Punjab-Haryana High Court
Financial Commissioner And Principal … vs Jamila on 6 July, 2026
RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
106 (80 cases) RFA-366-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.07.2026
Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of
Haryana and others ...Appellants
Versus
Jamila ...Respondent
With
Sr. Case No. Appellant(s) Respondent(s)
No.
2. RFA-732-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Abdul Wahid
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
3. RFA-733-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Aarsh Mohammad and
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and others
others
4. RFA-734-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Jhajbi
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
5. RFA-735-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Mohammad Suleman
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
6. RFA-736-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Abdul Wahid
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
7. RFA-737-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Umardin and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
8. RFA-738-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Alla Bux
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
9. RFA-739-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Ayyub Khan and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
10. RFA-740-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Attaula Khan through
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and LRs and others
others
11. RFA-741-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Desh Raj
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
12. RFA-742-2025 State of Haryana and others Tayyub and others
(O&M)
13. RFA-743-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Nasruddin @ Nasru and
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and another
others
14. RFA-744-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Mohammad and another
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
15. RFA-745-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Ayyub and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
16. RFA-746-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Haroon and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
MOHIT KUMAR others
2026.07.06 14:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -2-
17. RFA-747-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Jan Mohammad and
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and others
others
18. RFA-748-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Bundu and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
19. RFA-749-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Mohd. Iliyash (Deceased)
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and through his LRs and
others others
20. RFA-750-2025 State of Haryana and others Suleman
(O&M)
21. RFA-751-2025 State of Haryana and others Gram Panchayat Akera
(O&M)
22. RFA-752-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Atru and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
23. RFA-753-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Mustak Ahmed and
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and others
others
24. RFA-754-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Mohammad Usman
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and (Deceased) through his
others LRs and others
25. RFA-759-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Deenu @ Deen Mohd.
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and (Deceased) through his
others LRs and others
26. RFA-895-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Israil and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
27. RFA-896-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Mohd. Iliyash (Deceased)
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and through LRs and others
others
28. RFA-897-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Kamruddin and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
29. RFA-898-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Mohd. Iliyash (Deceased)
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and through LRs and others
others
30. RFA-899-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Mohammad Israil
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and (Deceased) through his
others LRs and others
31. RFA-901-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Arshad Hussain and
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and others
others
32. RFA-9011- Financial Commissioner & Principal Najir Ahmed and others
2025 (O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
33. RFA-902-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Samsu (Deceased)
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and through his LRs and
others others
34. RFA-903-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Mohammad Khan and
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and another
others
35. RFA-905-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Wali Mohammad and
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and others
others
36. RFA-906-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Mohammad Ahsan and
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and others
others
37. RFA-907-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Pawan Kumar
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
38. RFA-908-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Mohd. Farookh and
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and others
MOHIT KUMAR
others
2026.07.06 14:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -3-
39. RFA-909-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Aash Mohammad
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
40. RFA-910-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Muntajir and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
41. RFA-911-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Mohammad Hassam
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
42. RFA-912-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Liyakat Ali
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
43. RFA-913-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Najir Ahmed and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
44. RFA-914-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Mohammad Ikbal
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
45. RFA-915-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Khurshid Ahmed and
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and others
others
46. RFA-916-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Idrish and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
47. RFA-917-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Sabir Hussain and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
48. RFA-918-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Sufiyan and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
49. RFA-919-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Nasruddin and another
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
50. RFA-920-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Ali Mohammad and
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and others
others
51. RFA-921-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Ashik Hussain and
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and others
others
52. RFA-922-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Wali Mohammad and
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and others
others
