State Of Haryana vs Attar Singh Etc

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

-1-

RFA-768-2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
*
203
Date of Decision: 14.09.2026

1. RFA-768-2002
STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS …Appellants
Versus


ATTAR SINGH & OTHERS …Respondents
And

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

2. RFA-769-2002 STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS DAYA NAND & OTHERS

3. RFA-770-2002 STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS MAN SINGH (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS & OTHERS

4. RFA-771-2002 STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS ATTAR SINGH

5. RFA-772-2002 STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS RAM SINGH & OTHERS

6. RFA-773-2002 STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS SHER SINGH & OTHERS

7. RFA-774-2002 STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS DHAPAN & OTHERS

8. RFA-775-2002 STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS DHAPAN & OTHERS

9. RFA-2863-2002 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER YASHWANT SINGH & ANR

10. RFA-2864-2002 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER BHAGWAN SINGH & OTHERS

11. RFA-2865-2002 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER JAI NARAIN

12. RFA-2866-2002 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER NIHAL SINGH & OTHERS

13. RFA-2867-2002 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SMT. DHARMA & OTHERS

14. RFA-2868-2002 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER JAI SINGH & OTHERS

15. RFA-2869-2002 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER GRAM PANCHAYAT
BALKARA

16. RFA-2870-2002 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER RAM KUMAR & OTHERS

17. RFA-4101-2002 GRAM PANCHAYAT BALKARA STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

18. RFA-4102-2002 JAI NARAIN STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

19. RFA-4103-2002 RAM KUMAR & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

20. RFA-4104-2002 NIHAL SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

21. RFA-4105-2002 JAI SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

22. RFA-4106-2002 YASHWANT SINGH & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

23. RFA-4107-2002 BHAGWAN SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

24. RFA-4108-2002 DHARMA & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.15 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-2-

RFA-768-2002
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

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

Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for respondents/landowners

*

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. These appeals under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, ‘1894 Act’) are directed against two awards passed by the
Reference Court. The landowners are claiming that assessed market value
needs to be enhanced whereas the State is claiming otherwise. Tabulated
details of the assessment made till date read as: -
Date of notification under Section 4 05.12.1996
Date of notification under Section 6 18.02.1997
Purpose of acquisition For the construction of Ram Nagar Sub-Minor
Location Villages- Ghasola (H.B. 172),
Balkara (H.B. 79)
Tehsil - Dadri
District - Bhiwani
Area Ghasola Balkara
10.89 Acre 5.96 Acre
Date of order of Collector (LAC) 04.05.1997
Balkara
₹ 1,00,000/- for
Chahi
₹ 90,000/- for Barani
Market value as per LAC (per acre) Ghasola
₹ 1,30,000/- for Nehri &
Chahi
₹ 1,00,000/- for Barani
₹ 4,84,000/- for Gair
Mumkin
Date of Reference Court (RC) order 31.10.2001 04.06.2002
Market value as per RC (per acre) Awarded additional
amount under Section
23(1-A) of 1894 Act @
12% p.a. over market
value prevalent in the
year 1986 till
04.12.1996
Awarded additional
amount under
Section 23(1-A) of
1894 Act @ 12%
p.a. over market
value prevalent in
the year 1986 till
04.12.1996

SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.15 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-3-

RFA-768-2002

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.768 of 2002 .

3. The appellant-State through instant appeal is seeking setting
aside of award dated 31.10.2001 whereby learned Additional District Judge,
Bhiwani (hereinafter called as ‘Reference Court’) has awarded additional
compensation @ 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) for the period prior
to the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.

4. The State Government issued notification dated 05.12.1996
under Section 4 of the 1894 Act for the acquisition of 10.89 acres of land
situated within the revenue estate of Village Ghosala, Tehsil Dadri & District
Bhiwani for the construction of Ram Nagar Sub-Minor. The said notification
was followed by notification dated 18.02.1997 issued under Section 6 of
1894 Act.

5. The Collector vide award dated 04.05.1997, in terms of
provisions of 1894 Act, determined compensation payable to landowners.
Market value of the acquired land was determined @ ₹ 1,30,000/- per acre
for Chahi and ₹1,00,000/- per acre for Barani land . Landowners were held
entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits including addition @ 12%
per annum from 05.12.1996 to 04.05.1997. Feeling dissatisfied from the
aforesaid award, landowners preferred petitions before the Collector which
were referred to the Court under Section 18 of the 1894 Act.
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.15 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-4-

RFA-768-2002

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 lower side.

