Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Cma / 3172U / 2025Rajasthan State … vs Mohanlal on 25 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:22622]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1218/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited, Rajasthan State Industrial Development
And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Sunita Spouse/o Ravinder Kumar, R/o Ward No. 33,
Agarwal Colony, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District-
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub Divisional Officer),
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 933/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited, (Riico), Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ravinder Kumar S/o Sh. Gopiram, Aged About 45 Years,
R/o Ward No. 33, Agarwal Colony, Hanumangarh Town,
Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.)
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub Divisional Officer),
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1005/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation, Riico, Jaipur, Raj.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ranjeet S/o Hanuman Prasad, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
Chak 04 Kk, Teh. Padampur, Dist. Sriganganagar, Raj.
2. Mohan Lal S/o Hanuman Prasad, R/o Chak 04 Kk, Teh.
Padampur, Dist. Sriganganagar, Raj.
3. Mahendra S/o Hanuman Prasad, R/o Chak 04 Kk, Teh.
Padampur, Dist. Sriganganagar, Raj.
4. Rameti Devi W/o Hanuman Prasad, R/o 5 G
Saharanawala, Teh. And Dist. Sriganganagar, Raj.
5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Dist. Collector,
Hanumangarh, Raj.
6. The Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub Divisional Officer),
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (2 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
Hanumangarh, Raj.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1032/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited, Rajasthan State Industrial Development
And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Bhagirath S/o Brijlal, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Dhani 18
Hmh, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District-
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
2. Vikram Kumar Father/o Bhagirath, R/o Dhani 18 Hmh,
Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District- Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
Hanumangarh
4. The Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer),
Hanumangarh
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1054/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited, Jaipur,raj.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Bijla Singh (Deceased), Son Of Kheta Singh Through Lrs
2. Bahadur S/o Late Sh. Bijla Singh, R/o New Medicine
Market, Ward No. 22, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And
Dist. Hanumangarh,raj.
3. Inderjeet Kaur D/o Late Sh. Bijla Singh, W/o Chet Singh
R/o Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Dist.
Hanumangarh,raj.
4. Bhagwant Singh S/o Late Sh. Bijla Singh, Aged About 46
Years, R/o New Medicine Market, Ward No. 01,
Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh,raj.
5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Dist. Collector
Hanumangarh,raj.
6. The Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub Divisional Officer-
Revenue) Hanumangarh,raj.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1223/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited(Riico), Jaipur (Raj)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rampratap S/o Sh. Birbalram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (3 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
Gali No. 15, Ward No 24, New Aabadi, Hanumangarh
Town, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj) (Claimant)
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
Hanumangarh (Raj)
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub Divisional Officer),
Hanumangarh (Raj)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1224/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited, Rajasthan State Industrial Development
And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Omprakash (Dead), R/o Bhatner Durg Road, Hisariya
Chok, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District-
Hanumangarh (Raj.). (Dead)
2. Indra Kumar Hisariya S/o Late Sh. Omprakash Hisariya,
Bhatner Durg Road, Hisariya Chok, Hanumangarh Town,
Tehsil And Distt. Hanumangarh (Raj.)
3. Deendayal S/o Late Sh. Rughlal, Bhatner Durg Road,
Hisariya Chok, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Distt.
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
4. Naurang S/o Late Sh. Rughlal, Bhatner Durg Road,
Hisariya Chok, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Distt.
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
5. Surendra Kumar S/o Late Sh. Banwarilal, Near Old
Hospital, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Distt.
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
6. Smt. Mena Devi W/o Late Sh. Surendra Kumar, Doctor
Shyopat Wali Gali, Hanumangahr Town, Tehsil And Distt.
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
7. Rajeev Kumar Hisariya S/o Late Sh. Surendra Kumar,
Doctor Shyopat Wali Gali, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And
Distt. Hanumangarh (Raj.)
8. Sandeep Kumar Hisariya S/o Late Sh. Surendra Kumar,
Doctor Shyopat Wali Gali, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And
Distt. Hanumangarh (Raj.)