53. RFA-923-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Khurshid Ahmed and
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and others
others
54. RFA-924-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Kasam
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
55. RFA-925-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Hajir Ahmed and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
56. RFA-926-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Sahabuddin and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
57. RFA-927-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Abdul Majeed
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and (Deceased) through LRs
others and others
58. RFA-928-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Ajmat Khan and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
59. RFA-929-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Yunus and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.07.06 14:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -4-
60. RFA-930-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Farukh and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
61. RFA-931-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Jamil Ahmed and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
62. RFA-932-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Mohammed Sahood
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and (deceased) through LRs
others and others
63. RFA-933-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Mohammad Mubin and
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and others
others
64. RFA-934-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Sabir Hussain and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
65. RFA-935-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Idrish and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
66. RFA-936-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Asgar Khan and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
67. RFA-937-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Mohammad Sahood
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and (deceased) through LRs
others and others
68. RFA-938-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Asgar Hussain and
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and others
others
69. RFA-939-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Barafat (minor) through
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and mother
others
70. RFA-940-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Sardar Khan (Deceased)
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and through LRs and others
others
71. RFA-941-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Ibrahim and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
72. RFA-942-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Akhtar and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
73. RFA-943-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Nasruddin @ Nasru
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and (Deceased) through his
others LRs and others
74. RFA-944-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Ayyub Khan and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
75. RFA-945-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Yasin (now Deceased)
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and through his LRs and
others others
76. RFA-946-2025 Financial Commissioner & Principal Bundu and others
(O&M) Secretary to Government of Haryana and
others
77. RFA-1172- Jamila State of Haryana and
2025 (O&M) others
78. RFA-1317- Mohammad Sahood through his LRs and DRO-cum-LAC, Mewat
2025 (O&M) others at Nuh and others
79. RFA-367-2025 Mohammad DRO-cum-LAC, Mewat
(O&M) at Nuh
80. RFA-376-2025 Juhruddin @ Jahiruddin through his State of Haryana and
(O&M) LRs others
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.07.06 14:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -5-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. Abhinash Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
(representing appellant-State)
Mr. Anas Ahmed, Advocate for appellants
(in RFA-367-2025 & RFA-376-2025)
Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Advocate for respondent in RFA-366-2025
and for petitioner in RFA-1172-2025
Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate for appellant in RFA-1317-2025
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. 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.366 of 2025.
2. The appellant-State through instant appeal is seeking setting
aside of award dated 23.08.2024 whereby learned Additional District Judge,
Nuh has enhanced amount of compensation awarded by Land Acquisition
Collector.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Yamuna Water Services Circle,
Faridabad on 18.11.2013 issued notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) regarding acquisition of 108
acres of land situated within the revenue estate of village Akera, Tehsil &
District Nuh for constructing a reservoir for irrigation in the village Akera.
The said notification was followed by notification dated 20.01.2014 issued
under Section 6 of 1894 Act.
4. The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-DRO, Mewat at Nuh
passed Award No.1 of 2015 dated 30.01.2015. According to notification
under Section 6, the area was 108 acres but upon actual measurement, the
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.07.06 14:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -6-
award came up to be passed in respect of 107.1625 acres of land. Market
value of the acquired land was fixed as ₹22 Lakhs per acre. Landowners
were held entitled to solatium equivalent to 100% of compensation as per
Section 30(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘2013
Act’). Landowners were also held entitled to an amount of 12% of the
market value as per Section 30(3) of the 2013 Act from 18.11.2013 (date of
publication of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act) to 30.01.2015 (date
of award dated 30.01.2015). Aggrieved from aforesaid award, reference
petitions were preferred by interested persons before the Land Acquisition
Collector which were forwarded to Court as References under Section 64 of
the 2013 Act.
5. The landowners pleaded that compensation awarded by the
Land Acquisition Collector-cum-DRO, Nuh was grossly inadequate as the
market value, on the date of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act, was
not less than ₹1 Crore per acre. The Land Acquisition Collector while
determining the market value of their land failed to take into account the
prevailing market rates and passed the award without conducting a spot
survey or considering the land’s potential. The land in question is located
near the State Highway, Rozka Meo Industrial Estate, KMP Expressway and
is 18 Kms away from Sohna, an area with several resorts, hotels, golf clubs,
tourist complexes, residential sectors, commercial institutions, farmhouses,
poultry farms, and well-maintained roads, all of which existed before the
notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act. The land contained valuable
features such as tube-well rooms, wire-fencing, underground pipelines and
MOHIT KUMAR valuable trees, however, none of which were assessed or compensated by the
2026.07.06 14:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -7-
Collector. The Haryana Government had previously acquired land in nearby
villages such as Manesar and Kasan where higher compensation was
awarded but this fact was not considered in the case of the reference
petitioners. At the time of the notification, the average value of surrounding
land was approximately ₹3 Crore per acre yet was ignored.