7. The Reference Court, appreciating evidence led by both sides,
by impugned common award adjudicated the petitions. The Reference Court
has awarded additional amount @ 12% per annum for the period from 1986
to 04.12.1996. The Reference Court has declined claim qua severance
charges.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the
Reference Court has wrongly awarded addition under Section 23(1-A) of
1894 Act for the period prior to notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act.
Section 23(1-A) comes into play from the date of notification under Section
4 of 1894 Act. The Reference Court has awarded addition @ 12% per annum
for the period from 1986-96. The notification under Section 4 was issued on
05.12.1996, thus, liability under Section 23(1-A) starts from 05.12.1996.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per Section
23(1-A), addition @ 12% per annum is available from the date of possession
where possession is taken prior to notification under Section 4. In the Section
23(1-A), the expression ‘whichever is earlier’ has been used which shows
that where possession is taken prior to the award, addition is available from
the date of possession. He further submitted that the Reference Court has
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.15 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-5-

RFA-768-2002
wrongly denied severance charges. Severance of land took place because
Minor was set up in between the land possessed by the farmers.

10. Learned State counsel expressed his inability to controvert the
fact that land of the farmers was bifurcated. He also conceded that as per
order dated 03.09.2025 passed by this Court in RFA-3120-2006 titled as
“Sahab Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.” , the respondents-
landowners are held entitled to severance charges @ 20% of the market
value.

11. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

12. From the perusal of record, it is evident that there is dispute on
two issues between the parties. The State is claiming that addition under
Section 23(1-A) was not payable for the period prior to the notification under
Section 4 and landowners are claiming that they with respect to land situated
in Village Balkara are entitled to severance charges.

13. There are 16 appeals of the State and 8 appeals of the
landowners. Appeals of the State relate to two Villages i.e. Ghasola and
Balkara. The landowners have filed appeals with respect to Village Balkara.

14. The State is claiming that addition under Section 23(1-A) was
not payable prior to the date of notification under Section 4. The Reference
Court has awarded addition @ 12% per annum for the period from 1986-96.
The notification under Section 4 was issued on 05.12.1996. The Reference
Court has awarded addition @ 12% per annum on the ground that
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.15 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-6-

RFA-768-2002
respondents took possession of the acquired land in 1986 whereas
notification under Section 4 was issued in 1996. The State is liable to pay
addition under Section 23(1-A) of 1894 Act from the date of possession. The
dispute revolves around the reading of Section 23(1-A) which reads as: -
“(1-A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above
provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount
calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such
market-value for the period commencing on and from the date
of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-
section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of
the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land,
whichever is earlier.”


15. From the perusal of above-quoted Section, it is evident that
starting point of addition under Section 23(1-A) is date of publication of the
notification under Section 4. The end point is date of award or date of
possession, whichever is earlier. Market value under Section 23(1) of 1894
Act is determined as prevalent on the date of notification under Section 4. In
the present case, market value has been determined as prevalent on the date
of notification i.e. 05.12.1996. It means the landowners have received market
value as was prevailing in 1996. They have not been awarded compensation
as per market value prevailing in 1986. Section 23(1-A) categorically
provides that liability of addition would commence from the date of
publication under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. In the present case, notification
under Section 4 was issued on 05.12.1996, thus, there is no question to award
aforesaid addition prior to 05.12.1996. The landowners may be entitled to
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.15 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-7-

RFA-768-2002
compensation or rent for utilization of land without acquisition, however,
they cannot claim addition under Section 23(1-A). The Court cannot grant
compensation contrary to statutory provisions. There is no ambiguity in
Section 23(1-A) and grant of addition for the period prior to the date of
notification would amount to re-writing of aforesaid Section which is
impermissible in law.

16. At this stage, learned counsel for the landowners submit that
aforesaid addition has been calculated on the market value of the acquired
land prevailing in 1986, thus, while re-calculating amount of compensation,
this aspect may be taken care of.

17. There is substance in the aforesaid prayer. Accordingly, it is
clarified that the Collector/Executing Court while re-calculating amount of
compensation would consider that addition under Section 23(1-A) has been
calculated from 1986.

18. The landowners whose land is situated in Village Balkara are
claiming severance charges. Severance of land is undisputed, thus, they are
entitled to severance charges. Their claim is squarely covered by order dated
03.09.2025 passed by this Court in Sahab Kaur (supra) . In terms of
aforesaid order of this Court, they deserve severance charges @ 20% of the
market value.

19. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that landowners are not entitled to addition under
Section 23(1-A) of 1894 Act for the period prior to the date of notification
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.15 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-8-

RFA-768-2002
under Section 4 i.e. 05.12.1996, however, landowners whose land is situated
in Village Balkara are entitled to severance charges @ 20% of the market
value. It is clarified that the State is at liberty to point out to the Executing
Court landowners whose land has not been actually bifurcated.

20. Disposed of in above terms.

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

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
14.09.2026
SDK

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

SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.15 15:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document