9. Smt. Neha D/o Late Sh. Surendra Kumar Hisariya, W/o
Aakash Gupta, R/o House No. 147, C-Block, F.c.i. Godown
Sirsa (Haryana)
10. Rajkumar Hisariya S/o Late Sh. Banwarilal, Near Old
Hospital, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Distt.
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
11. Rajesh Kumar W/o Late Sh. Banwarilal, Near Old Hospital,
Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Distt. Hanumangarh
(Raj.)
12. State Of Raj., Through Distt. Collector, Hanumangarh
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (4 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
(Raj.)
13. The Land Acquistion Officer (Sub Division Officer),
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1239/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Mahendra Singh S/o Sh. Kumbharam, Aged About 72
Years, R/o Sherekan, Tehsil Tibbi, Presently Residing At
Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.)
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
3. The Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer),
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1240/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Shashibala W/o Prem Kumar, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
House No. 15, Sector No. 03, New Mandi Hanumangarh
Town, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
3. The Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer),
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1241/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited, (Riico), Jaipur,raj.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Sunita W/o Ravindra Kumar, R/o Ward No. 33, Agarwal
Colony, Hahumangarh Town, Tehsil And Dist.
Hanumangarh, Raj.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Dist. Collector,
Hanumangarh,raj.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer(Sub Divisional Officer),
Hanumangarh,raj.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1242/2025
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (5 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ravindra Kumar S/o Sh. Gopiram, Aged About 46 Years,
R/o Ward No 33, Agarwal Colony, Hanumangarh Town,
Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj) (Claimant)
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
Hanumangarh (Raj)
3. The Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer),
Hanumangarh (Raj)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1250/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Mohanlal S/o Shri Kumbharam, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Sherekan, Tehsil Tibbi, District- Hanumangarh (Raj.).
2. Rajendra Kumar S/o Kumbharam, R/o Sherekan, Tehsil
Tibbi, District- Hanumangarh (Raj.).
3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Dist Collector
Hanumanagarh
4. The Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub Divisional Officer-
Revenue), Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1270/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited, (Riico), Jaipur,raj.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Maniram S/o Sh. Ramuram, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Nai
Aabadi Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Dist.
Hanumangarh,raj.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Dist. Collector,
Hanumangarh,raj.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer),
Hanumangarh,raj.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1271/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited, Rajasthan State Industrial Development
And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (6 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
Versus
1. Saroj Bala W/o Vijay Kumar, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
Bathinda, C/o House No.- 15, Sector No. 03, New Mandi,
Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District- Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub Divisional Officer),
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1272/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited, Rajasthan State Industrial Development
And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Omprakash S/o Sh. Malu Ram, R/o Jaato Ka Mohalla,
Ward No. 22, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District-
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
2. State Of Rajathan, Through District Collector,
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub Divisional Officer),
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1275/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited, (Riico), Jaipur,raj.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Dhanni Devi (Deceased), W/o Sh. Banwarilal R/o Near Old
Hospital, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Dist.
Hanumangarh,raj. (Deceased)
2. Surendra Kumar S/o Late Sh. Banwarilal, R/o Near Old
Hospital, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Dist.
Hanumangarh,raj. (Deceased)
3. Smt. Mena Devi W/o Late Sh. Surendra Kumar, R/o
Doctor Shyopat Wali Gali, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And
Dist. Hanumangarh,raj.
4. Rajeev Kumar Hisariya S/o Late Sh. Surendra Kumar, R/o
Doctor Shyopat Wali Gali, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And
Dist. Hanumangarh,raj.
5. Sandeep Kumar Hisariya S/o Late Sh. Surendra Kumar, R/
o Doctor Shyopat Wali Gali, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil
And Dist. Hanumangarh,raj.
6. Smt. Neha D/o Late Sh. Surendra Kumar Hisariya, W/o
Aakash Gupta R/o House No. 147, C- Block, Fci Godown
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (7 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
Sirsa, Haryana
7. Rajkumar Hisariya S/o Late Sh. Banwarilal, R/o Near Old
Hospital, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Dist.
Hanumangarh,raj.
8. Rajesh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Banwarilal, R/o Near Old
Hospital, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Dist.
Hanumangarh,raj.