6. Reference Court, considering evidence led by both sides,
adjudicated 44 petitions vide award dated 12.09.2017, 28 petitions vide
award dated 19.08.2017 and 4 petitions vide award dated 03.04.2018. In
total 76 reference petitions were decided.
7. Landowners as well as State assailed aforesaid awards before
this Court which vide judgment dated 23.09.2021 passed in RFA No.236 of
2018, Financial Commissioner v. Attaulla Khan & connected 137 appeals,
allowed all the appeals filed by landowners as well as by State of Haryana
and set aside the awards dated 19.08.2017, 12.09.2017 & 03.04.2018. The
matter was remanded to the Reference Court with a direction to decide the
matter afresh after granting opportunity to the parties to lead further
evidence.
8. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Reference Court vide
common award dated 02.04.2022 decided 76 reference petitions along with
another reference petition LAC/11/2019 titled as Khurshid v. State. The
parties preferred appeals before this Court against award dated 02.04.2022
which were disposed of vide order dated 13.12.2022 and matter was again
remitted to the Reference Court. Learned Additional District Judge, Nuh
vide impugned order dated 23.08.2024 has adjudicated reference petitions.
State as well as landowners are in appeal before this Court.
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.07.06 14:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -8-
9. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that Reference
Court has not complied with provisions of 2013 Act in true spirit. The
impugned orders deserve to be set aside. The Reference Court has wrongly
applied multiplier of 1.25 whereas it should be 1 because as per notification
dated 04.12.2014 issued by the State Government, multiplier factor of 1 in
case of rural as well as urban land was applicable. The Reference Court has
relied upon notification dated 23.01.2018 which could not be applied. The
notification dated 23.01.2018 is not having retrospective effect, thus,
Reference Court has wrongly invoked notification of 2018. The Reference
Court has applied cut of 30% whereas it should be more. The land in
question was not used for harvesting and there was no crop in the acquired
land, thus, higher cut was warranted.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents who are also
representing appellants in appeals filed by few landowners submit that
Reference Court has wrongly applied cut of 30%. There was no question to
apply cut. There is no provision in the 2013 Act to apply cut still Reference
Court has applied cut of 30%. The Reference Court has not further
considered question of interest as provided under Section 80 of 2013 Act.
11. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
12. 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.
13. This is third round of litigation. On the two earlier occasions,
the matter was remanded to Reference Court which has passed impugned
order. Two landowners namely Khurshid Ahmed and Azad Ahmed preferred
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.07.06 14:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -9-
CWP No.25944 of 2014 which was allowed by Division Bench of this Court
vide order dated 05.09.2017. It was held that notification issued under
Section 4 qua petitioners has lapsed. The appellant-State preferred SLP
which came to be allowed vide order dated 28.07.2022, however, with a
direction that provisions of 2013 Act shall be applied for the determination
of compensation amount. Land Acquisition Collector has passed award
dated 02.12.2025 whereby amount of compensation has been determined.
The aforesaid petitioners have preferred reference petition against the
aforesaid award. The respondents in present appeals were neither party to
CWP No.25944 of 2014 nor CWP No.2649 of 2023. The State counsel,
during the course of hearing, attempted to plead that award dated 02.12.2025
is applicable to entire acquired land. In view of impugned award of
Authority-Reference Court, award dated 02.12.2025 passed by Land
Acquisition Collector can neither be relied upon nor applied to the
respondents herein.
