Municipal Corporation Gurgaon vs Ajit Pal And Ors

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

209 RFA-1098-2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.11.2026

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GURGAON …Appellants
Versus

AJIT PAL AND ORS. …Respondents

And

Sr. Case Number Appellant(s) Respondent(s)
No.
2. RFA-1099-2015 (O&M) Municipal Corporation
Gurgaon
Braham Parkash &
Ors.
3. RFA-1100-2015 (O&M)
with XOBJR-302-CI-2016
(O&M)
Municipal Corporation Jai Singh & Ors.
Gurgaon
4. RFA-1101-2015 (O&M) Municipal Corporation
Gurgaon
Vinay Shankar & Ors.
5. RFA-1102-2015 (O&M)
with XOBJR-307-CI-2016
(O&M)
Municipal Corporation Bedi Singh & Ors.
Gurgaon
6. RFA-1103-2015 (O&M) Municipal Corporation
Gurgaon
Santosh Devi & Ors.
7. RFA-1104-2015 (O&M) Municipal Corporation
Gurgaon
Suresh Kumar & Ors.
8. RFA-1105-2015 (O&M) Municipal Corporation
Gurgaon
Sukhbir Singh & Ors.
9. RFA-1106-2015 (O&M) Municipal Corporation
Gurgaon
Nitya Nand Garg &
Ors.
10. RFA-1107-2015 (O&M) Municipal Corporation
Gurgaon
Raj Singh & Ors.
11. RFA-1108-2015 (O&M) Municipal Corporation
Gurgaon
Sahab Singh & Ors.
12. RFA-1109-2015 (O&M) Municipal Corporation
Gurgaon
Sarjeet (deceased)
through LRs & Ors.
13. RFA-1110-2015 (O&M) Municipal Corporation
Gurgaon
Sukhbir Singh & Ors.
14. RFA-3417-2015 (O&M) Municipal Corporation
Gurgaon
Ajit Singh & Ors


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate with
Ms. Rajdeep Kaur, Advocate
for MC Gurgaon

Mr. Rohan Moudgil, Advocate,
Ms. Maninee, Advocate for
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate
for respondent(s) ( in RFA-1106-2015 )
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.05 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment



RFA-1098-2015 and connected cases -2-

Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate
for cross-objectors ( in XOBJR-302-CI-2016 and XOBJR-
307-CI-2016)

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 award dated 25.01.2014
passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Reference Court’). Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon (for
short ‘Corporation’) is seeking reduction of enhanced market value
whereas landowners are claiming otherwise.


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 1098 of 2015.

3. Tabulated details of the assessment made till date read as: -
Date of notification under Section 4 17.12.2010
Date of notification under Section 6 21.03.2011
Purpose of acquisition For the construction of over head services
Reservoir and Boosting station for the residents
of Rajendra Park and the surrounding area of old
ward no. 30 and 31 Gurgaon Town.
Location Gurgaon
Area (Total) 1 acre 3 Kanal
Date of award of Collector (LAC) 17.06.2011
Market value of land in question as
1,23,00,000/-
per LAC (₹per acre)
Date of Reference Court (RC) Awards 25.01.2014
Market value as per RC (₹per acre) 2,86,91,520/- (5,928/- per sq. yard)

DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.05 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment



RFA-1098-2015 and connected cases -3-


4. The State Government issued notification dated 17.12.2010
under Section 4 of the 1894 Act for the acquisition of 6654 sq yard (2
Bigha 4 Biswa/ 1 acre 3 Kanal) land situated in Gurgaon with intent to
construct over-head services Reservoir and Boosting station for the
residents of Rajendra Park and the surrounding area of old ward no. 30
and 31 Gurgaon Town. The said notification was followed by notification
dated 21.03.2011 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act.

5. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’) vide
Award dated 17.06.2011, in terms of provisions of 1894 Act, determined
compensation payable to the landowners. Market value of the acquired
land was determined @ ₹1,23,00,000/- per acre. Landowners were held
entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits. Feeling dis-satisfied from
the aforesaid award, landowners preferred petitions before the Collector
which were referred to the Court under Section 18 of the 1894 Act.

6. The Reference Court while appreciating evidence led by both
sides, by impugned award adjudicated reference petitions. The Reference
Court by impugned award dated 25.01.2014 has assessed market value of
the acquired land @ ₹ 2,86,91,520/- per acre.

7. Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the
Reference Court has wrongly relied upon sale deed dated 07.01.2008
(Ex.P-1). The Reference Court has ignored previous award Ex.P-2
whereby land adjacent to land in question was acquired. The Corporation
on the previous occasion acquired 0.03 acre land situated in Village
Gurgaon, District Gurgaon. For the said purpose, notification under
Section 4 was issued on 12.01.2009. The Reference Court determined
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.05 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment



RFA-1098-2015 and connected cases -4-

market price @ ₹5,769/- per sq. yard. In the case in hand, the Reference
Court has declined to rely upon previous award and relied upon exemplar
sale deed Ex.P-1 which was executed almost three years back.

8. Per contra , learned counsel for respondents submit that in
view of availability of exemplar sale deed there was no occasion to rely
upon previous award especially when it related to acquisition of 0.03 acre
land. The Reference Court has further imposed 30% cut which is on the
higher side. As per judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court it should not be
more than 20%.

9. 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 appellant(s) shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period.

10. 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.

11. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

12. The State has argued in multiple appeals that previous award
should not be relied upon. The State has relied upon judgment of
Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.,
2018 (13) SCC 96 . In the present case, Corporation is arguing otherwise.
Stand of Corporation is contrary to aforesaid judgment. The Reference
Court has rightly relied upon exemplar sale deed instead of previous
award. It is apt to notice that previous award related to 0.03 acre land
whereas present award relates to 1 Acre 3 Kanal land. The Reference
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.05 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment



RFA-1098-2015 and connected cases -5-

Court has relied upon sale deed comprising 5273 sq. yard land i.e. more
than 1 acre. It can be safely concluded that area acquired by notification
in question was almost equal to area comprised in exemplar sale deed.
The Reference Court by previous award dated 12.01.2009 determined
market value @ ₹5796 per sq. yard whereas in the present case has
determined @ ₹5928/- per sq. yard. There is no substantial difference in
the market value determined by previous award vis-à-vis present award.

13. The Reference Court has imposed 30% cut. The Supreme
Court has approved imposition of development cut from 20% to 70%.
There is no hard and fast or algebraic formula to determine market value
or impose cut either due to size or development. The relied upon sale
deed related to purchase of land by a business entity. Possibility of
purchase of land by business entity on a rate higher than prevailing
market rate cannot be ruled out. Though this aspect has not been
considered by the Reference Court yet considering the aforesaid fact and
judgments of Supreme Court, this Court does not find any occasion to
impose higher or lower cut than imposed by the Reference Court.

14. In the backdrop, appeals filed by the Corporation and cross-
objections by landowners are hereby dismissed.

15. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.


(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
November 05, 2026
Deepak DPA

Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.05 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment