Ishwanti And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another

-1-

RFA-106-2024 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
*
234
Date of Decision: 08.09.2026

1. RFA-106-2024 (O&M)
ISHWANTI & OTHERS
…Appellants
Versus

STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
…Respondents
And

Sr. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s)
No.
2. RFA-5483-2017 KULDEEP SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
3. RFA-5484-2017 PREM SINGH & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
4. RFA-673-2018 SATYAWAN & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
5. RFA-3677-2019 TARANA & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
6. RFA-5326-2017 PARAMJIT & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
7. RFA-551-2024 SHAMSHER SINGH ALIAS
(O&M) SHAMSHER SINGH BUDHWAR
& ANOTHER
STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
8. RFA-107-2024 NIRMALA & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
(O&M)
9. RFA-5325-2017 MAHENDER STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
10. RFA-5330-2017 SHAMSHER & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
11. RFA-5336-2017 BALWAN @ BALWANT STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
12. RFA-5340-2017 RAMNIWAS & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
13. RFA-5341-2017 JAIBIR & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
14. RFA-5506-2017 RAM KUWAR (DECASED) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
THROUGH LRS & ANOTHER
15. RFA-1868-2018 BHAN SINGH (DECEASED) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
THROUGH LRS & OTHERS
16. RFA-2407-2019 RANPAT & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
17. RFA-3148-2017 RAN SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
18. RFA-4529-2017 ZORAWAR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
19. RFA-5331-2017 KHAZAN SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
20. RFA-5481-2017 JAGBIR & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
21. RFA-5507-2017 DALBIR & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
22. RFA-672-2018 RAJ SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.10 11:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-2-

RFA-106-2024 (O&M)
23. RFA-5332-2017 OMPARKASH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
24. RFA-5333-2017 SANT LAL & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
25. RFA-5338-2017 SATPAL & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
26. RFA-5342-2017 SATISH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
27. RFA-5482-2017 CHANDRAM & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
28. RFA-5486-2017 RAMPHAL & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
29. RFA-5503-2017 OM PARKASH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
30. RFA-2409-2019 KRISHAN & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
31. RFA-3679-2019 DALEL & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
32. RFA-5328-2017 DHARMENDER & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
33. RFA-5329-2017 SHANTI STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
34. RFA-5478-2017 RAMPHAL & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
35. RFA-5479-2017 SUSHIL KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
36. RFA-5485-2017 KADAM & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
37. RFA-2241-2019 ANUP & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
38. RFA-3678-2019 RAMPHAL STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
39. RFA-3680-2019 JORA SINGH (DECEASED) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
THROUGH LRS & OTHERS
40. RFA-5327-2017 AMAR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
41. RFA-5334-2017 SURESH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
42. RFA-5343-2017 ISHWAR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
43. RFA-5480-2017 BRIJMOHAN & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
44. RFA-5504-2017 KRISHAN LAL (DECEASED) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
THROUGH LRS & OTHERS
45. RFA-128-2024 RAJENDER STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
(O&M)
46. RFA-5335-2017 RAGHBIR & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
47. RFA-5337-2017 KUSAL PAL SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
48. RFA-5339-2017 RAVINDER STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
49. RFA-5505-2017 RAJPAL (DECEASED) STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
THROUGH LR & OTHERS
50. RFA-559-2018 SUKHBIR SINGH & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. Sudhir Kumar Hooda, Advocate for appellant(s)
(In RFA Nos.2241, 2407 & 2409 of 2019;
RFA Nos.5325 to 5343, 5503 to 5507 of 2017; &
RFA No.559 of 2018 )

Mr. Mohit Rathee, Advocate for appellant(s)
(In RFA-106-2024, RFA-107-2024, RFA-128-2024,
RFA-1868-2018, RFA Nos.5478 to 5486 of 2017,
RFA-672-2018, RFA-673-2018 & RFA-551-2024 )

Mr. Robin Lohan, Advocate for appellant(s)
(In RFA Nos.3677, 3678, 3679 & 3680 of 2019 )
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.10 11:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-3-

RFA-106-2024 (O&M)

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

*

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. Tabulated details of the assessment made till date
read as: -
02.12.2010 02.12.2010
Date of notification under
Section 4
Date of notification under
Section 6
21.07.2011 21.07.2011
Purpose of acquisition Sectors 22, 22B, 22A,
22C Road, Rohtak
Sectors 22, 22B, 22A, 22C
Road, Rohtak
Location Village - Sunaria Kalan Village - Myana
Tehsil & District - Rohtak Tehsil & District - Rohtak
Area 36.68 Acre 2.07 Acre
Date of order of Collector
(LAC)
26.04.2012 26.04.2012
₹ ₹
36,00,000/- 36,00,000/-
Market value as per LAC (per
acre)
Date of Reference Court (RC)
Order
14.03.2017 05.03.2019
₹
₹
44,24,000/-
37,80,000/-
Market value as per RC (per
acre)