14. There is another aspect of the matter. Hon’ble Supreme Court
vide order dated 28.07.2022 passed in SLP (Civil) No.7490 of 2019 filed by
State has ordered to apply 2013 Act for the determination of compensation
amount. The impugned order has been passed applying provisions of 2013
Act, thus, there is compliance of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
15. The appellant-State is not disputing either applicability of 2013
Act or sale deeds relied upon by Reference Court. The appellant-State is
disputing only quantum of multiplier factor. As per appellant, the multiplier
of 1, in terms of notification dated 04.12.2014, was applicable whereas
Reference Court has applied multiplier of 1.25 as provided in notification
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.07.06 14:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -10-
dated 23.01.2018. The said notification is not having retrospective effect,
thus, has been wrongly applied.
16. The appellant before the Reference Court pleaded that
multiplier of 1.25 should be applied instead of 1.50. The landowners were
pleading that multiplier of 1.50 should be applied. Reference Court rejected
contention of landowners-respondents and held that there is no evidence
disclosing that acquired land is located at a distance of more than 10 Kms
from the outer boundary of the urban area. The appellant-State before this
Court is pleading that multiplier of 1 as per notification dated 04.12.2014
should be applied. Contention of the appellant deserves to be rejected on the
sole ground that State before Reference Court did not plead that multiplier of
1 should be applied. The State was pleading that multiplier of 1.25 instead of
1.50 should be applied. The Reference Court has accepted contention of
appellant-State, thus, their argument, at this stage that multiplier of 1 should
be applied, is misconceived.
17. The matter needs to be examined from another angle. The
appellant is claiming that notification dated 04.12.2014 was required to be
applied instead of notification dated 23.01.2018. By notification dated
04.12.2014, sub-rule (5) was inserted in Rule 4 of Haryana Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Rules, 2014 (for short ‘2014 Rules’). The aforesaid Rules
came to be repealed by Rule 35 of Haryana Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules,
2018 (for short ‘2018 Rules’) which reads as:
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.07.06 14:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -11-
“35. Repeal.- The Haryana Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Rules, 2014 shall stand repealed:
Provided that any action taken under the rules so
repealed, shall be deemed to have been taken under these
rules.”
As per proviso to Rule 35, any action taken under the repealed
Rules shall be deemed to have been taken under 2018 Rules. The impugned
award was passed after introduction of 2018 Rules. No decision qua
demised land was taken as per 2014 Rules.
18. Rule 25(1) of 2018 Rules provides that compensation shall be
determined as per provisions laid down under Sections 26 to 30 read with
notification issued under Column 3 against Serial No.2 of the First Schedule
to the 2013 Act. Rule 25(1) of 2018 Rules reads as:
“25. Determination of compensation- (1) The compensation
shall be determined as per the provisions laid down under
Section 26 to Section 30 read with the notification issued
under column 3 against serial number 2 of the First Schedule
to the Act.”
19. Notification under Column 3 of Serial No.2 of First Schedule of
2013 Act was issued on 23.01.2018 whereby multiplier factor was notified.
2014 Rules were framed in exercise of power conferred by Section 109 read
with Section 112 of 2013 Act. The said Rules were not framed in exercise of
power conferred by Column 3 of Serial No.2 of the First Schedule of 2013
Act. The State Government is empowered to notify multiplier factor by First
Schedule of 2013 Act. The State Government has issued notification dated
23.01.2018 under First Schedule of 2013 Act. There is no Rule in 2018 Act
which provides for multiplier factor. It shows that Rule 4(5) of 2014 Rules
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.07.06 14:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -12-
could not be relied upon. It is further apt to notice that notification dated
04.12.2014 [Rule 4(5) of 2014 Rules] notified multiplier factor 1 in respect
of rural areas irrespective of distance from urban areas. This Rule was
patently contrary to Schedule I of 2013 Act. As per First Schedule,
multiplier factor of urban areas is 1 and State Government is required to
notify multiplier factor for rural areas ranging from 1 to 2 as per distance of
project from the urban area. The State Government by notifying multiplier
factor 1 for rural areas irrespective of distance from urban area outraged
intent of First Schedule of 2013 Act. In this backdrop, notification dated
23.01.2018 was rightly relied upon instead of Rule 4(5) of 2014 Rules.