9. Smt. Kamlesh Devi D/o Late Sm.t Dhanni Devi, W/o
Nemichand Jain R/o Old Dhanmandi, Sangariya, Tehsil
Sangariya, Dist. Hanumangarh,raj.
10. Shanti Devi W/o Nauranglal, R/o Kila Road, Hisanriya
Chok, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Dist.
Hanumangarh,raj.
11. Ratni Devi W/o Deendayal, R/o Kila Road, Hisanriya Chok,
Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh,raj.
12. Indra Kumar S/o Omprakash, R/o Kila Road, Hisanriya
Chok, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Dist.
Hanumangarh,raj.
13. State Of Rajasthan, Through Dist. Collector,
Hanumangarh,raj.
14. The Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer),
Hanumangarh,raj.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1288/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Jaipur (Raj)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ravindra Kumar S/o Sh. Gopiram, Aged About 46 Years,
R/o Ward No.33, Agarwal Colony, Hanumangarh Town,
Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj)
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
Hanumangarh (Raj)
3. The Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub Divisional Officer)
Hanumangarh (Raj)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1290/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited, (Riico), Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Premkumar S/o Sh. Mulakhraj, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
Bhatinda, C/o House No. 15, Sector No. 03, New Mandi
33, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh
(Raj.)
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (8 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
3. The Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer),
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1292/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited, (Riico), Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Radha Devi W/o Omprakash, R/o Jaato Ka Mohalla, Ward
No. 22, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
3. The Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer),
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1295/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited, (Riico), Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Lrs Of Smt. Premlata, W/o Omprakash (Dead), Aged
About 85 Years, R/o Bathinda, C/o House No. 15, Sector
No. 3, New Mandi, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Dist.
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
2. Sh. Vishvaatmaswaroop @ Gungroo Datak S/o Late Sh.
Omprakash And Late Smt. Premlata, R/o 637 Virl C.r.
Welcome Heels Nsw, 2153 Australia, C/o Sector 3,
Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh,
Through Attorney Shashibala.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
4. The Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub Divisional Officer),
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1350/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited, (Riico), Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rampratap S/o Birbal Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Gali
No. 15, Ward No. 24, New Aabadi, Hanumangarh Town,
Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.)
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (9 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
3. The Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer),
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1359/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited(Riico), Jaipur (Raj)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Santosh Devi W/o Jagdish Rai, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Ward No.18, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District
Hanumangarh (Raj) (Claimant)
2. Sanjay Kumar S/o Jagdish Rai, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Ward No.18, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District
Hanumangarh (Raj) (Claimant)
3. Arpit Kumar S/o Jagdish Rai, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Ward No.18, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District
Hanumangarh (Raj) (Claimant)
4. Rajkumar S/o Gangabishan, Aged About 68 Years, R/o
Ward No.18, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District
Hanumangarh (Raj) (Claimant)
5. Rajendra Kumar S/o Gangabishan, Aged About 60 Years,
R/o Ward No.18, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District
Hanumangarh (Raj) (Claimant)
6. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
Hanumangarh (Raj)
7. The Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub Divisional Officer)
Hanumangarh (Raj)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1365/2025
Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Jaipur (Raj)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Bijla Singh (Deceased), S/o Sh. Kheta Singh R/o New
Medicine Market, Ward No.22, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil
And District Hanumangarh (Raj)
2. Bahadur Singh S/o Late Sh. Bijla Singh, R/o New
Medicine Market, Ward No.22, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil
And District Hanumangarh (Raj)
3. Inderjeet Kaur D/o Late Sh. Bijla Singh, W/o Chet Singh,
R/o Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh
(Raj)
4. Bhagwant Singh S/o Late Sh. Bijla Singh, Aged About 46
Years, R/o New Medicine Market, Ward No.01,
Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (10 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
(Raj)
5. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
Hanumangarh (Raj)
6. The Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub Divisional Officer-
Revenue) Hanumangarh (Raj)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1834/2025
Mani Ram S/o Shri Ramuram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Nai
Aabadi, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh
(Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District
Collector ,hanumangarh.
2. Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub Divisional
Officer) ,hanumangarh (Raj.)
3. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Nrapen Shanker Acharya & Mr.