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-106-2024 .
3. The appellants-landowners through instant appeal are seeking
modification of award dated 14.03.2017 whereby learned Additional District
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.10 11:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-4-

RFA-106-2024 (O&M)
Judge, Rohtak (hereinafter called as ‘Reference Court’) has not determined

amount of compensation as claimed by them.
4. The State Government issued notification dated 02.12.2010
under Section 4 of 1894 Act for the acquisition of land situated within the
revenue estate of Villages Sunaria Kalan and Myana, Tehsil & District
Rohtak with intent to construct Sectors 22 & 22B, 22A, 22C Road, Rohtak . The
said notification was followed by notification dated 21.07.2011 issued under
Section 6 of 1894 Act.
5. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’) vide
Award dated 26.04.2012, in terms of provisions of 1894 Act, determined
compensation payable to the landowners. Market value of the acquired land
₹
was determined at the rate of 36,00,000/- per acre. 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 Collector, however, landowners vehemently pleaded that value of their
land has been assessed on lower side. Appellants and the State have
produced exemplar sale deeds details of which are reproduced as below: -
APPELLANTS : -
Village Sunaria Kalan
Ex. Vasika Date Area
No. (In Sq.
yard/Kanal/Marla)
Sale
consideration
₹
(In )
Rate per
acre
₹
(In )
P1 7210 2.0.11.2006 100 Sq. Yd 2,00,000/- 96,80,000/-
P3 11914 21.03.2007 300 Sq. Yd 6,00,000/- 96,80,000/-
P5 2550 05.06.2007 362 Sq. Yd 9,05,000/- 1,21,00,000/-
P7 4144 16.07.2007 180 Sq. Yd 4,50,000/- 1,21,00,000/-
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.10 11:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-5-

RFA-106-2024 (O&M)
P9 6489 05.10.2007 200 Sq. Yd 5,00,000/- 1,21,00,000/-
P11 10334 12.02.2008 126 Sq. yd. 3,15,000/- 1,21,00,000/-
P13 4666 31.07.2009 141.66 Sq. Yd 3,97,000/- 1,35,61,680/-
P15 6688 18.09.2009 141.66 Sq. Yd 4,39,500/- 1,50,13,680/-
P17 7158 01.10.2009 100 Sq. Yd 3,10,000/- 1,50,04,000/-
P19 10650 29.12.2009 100 Sq. Yd 3,10,000/- 1,50,04,000/-
P21 13861 16.03.2010 187.5 Sq. Yd 5,82,000/- 1,50,23,360/-
P23 13989 17.03.2010 165 Sq. Yd 5,11,500/- 15,00,4000/-
P25 615 19.04.2010 100 Sq. Yd 5,00,000/- 2,42,00,000/-
P27 1822 11.05.2010 150 Sq. Yd 7,50,000/- 2,42,00,000/-
P29 2759 28.05.2010 152 Sq. Yd 12,16,000/- 3,87,20,000/-
P31 2760 28.05.2010 603 Sq. Yd 30,15,000/- 2,42,00,000/-
P33 3961 22.06.2010 100 Sq. yd. 5,00,000/- 24,20,000/-
P35 5246 21.07.2010 370.5 Sq. Yd 18,53,000/- 2,42,04,840/-
P37 7666 17.09.2010 110 Sq. Yd 5,50,000/- 2,42,00,000/-
P39 8216 01.10.2010 110 Sq. Yd 5,50,000/- 2,42,00,000/-
P41 10405 18.11.2010 106.25 Sq. Yd 5,31,500/- 2,42,11,388/-
P43 11145 03.12.2010 126 Sq. yd. 6,30,000/- 24,20,000/-
P45 12544 30.12.2010 300 Sq. Yd 15,00,000/- 2,42,00,000/-
Village Myana
Ex. Vasika Date Area
No. (In Sq.
yard/Kanal/Marla)
Sale
consideration
₹
(In )
Rate per
acre
₹
(In )
P1 9025 31.12.2007 1A-6K-17M 94,50,000/- 50,90,909/-
P2 12166 22.12.2010 403.77 Sq.Yd 4,04,000/- 48,40,000/-
P3 12142 22.12.2010 302.46 Sq.Yd 3,02,500/- 48,40,000/-
P4 12167 22.12.2010 383.31 Sq.Yd 3,83,500/- 48,40,000/-
P5 7796 21.09.2010 300 Sq.Yd 3,00,000/- 48,40,000/-

