Nathe Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
224 RFA-1330-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.11.2026
NATHE SINGH AND ANR. ...Appellants
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ...Respondents
And
Sr.
No.
Case Details Appellant(s) Respondent(s)
2. RFA-847-2020 Roshan Lal State of Haryana & Ors.
3. RFA-867-2020 Surajmal & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
4. RFA-868-2020 Jai Singh (deceased)
through LRs & Anr.
State of Haryana & Ors.
5. RFA-869-2020 Surajmal & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
6. RFA-870-2020 Kamlesh & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
7. RFA-871-2020 Vinod Kumar State of Haryana & Ors.
8. RFA-872-2020 Surajmal & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
9. RFA-910-2020 Bhim Singh & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
10. RFA-911-2020 Chrat Singh State of Haryana & Ors.
11. RFA-912-2020 Vinod Kumar State of Haryana & Ors.
12. RFA-915-2020 Vinod Kumar State of Haryana & Ors.
13. RFA-916-2020 Dalbir Singh & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
14. RFA-917-2020 Naresh & Ors. The Land Acquisition
Collector & Anr.
15. RFA-918-2020 Surajmal & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
16. RFA-930-2020 Amir Singh State of Haryana & Ors.
17. RFA-931-2020 Umed Singh & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
18. RFA-932-2020 Baljit Singh & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors.
19. RFA-938-2020 Balwan Singh & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors.
20. RFA-939-2020 Baljit Singh & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors.
21. RFA-943-2020 Baljit Singh & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors.
22. RFA-973-2020 Mahender State of Haryana & Ors.
23. RFA-975-2020 Hansraj & Ors. State of Haryana & Anr.
24. RFA-976-2020 Hansraj & Ors. State of Haryana & Anr.
25. RFA-977-2020 Sonu Rani State of Haryana & Anr.
26. RFA-978-2020 Atul State of Haryana & Anr.
27. RFA-1321-2021 Natha Singh & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
28. RFA-1324-2021 Natha Singh & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
29. RFA-1327-2021 Natha Singh & Ors. State of Haryana & Ors.
30. RFA-1337-2021 Dev Karan & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors.
31. RFA-1338-2021 Dev Karan & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors.
32. RFA-1339-2021 Bansi Lal State of Haryana & Ors.
33. RFA-1341-2021 Dev Karan & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors.
34. RFA-1384-2021 Dev Karan & Anr. State of Haryana & Ors.
35. RFA-1426-2021 Mahinder (deceased) Land Acquisition
through LRs & Ors. Collector & Anr.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.04 15:08
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-1330-2021 and connected cases -2-
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Ishnoor Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
for the appellant ( in RFAs No.867, 868, 869, 870, 871, 872,
910, 911, 912, 915, 916, 917, 918, 930, 931, 932, 938, 939,
943, 973 of 2020 and RFAs No.1330, 1321, 1324, 1327,
1337, 1338, 1341, 1384, 1426 of 2021 )
Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate,
Mr. Parminder Singla, Advocate
for appellants (in RFA-847-2020 and RFA-1339-2021)
Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate
for appellant ( in RFAs No.975 to 978 of 2020)
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 19.12.2019
passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat (hereinafter called
as ‘Reference Court’). The landowners are seeking enhancement of the
amount of compensation whereas the State is 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-1330-2021.
3. The State Government issued notification dated 28.05.2010
under Section 4 of the 1894 Act for the acquisition of 137.96 acres land
situated in Villages namely Gohana, Garhi Ujalekhan and Garhi
Namdarkhan, District Sonepat with intent to develop residential Sector-16
Gohana. The said notification was followed by notification dated
27.05.2011 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.04 15:08
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-1330-2021 and connected cases -3-
4. Tabulated details of the assessment made till date read as: -
Date of notification under Section 4 28.05.2010
Date of notification under Section 6 27.05.2011
Purpose of acquisition Development of residential sector-16,
Gohana
Location Villages- Gohana, Garhi Ujalekhan,
Garhi Namdarkhan
District - Sonepat
Area (Total) 137.96 Acres
Date of Award of Collector (LAC) 24.05.2013
Market value as per LAC (₹ per
acre)
40,00,000/-
Date of Reference Court (RC)
Award
19.12.2019
Market value as per RC (per acre) LAC award was upheld
5. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’) vide
Award dated 24.05.2013, in terms of provisions of 1894 Act, determined
compensation payable to the landowners. Market value of the acquired
land was determined @ ₹40,00,000/- per acre for all types of land.