Jatin Khatri for appellant - RIICO
Mr. Prashant Kachhawaha for Mr. Moti
Singh for appellant - Mani Ram
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Swami
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Judgment
(i) Arguments concluded on: 15/04/2026
(ii) Judgment reserved on: 15/04/2026
(iii) Full judgment/Operative part: Full judgment
(iv) Judgment pronounced on : 25 /05/2026
1. There is a delay of 95 days in filing of the appeal no.
1834/2025. An application for condonation of delay (I.A. 01/2025)
has been filed. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the
same is allowed.
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (11 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
2. The present batch comprises 24 appeals arising out of the
same land acquisition proceedings. Out of these, 23 appeals have
been preferred by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO) challenging the enhancement
of compensation awarded by the Reference Court, whereas, one
appeal being S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1834/2025 has
been filed by the private landholder seeking further enhancement
of compensation. Since all the appeals arise from acquisition
proceedings initiated pursuant to Notification dated 27.01.2009 as
amended on 03.08.2009, they are being decided by this common
order.
3. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from the lead
case i.e. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1218/2025.
4. Through the present appeal, the appellant – RIICO has
challenged the Judgment dated 22.11.2024 passed by the
Additional District Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Land Acquisition
Reference Case No. 03/2013 titled ‘Sunita vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors.‘ whereby the private respondent’s application filed under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was allowed and the
compensation awarded for the acquired agricultural land
measuring 0.468 hectares situated at Chak 14 S.S.W., Tehsil
Hanumangarh was enhanced to ₹33,99,580 per hectare along with
statutory benefits including solatium and interest.
5. The facts relevant for adjudication of the present appeal, as
stated in the memo of appeal, are that for establishment of an
industrial area through RIICO in Chak 14 SSW, the State
Government initiated land acquisition proceedings. Notification
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (12 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act of
1894’) was issued on 27.01.2009 and amended notification under
Section 4 of the Act was issued on 03.08.2009, which was
published in official gazette on 07.08.2009 and in the local news-
papers on 25.08.2009. After deciding objections, the State
Government issued notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894
on 25.06.2010. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the
draft award on 22.06.2012 and final award came to be passed on
05.07.2012, determining compensation on the basis of DLC rates,
committee reports, and comparable sale deeds. Compensation
was fixed at Rs. 20,66,896 per hectare for land situated within the
first bigha of the Mega Highway and Rs. 10,33,448 per hectare for
land situated beyond it. RIICO subsequently deposited the entire
compensation amount before the competent authorities/courts.
The private respondent, whose land measuring 0.468 hectare
formed part of the acquisition, sought enhancement of
compensation by filing a reference under Section 18 of the Act.
The landholder contended that the compensation awarded was
inadequate considering the location, nature and future potential of
the land, and alleged improper consideration of relevant sale
deeds. Reliance was also placed upon subsequent acquisitions and
later awards passed by NHAI to demonstrate higher market value.
Additional objections were raised regarding classification of the
land as uncommand land and alleged defects in the acquisition
proceedings. The State and RIICO opposed the reference,
asserting that the compensation had been determined after proper
consideration of all relevant material, including sale transactions
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (13 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
and prevailing rates as on the date of Section 4 notification. It was
further contended that later developments and subsequent awards
could not form the basis for determining market value under
Section 23 of the Act, and that the land was correctly treated as
uncommand land as per revenue records. By judgment dated
22.11.2024, the Reference Court partly allowed the claim and
enhanced the compensation to Rs. 33,99,580 per hectare along
with statutory benefits including solatium and interest. Aggrieved
by same, present appeal was preferred by RIICO.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant – RIICO, submitted that the Reference Court proceeded
in a pre-determined manner and was influenced by subsequent
escalation in land prices instead of determining market value as
on the date of Section 4 notification, as required under Section 23
of the Act. It was contended that the Reference Court wrongly
relied upon a single sale deed dated 02.04.2009 while ignoring
several other sale deeds and comparative material produced by
RIICO. According to the appellant, the said sale deed was
executed after the Section 4 notification dated 27.01.2009 had
already been issued and, therefore, could not be treated as a
genuine transaction.