STATE : -
Village Sunaria Kalan
Ex. Vasika Date Area
No. (In Acre/Sq.
yard/Kanal/Marla)
Sale consideration Rate per
₹
(In ) acre
₹
(In )
R1 2828 12.06.2007 1Acre-6K 26,25,000/- 15,00,000/-
R2 4966 15.07.2010 2K-13M 828500/- 25,01,132/-
R3 5688 02.08.2010 1K-15 5,47,000/- 25,00,571/-
R4 10821 26.11.2010 1K-10M 4,69,000/- 25,01,333/-
R5 14389 04.02.2011 3K-16M 11,87,500/- 25,00,000/-
Village Myana
Ex. Vasika Date Area
No. (In Acres/Sq.
yard/Kanal/Marla)
Sale consideration Rate per
₹
(In ) acre
₹
(In )
R1 6855 02.09.2011 3K-4M 10,00,000/- 25,00,000/-
R2 14648 10.02.2011 8K-0M 16,00,000/- 16,00,000/-
R3 8144 17.10.2011 8K-0M 16,00,000/- 16,00,000/-
R4 10566 16.01.2011 2A-3K-4M 40,80,000/- 17,00,000/-
R5 2814 30.05.2011 7K 15,75,000/- 18,00,000/-
R6 10051 03.12.2011 2A-2K-6M 36,60,000/- 16,00,000/-
R7 4570 05.07.2010 1A-1K-1M 18,80,000/- 16,00,000/-
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.10 11:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-6-

RFA-106-2024 (O&M)
7. The Reference Court while appreciating evidence led by both
sides, by impugned common award adjudicated reference petitions. The
Reference Court has assessed market value of the acquired land of Village
₹ ₹
Sunaria Kalan @ 44,24,000/- per acre and 37,80,000/- per acre qua
Village Myana. The landowners are in appeal before this Court.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that land in question
is situated within the revenue estate of Village Sunaria Kalan. This Court
vide order dated 26.08.2026 has determined market value of the land situated
in Village Sunaria Kalan which was acquired vide notification dated
16.07.2010 issued under Section 4 of 1894 Act. The Court has determined
₹
value @ 55,93,000/- per acre. The Collector had assessed value of the land
in question as well as land acquired vide notification dated 16.07.2010 @
₹
36,00,000/- per acre. The Reference Court in the present case has
₹
determined value @ 44,24,000/- per acre and in the previous award it was
₹
determined @ 41,00,000/- per acre. The Reference Court has imposed cut
of 75%. The market value of land in question needs to be determined at par
with value determined vide order dated 26.08.2026 passed by this Court qua
previous award.
9. Per contra , learned State counsel submits that Reference Court
has ignored sale deeds produced by the State and relied upon sale deeds
furnished by landowners. The Reference Court has wrongly calculated per
acre sale consideration of sale deed dated 31.12.2007 (Ex. P-1 in RFA
No.3677 of 2019 ).
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.10 11:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-7-

RFA-106-2024 (O&M)
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. On being asked, learned State counsel expressed his inability to
distinguish present case from order dated 26.08.2026 passed by this Court in
RFA-807-2024 titled as ‘ Dilbag & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. ’. He
simply submitted that as per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Manoj
Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.’, 2018 (2) RCR (Civil) 815 ,
market value of the acquired land cannot be determined on the basis of
previous awards.
12. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
13. 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 shall
not be entitled to interest for the delayed period.
14. From the perusal of record, it is evident that land in question
was acquired vide notification dated 02.12.2010. It was acquired for the
construction of sectoral roads. As per instructions of learned State counsel,
Sectors 22A, 22B, 22C & 22D are not set up till date. Land is still lying
vacant, however, roads have been constructed. Land which was subject
matter of Award Nos.1 & 2 both dated 26.04.2012 was acquired for the
purpose of construction of sectoral roads. Land in question has been acquired
vide Award No.3 dated 26.04.2012 means all the three awards have been
passed on the same date i.e. 26.04.2012. By aforesaid awards, market value
₹
was determined @ 36,00,000/- per acre. The Reference Court vide order
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.10 11:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-8-

RFA-106-2024 (O&M)
dated 09.10.2017 and 07.10.2017 with respect to award Nos.1 & 2
₹ ₹
determined market value @ 41,00,000/- and 39,00,000/- per acre
respectively. In the case in hand, market value has been determined
₹
@ 44,24,000/- per acre. It means the Reference Court has determined
market value of the land in question at higher rate than earlier awards,
nevertheless, landowners are claiming that value of the land in question may
be determined at par with previous awards.
15. In Manoj Kumar (supra) , the Supreme Court has held that
market value should not be determined on the basis of previous awards if
exemplar sale deeds are available. As per judgment of Supreme Court in
‘Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) Vs. State of Haryana’, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 715 the previous awards should not be outrightly rejected or blindly
relied upon. There should be application of mind.
16. The respondent vide notification dated 01.04.2010 acquired
3300 Acres land of 10 villages. This Court vide judgment dated 22.03.2021
passed in RFA-1190-2020 determined market value of the land of Village
₹
Nizampur Khurd. The value was determined @ 42,00,000/- per acre with
₹
respect to land upto the depth of 5 Acres from highway and 37,00,000/- of
remaining land. In the said judgment, it was noticed that land is situated in
the National Capital Region. The Village Nizampur Khurd abuts the
boundary of New Delhi. This Court vide judgment dated 06.10.2021 passed
in RFA-1059-2020 determined market value of three villages i.e. Gopalpur,
Saidpur and Pehladpur. The market value of land of aforesaid villages was
determined at par with market value of land of Village Nizampur Khurd.
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.10 11:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-9-