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 landowners as well as the State, in support of their
contentions, led their evidence. The State attempted to justify market
value determined by Collector, however, landowners vehemently pleaded
that value of their land has been assessed on the lower side.
7. The Reference Court upheld market value as assessed by the
Collector.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.04 15:08
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-1330-2021 and connected cases -4-
8. Learned counsel for landowners submit that the Reference
Court has not appreciated exemplar sale deeds in true spirit. Sale deed
dated 06.12.2010 Ex.P-39 comprises land close to the acquired land.
Market price as per aforesaid sale deed is ₹60,00,000/- per acre. It was
executed 7 months after Section 4 notification. Reverse calculation may
be made. If applying principal of de-escalation, reverse calculation is
made, the market value would come to ₹55,00,000/- per acre.
9. Per contra , learned State counsel submits that sale deed
Ex.P-39 cannot be relied upon because it was executed post issuance of
Section 4 notification. Sale deeds produced by the State are disclosing
market value not more than ₹30,00,000/- per acre. Sale deed Ex.P-3
dated 12.01.2009 comprised part of the acquired land. Market value
declared in the aforesaid sale deed comes to ₹53,24,000/- per acre. It
comprises 390 sq. yard land, thus, size cut is required to be applied. Land
comprised in Ex.P-39 is situated close to the land comprised in Ex.P-38.
Lands comprised in Ex.P-38 and P-39 being located at a far place from
the acquired land cannot be relied upon.
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 landowners before the Reference Court led evidence in
the form of sale deeds. The State also produced few sale deeds.
Tabulated details of sale deeds produced by both sides read as:
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.04 15:08
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-1330-2021 and connected cases -5-
By landowners
Ex. Sale
deed
No.
Price per
acre (₹)
Date Area Amount (₹) Name
of
Village
P-3 4620 12.01.2009 390 sq. yards 4,29,000/- Gohana 52,80,000/-
P-34 2510 30.09.2010 2K-10M 27,50,000/- Gohana 88,00,000/-
P-35 2870 29.10.2010 6 Acres 7K 8M 4,15,50,000/- Gohana 76,58,986/-
P-36 1264 05.07.2010 4K 19 M 37,14,000/- Gohana 60,02,424/-
P-37 6685 25.02.2010 2K 10M 16,41,000/- Gohana 52,51,200/-
P-38 2240 13.09.2010 2K 14M 20,25,000/- Gohana 60,00,000/-
P-39 3273 06.12.2010 6K 12M 49,50,000/- Gohana 60,00,000/-
P-40 289 29.04.2010 153.33sq yards 3,54,000/- Gohana 1,11,98,431/-
P-41 2305 16.09.2010 150 sq. yards 4,45,000/- Gohana 1,43,58,666/-
P-42 3724 30.12.2010 1 Acre 5K 15M 1,03,14,000/- Gohana 60,00,872/-
P-43 347 03.05.2010 150 sq. yards 4,35,000/- Gohana 1,40,36,000/-
P-44 67 04.04.2014 175 sq. yards 6,13,000/- Gohana 1,69,53,828/-
P-45 9375 14.03.2014 150 sq. yards 5,25,000/- Gohana 1,69,40,000/-
P-46 9376 14.03.2014 200 sq. yards 7,00,000/- Gohana 1,69,40,000/-
P-47 69 04.04.2014 200 sq. yards 7,00,000/- Gohana 1,69,40,000/-
P-48 4072 13.01.2011 2 K 17 M 21,38,000/- Gohana 60,01,403/-
P-49 591 05.05.2014 200 sq. yards 7,00,000/- Gohana 1,69,40,000/-
P-50 3963 04.09.2014 60 sq. yards 2,22,000/- Gohana 1,79,08,000/-
P-52 8894 25.02.2014 100 sq. yards 3,50,000/- Gohana 1,69,40,000/-
P-53 5282 30.09.2013 2 Acre 1,60,00,000/- 80,00,000/-
By State
Exhibit Sale
deed
No.