20. The appellant has further contended that Reference Court has
wrongly applied cut of 30% whereas it should be more, may be 50%. The
respondent-landowners are claiming that there is no provision in 2013 Act
permitting to apply cut. The Reference Court has wrongly relied upon
different judgments of Hon’ble Courts which are dealing with provisions of
1894 Act whereas their case is governed by 2013 Act.
21. Reference Court has considered at length question of cut. The
relevant extracts of impugned award read as:-
“93. A perusal of the evidence adduced from the side of
respondents shows that Ankit Bhardwaj, SDO Nuh Water
Services Sub-Division, Nuh appeared as RW1 on 5.6.2017 &
Rajesh Kumar, Sub-Divisional Officer, Nuh Water Services
Sub-Division, Nuh appeared as RW2 on 7.3.2022. A
threadbare examination of their affidavits would show that
apart from a cursory mention in Para No. 2 of their
respective affidavits that “…..the land has been acquired for
the public purposes namely Kotla Jheel..”, there is no mention
of any fact as regards the developmental work required for
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.07.06 14:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -13-
construction of reservoir. Instead of proving facts in this
regard, towards justifying any deduction as a developmental
cut, there is not even a mention of any costs, likely to be
incurred. There is no mention of any valuation of civil work,
which would be required in respect of the acquired land.
94. For want of any evidence from the side of respondents
justifying any deduction as aforesaid, and in light of the
observations made in various judicial pronouncements as
noted hereinbefore from para 87 to 92, wherein it is held that
no deduction is to be applied for development, in such like
cases, where acquisition is made for construction of a
reservoir and the land is required for submersion, this
authority finds no reason to apply any deduction on the
market value, towards developmental charges.
95. However, considering the small size of the exemplar
sale deeds, as mentioned in Table III, for areas of 484,
1058.75 & 181.5, in Sq. Yards, for calculating the market
value of 107.125 acres of land, this Authority, in light of the
judicial pronouncements discussed above, finds a deduction
of 30% to be appropriate in the given circumstances of the
case.
96. Accordingly, in the instant case as well, applying the
deduction of 30% on the amount of Rs. 52,00,000/-, the
market value for the purposes of Section 26(1), is determined
as Rs. 36,40,000/- per acre.”
22. Reference Court has recorded aforesaid findings while relying
upon various judgments of different High Courts as well as judgments of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir
Singh (2010) 11 SCC 581; Haryana State Agricultural Market Board v.
Krishan Kumar (2011) 15 SCC 297; Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009)
15 SCC 769; Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Poona 1998 (3) SCC 751; Trishala Jain & another v. State of
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.07.06 14:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -14-
Uttaranchal & another (2011) 6 SCC 47; Karnataka Urban Water Supply
& Drainage Board v. K.S. Gangadharappa, (2009) 11 SCC 164. In all the
judgments, Supreme Court has held that deduction on account of
development charges has to be considered in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of each case. The purpose of acquisition is also a relevant
factor for applying cut. The Court has permitted deduction for development
cost ranging from 20% to 75% of price of small flats.
23. In the present case, acquisition was for construction of
reservoir, thus, no portion of acquired land was required for roads or
common facilities. The area of land acquired was 107.1625 acres whereas
size of exemplar sale deeds was 484, 1058.75 and 181.5 sq.yds. All the
relied upon sale deeds comprised small pieces of land. In view of size of
land acquired vis-à-vis size of land comprised in relied upon sale deeds, the
Reference Court was justified in imposing cut of 30%. Supreme Court’s
aforecited judgments are applicable to present case with full force. There is
no illegality in the impugned decision. Cut imposed neither appears to be on
the higher nor lower side.
24. In the wake of above discussion and findings, appeals of State
as well as landowners deserve to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. It
is hereby made clear that landowners, in view of statutory provision i.e.
Section 80 of 2013 Act, shall be entitled to interest.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
02.07.2026
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHIT KUMAR
2026.07.06 14:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