RFA-106-2024 (O&M)
Relying upon aforesaid orders vide order dated 14.07.2026
passed in RFA-1372-2025 , market value of the land of Village Sohati has
₹
been determined @ 37,00,000/- per acre. It is apt to notice that Reference
₹
Court had determined market value @ 47,00,000/- per acre and it was
₹
reduced to 37,00,000/- per acre. Same value of land of all the aforesaid
villages was determined because acquired land was contiguous and meant
for same purpose. The State was of the strong opinion that value of land of
all the villages being contiguous must be same. The same principle is
applicable here.
17. This Court while passing order dated 26.08.2026 in Dilbag
(supra) has considered different exemplar sale deeds and thereafter
₹
determined value @ 55,93,000/- per acre. In the present case, the Reference
Court has considered multiple sale deeds and their average has been
calculated. The Court has imposed cut of 75% on the average of multiple
sale deeds. Higher cut of 75% has been imposed because area comprised in
exemplar sale deeds was very small. The State has not filed appeals, thus,
has principally accepted method of determination of compensation as well
as reliance placed upon sale deeds produced by appellants. Cut of 75% seems
to be on the higher side. If cut is reduced to 70%, the market value would
₹
come to 53,08,500/- per acre.
18. As pointed out by learned State counsel, the Reference Court
while passing Award qua Village Myana has wrongly calculated per acre
sale consideration of sale deed dated 31.12.2007 (Ex. P-1 in RFA No.3677
₹
of 2019 ). The total sale consideration is 94,50,000/- and area comprised is
₹
1 Acre 6 Kanals 17 Marlas, thus, per acre price comes to 50,90,909/-
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.10 11:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-10-

RFA-106-2024 (O&M)
₹
whereas Reference Court has considered per acre rate @ 94,50,000/-. The
Reference Court has imposed cut of 60% whereas no cut was required
because area comprised in aforesaid sale deed is more than 1 Acre. The
aforesaid sale deed was executed in December’ 2007 whereas notification
under Section 4 was issued in December’ 2010. If doctrine of escalation as
evolved by Supreme Court is applied, market value of acquired land would
₹
not be less than 55,93,000/- per acre.
19. The Reference Court has rightly ignored sale deeds submitted
by the respondent-State because it is settled law that exemplar sale deeds
disclosing higher value should be considered. The Reference Court has not
considered one sale deed whereas multiple sale deeds have been considered
and thereafter maximum cut has been imposed. The finding recorded by
Reference Court that sale deeds produced by the State cannot be relied upon
because it is contrary to Section 25 of 1894 Act is incorrect in the light of
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Lal Chand Vs. Union of India &
Anr.’, (2009) 15 SCC 769 . The Apex Court in Lal Chand (supra) has clearly
held that sale deeds produced by State cannot be ignored just relying upon
Section 25. Relevant extracts of the judgment read as: -
“54. The High Court also rejected Exts. R-3 to R-7 relied
upon by the respondents, solely on the ground that the prices
therein were lower than the market value offered by the Land
Acquisition Collector and therefore, they had to be excluded
under Section 25 of the LA Act. Section 25 provides that the
amount of compensation awarded by a Reference Court shall
not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under
Section 11.
55. We fail to see how the said Section 25 has any relevance
in regard to determination of market value as contrasted from
award of compensation. If the sale deeds relied on by the
SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.10 11:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-11-

RFA-106-2024 (O&M)
respondents showed a particular market value, they cannot
be ignored merely because the Collector had awarded
compensation at a higher rate in regard to the acquired land.
56. All that Section 25 requires is that the courts should not
award an amount which is less than what is awarded by the
Land Acquisition Collector, even if the evidence may show a
lesser market value. So, the bar under Section 25 of the LA
Act is not in regard to determination of a market value, which
is less than what was awarded by LAO. The bar is only upon
the Reference Court (or any higher court) reducing the
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector.”

20. In the backdrop, this Court finds it appropriate to determine
value of the land in question at par with value determined vide order dated
26.08.2026 passed in Dilbag (supra) .
21. Allowed in above terms.
22. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
08.09.2026

SDK

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


SUDEEPAK KUMAR
2026.09.10 11:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document