Date Area Amount (₹) Name of Price per
Village acre (₹)
R-1 850 25.05.2009 2 K 3,75,000/- Garhi Sarai
Namdarkahan
15,00,000/-
R-2 3524 09.11.2009 7 K 13 16,26,000/- Garhi Sarai
M Namdarkahan
17,00,392/-
R-4 2258 02.09.2008 1 Acre 3 22,06,000/- Garhi Sarai
K 15 M Namdarkahan
15,01,957/-
R-5 3380 29.10.2009
1 Acre 1 19,45,000/- Garhi Sarai
K 3 M Namdarkahan
17,00,546/-
24.10.2008
R-6 6023 18.11.2011
11.03.2009
4K 9M 13,91,000/- Garhi Sarai
Namdarkahan
25,00,674/-
R-7 199 21.04.2010 -- -- -- --
R-8 46 09.04.2009 1K 16 M 4,50,000/- Gohana 20,00,000/-
R-9 395 05.05.2010 1K 14 M 4,25,000/- Gohana 30,00,000/-
R-10 5471 24.02.2009 1K 14 M 4,25,000/- Gohana 20,00,000/-
R-12 3030 15.11.2010 2K 3M 8,16,000/- Gohana 30,36,279/-
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.04 15:08
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-1330-2021 and connected cases -6-
13. A perusal of aforesaid tables reveals that sale deeds Ex.P-34,
P-35, P-36, P-38, P-39, P-41, P-42, P-44 to P-50, P-52, P-53 were
executed after Section 4 notification. In view of Section 23, sale deeds
executed post Section 4 notification cannot be considered. These sale
deeds could have been considered had there not been available sale deeds
executed on or before the date of Section 4 notification. Sale deeds Ex.P-
3, P-37, P-40, P-43 were executed on or before the Section 4 notification.
As sale deeds executed before Section 4 notification are available, there is
no occasion to place reliance upon sale deeds executed subsequent to it.
Sale deeds Ex.P-37, P-40 and P-43 comprise lands which are situated at
faraway places. Ex.P-40 and P-43 further comprise very small pieces of
land i.e. 153.33 sq. yards and 150 sq. yards respectively. These parcels of
land are even otherwise located within MC area whereas acquired land is
situated outside MC area. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to rely
upon sale deeds Ex.P-37, P-40 and P-43.
The appellants are heavily placing reliance upon Ex.P-39
dated 06.12.2010. Land comprised in aforesaid deed is situated very close
to the acquired land, however, as pointed out by the State counsel, sale
deed Ex.P-39 cannot be relied upon because it was executed after Section
4 notification and land comprised therein is situated on the other side of
the road.
Ex.P-3 comprises 390 sq. yards land. It was executed on
12.01.2009. Land comprised therein formed part of the acquired land,
thus, it is a best piece of evidence. It was executed prior to Section 4
notification and forms part of the acquired land, thus, can be safely relied
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.04 15:08
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-1330-2021 and connected cases -7-
upon. State is not disputing its authenticity or genuineness, however,
claiming that in view of its size, an appropriate cut may be imposed. The
Reference Court has allowed escalation @ 8% p.a. The Reference Court
has calculated market value of Ex.P-3 as ₹52,80,000/- per acre, however,
correct calculation comes to ₹53,24,000/- per acre. The Apex Court time
and again has approved escalation @12% p.a. There is a gap of almost
15 months between the date of execution of aforesaid sale deed and
Section 4 notification. If escalation @12% p.a. for a period of 15 months
is allowed, market price would come to ₹61,22,600/- per acre. The
Reference Court has imposed size/development cut of 35%. Sale deed
Ex.P-3 comprises land forming part of the acquired land, thus, there seem
no reason to impose development cut, however, size cut is required to be
imposed. It is a matter of common knowledge that small pieces of land
carry higher value due to availability of maximum buyers. Considering
that relied upon sale deed (Ex.P-3) comprised land forming part of the
acquired land, this Court finds it appropriate to impose 25% cut instead of
35%. Market value of the acquired land, if 25% cut is imposed, would
come to ₹45,91,950/- per acre. To avoid inconvenience in calculation, it
is rounded off as ₹45,92,000/- per acre. The appellants shall be entitled to
statutory benefits on the enhanced amount of compensation.
14. Learned State Counsel has pointed out that reference petition
in RFA-977-2020 was dismissed on the ground of delay. The aforesaid
appeal may be dismissed because Reference Court has no power to
condone delay, accordingly, this Court cannot condone delay which
occurred in filing reference petition under Section 18.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.04 15:08
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-1330-2021 and connected cases -8-
15. Remedies provided under Sections 18 and 28A of 1894 Act
are meant to determine and pay just, fair & reasonable compensation to
the landowners. In the present case, the landowners who had filed
application under Section 18 beyond limitation period could file
application under Section 28A. They filed reference applications during
the pendency of references which were within limitation. Their
applications though not directly yet indirectly may be considered as
applications under Section 28A because object of Section 28A is to grant
equal amount of compensation to all the landowners. It would be hyper-
technical to deny benefit of enhanced amount of compensation to one
appellant though granted to all others. Accordingly, objection of the State
is turned down.
16. All the appeals are allowed in above terms.
17. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
November 02, 2026
Deepak DPA
Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.11.04 15:08
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment