confronted with cross-examination of Mr. S.K.
Singla, SDO (RW-1), learned State counsel expressed his inability to
controvert that Mr. S.K. Singla has conceded with respect to few landowners
that land was bifurcated.
14. From the perusal of record, it is evident that landowners did not
produce any exemplar sale deeds except Ex. P-2 before the Reference Court.
On being repeatedly asked by this Court, learned counsel for the landowners
conceded that they are relying upon oral evidence as well as Ex. P-2 which
relates to Village Satrod Kalan and they have no other exemplar sale deed.
Both sides pointed out location of Village Satrod Kalan and other villages in
the site plan. From the site plan, it is visible that Village Satrod Kalan is
located close to City Hisar whereas other villages are located at a distance
from City Hisar. The Collector rate during 2011-12 of Village Satrod Kalan
was ₹ 35,00,000/- per acre whereas Collector rate of other villages was not
more than ₹ 10,00,000/- per acre. Location of the Village Satrod Kalan
supported by Collector rate vindicates stand of the State that exemplar sale
deed of Village Satrod Kalan cannot be made basis for determination of
market value of other villages. The Reference Court while determining
market value of land of Village Satrod Kalan has relied upon Ex. P-2. It is
settled law and matter of common knowledge that market value of land of
one locality cannot be determined on the basis of sale deeds of other
localities especially when locational advantages are attached to one
particular piece of land. In the present case, there were locational advantages
to Village Satrod Kalan, thus, Reference Court has rightly rejected claim of
the landowners that value of all the villages be determined as per Ex. P-2.
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-11-

RFA-8-2017
15. The landowners neither before Reference Court nor before this
Court have produced exemplar sale deeds of their villages. The Reference
Court was left with no option except to bank upon other available
documentary evidence. The Reference Court considered outcome of meeting
of revenue officers of the respondent. In the meeting dated 11.01.2012, the
respondent considered Collector rate as well as market rate of the acquired
land. The tabulated details of market value approved in the meeting are as
below: -
Sr.
No.
Village Area in Average sale
Acres (Rs. Per acre)
03.11.2010 to
02.11.2011
Collector Rate
Year 2011-12
(Rs. Per acre)
Market Rates
(Rs. Per acre)
1. Satrod 1.55 17,99,787 35,00,000 40,00,000
Kalan
2. Ladwa 13.70 9,14,757 10,00,000 20,00,000
3. Dahima 15.37 8,00,000 8,00,000 12,00,000
4. Gunjar 1.82 --- 8,00,000 12,00,000
5. Dhamana 6.89 8,62,400 8,00,000 18,00,000
6. Kanwari 13.55 6,38,212 8,00,000 18,00,000
7. Bhojraj 2.65 --- 8,00,000 12,00,000

16. A conspectus of afore-stated table reveals that respondent has
accepted that market value of the acquired land was more than Collector rate.
The Reference Court has relied upon market rate as determined in the
aforesaid meeting. The Reference Court has relied upon proceedings of the
meeting qua all the villages except Villages Gunjar and Dahima. The
moment, the respondent itself conceded that market rate was more than
Collector rate and further determined market rate, there was every reason for
the Reference Court to rely upon aforesaid document. There seems no reason
to discard aforesaid document.
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-12-

RFA-8-2017
17. The Reference Court with respect to two Villages namely
Gunjar and Dahima has assessed market value @ ₹ 13,10,000/- per acre. It is
apposite to notice that aforesaid value is lowest in comparison to value of
other villages. The value has been determined while relying upon minimum
floor rate fixed by the State Government. With effect from April’ 2005,
April’ 2007 and September’ 2010, the floor rate was determined at the rate
₹ ₹ ₹
of 5,00,000/-, 8,00,000/- and 12,00,000-/ per acre respectively. The
notification under Section 4 was issued on 03.11.2011. The Reference Court
found it appropriate to apply doctrine of escalation. There was gap of more
than one year between the date of determination of revised floor rate and
notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act. The Apex Court has evolved
doctrine of escalation. The Court has further approved escalation @ 8% to
10% per annum. Applying the said principle, the Court has increased floor
rate. On 07.09.2010, the market value as per Government rate was
₹ 12,00,000/- and considering the time gap, the Reference Court has
determined market value of the acquired land as on 03.11.2011 @
₹
13,10,000/- per acre. The landowners have not furnished any exemplar sale
deeds and Collector rate could not be mechanically relied upon because it is
well known fact that to save stamp duty and capital gain tax, the people do
not disclose correct transaction value. The Court was bound to determine, as
far as possible, correct & fair market value. The Government itself has
determined minimum floor rate, thus, there was no reason to ignore said
value. The Government by increasing floor rate in 2007 and thereafter in
2010 has accepted increase in the market value. The Reference Court has
rightly relied upon said value and further granted escalation.
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-13-

RFA-8-2017
18. Learned State counsel has not pointed out any convincing
reason to ignore minimum floor rate fixed by State Government and market
value determined in the meeting chaired by the Commissioner, Hisar. In the
absence of exemplar sale deeds, the Reference Court was bound to rely upon
alternative material/evidence on record. The State before the Reference
Court as well as this Court has pointed out Exhibits R-2 dated 24.12.2012
and R-3 dated 25.03.2013 with respect to land of Village Gunjar, Ex. R-4
dated 05.10.2012 with respect to Village Dhamana, Exhibits R-1 dated
05.12.2012 and R-2 dated 11.10.2012 with respect to Village Kanwari. The
State has also pointed out few sale deeds of Village Ladwa, Dahima and
Bhojraj. It is astonishing that all the sale deeds relied upon by State are post-
notification issued under Section 4. As per Section 23, market value as on
the date of notification under Section 4 has to be determined. The Reference
Court has rightly rejected sale deeds submitted by the State. Learned State
counsel during hearing could not advance any plausible reason to rely upon
aforesaid sale deeds.
19. The Reference Court has awarded severance charges @ 50%
with respect to Village Bhojraj. No severance charges have been awarded in
case of other villages. Learned counsel for the landowners during hearing
pointed out statement of respondent’s witness. The said statement is not
disputed by learned State counsel. In view of deposition of State’s witness,
claim of landowners named in the statement needs to be examined.
20. In the case of Village Bhojraj, the Reference Court without
recording reasons and appreciating evidence has mechanically held that
appellants whose land has been bifurcated are entitled for 50% increase over
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-14-

RFA-8-2017
the market value. The Court has neither recorded details of appellants whose
land has been bifurcated nor assigned reasons. Severance charges @ 50% of
market value cannot be granted without examining evidence on record and
without determining landowners whose land has been bifurcated.
21. The matter with respect to severance charges awarded to
residents of Village Bhojraj and denied to landowners named in the cross-
examination of State’s witness needs to be reconsidered.
22. In the wake of above discussion and findings, the appeals filed
by landowners as well as State with respect to determination of market value
are hereby dismissed. Appeals of the State with respect to land situated in
Village Bhojraj are allowed by way of remand limited to the re-
determination of severance charges. Appeals of landowners namely Santosh
Sukhdevi, Om Parkash, Ajmer S/o Dilbag, Ram Pyari, Shanti Devi,
Vikramjeet, Surajbhan, Mange Ram, Bagho, Vishal & Sita Ram are hereby
allowed by way of remand to the extent of re-determination of severance
charges.
23. Disposed of in above terms.
24. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
01.09.2026
SDK

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

SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.03 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document