8. It was further submitted that the land covered under the said
sale deed formed part of the same acquired land and the vendor
Sukhdev Singh himself was likely to benefit from higher
compensation, which made the transaction appear artificial and
inflated. It was contended that the Reference Court ignored
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (14 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
relevant material and committee reports relied upon by the Land
Acquisition Officer and enhanced compensation without recording
cogent reasons for discarding the original award.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that valuation reflected in
the said sale deed i.e. Rs.8,60,000/- per bigha, was nearly nine
times higher than the prevailing market rates, including RIICO
sale deeds and DLC rates, which reflected values around
Rs.90,000/- per bigha. In absence of any material showing such
extraordinary appreciation, the sale deed was argued to be wholly
unreliable and incapable of forming a valid benchmark for
determination of market value.
10. It was also contended that the vendor was fully aware of the
acquisition proceedings at the time of execution of the sale deed,
yet failed to disclose the same therein, further undermining the
bona fides of the transaction. Despite these circumstances, the
Reference Court relied upon the said sale deed without properly
examining its genuineness and rejected the sale deeds produced
by RIICO through cursory observations without assigning cogent
reasons, thereby rendering impugned award unsustainable in law.
11. Learned counsel further submitted that the Reference Court
erred in treating acquired land as “command land” merely because
of the existence of a nearby canal, despite revenue records and
admissions of the witnesses appearing on behalf of private
respondents showing the land as “uncommand land.” It was
argued that speculative future potential could not legally justify
enhancement of compensation.
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (15 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
12. Learned counsel additionally submitted that entire
compensation amount had already been deposited before the
competent authority/Court and that any delay in disbursement
occurred because the landholders themselves refused to accept
compensation and resisted handing over possession despite court
directions. It was, therefore, contended that grant of statutory
benefit and interest for such period was unjustified and contrary to
law.
13. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Chaturbhuja Modi and Ors. vs. State of Orissa and Ors.
(2010) 12 SCC 234; Shaji Kuriakose and Ors. vs. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. and Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 650, and Chimanlal
Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona
and ors. (1988) 3 SCC 751.
14. On the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Swami, learned counsel for
the private respondents-applicants, while supporting the judgment
impugned, submitted that the Reference Court rightly appreciated
the oral and documentary evidence available on record and
awarded just and reasonable compensation keeping in view the
market value and potential of the acquired land. It was contended
that acquired land was situated adjoining Hanumangarh town and
near the Mega Highway and possessed substantial commercial and
residential potential even on the date of issuance of notification
under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. Learned counsel submitted
that the Land Acquisition Officer had mechanically relied upon DLC
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (16 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
rates and ignored genuine sale transactions placed on record by
the landholders showing much higher prevailing market value.
15. Learned counsel further submitted that sale deed dated
02.04.2009 relied upon by the Reference Court was a registered
transaction pertaining to land situated in the same village/chak. It
was specifically contended that said sale deed had been executed
prior to issuance of the amended notification under Section 4 of
the Act of 1894 dated 03.08.2009 and, therefore, could not be
discarded on the ground that it was post-notification. Learned
counsel further submitted that earlier notification dated
27.01.2009 was never published in accordance with law and,
therefore, could not be treated as an effective notification for the
purpose of determining market value or excluding the sale
transaction in question from consideration. It was argued that the
transaction constituted a bona fide exemplar reflecting the
prevailing market value of the acquired land. It was further
submitted that merely because the transaction was executed after
the initial notification under Section 4 would not ipso facto render
it inadmissible or unreliable, particularly when no evidence of
fraud, collusion or manipulation was established by the appellant.
It was argued that burden to prove sale deed to be sham or
inflated was upon RIICO, which burden has not been discharged.
16. It was also contended that acquired land could not have
been treated as ordinary agricultural uncommand land inasmuch
as evidence on record clearly established existence of FTG Minor
Canal, inclusion of the area in CCA plan and proximity to
developed colonies. Learned counsel submitted that the Reference
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (17 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
Court was justified in taking into consideration the location, future
potential and surrounding development while determining market
value in accordance with settled principles governing land
acquisition matters.
17. Learned counsel further argued that the Reference Court has
already adopted a conservative approach and despite availability
of material indicating substantially higher market rates, the
compensation was enhanced only to Rs.33,99,580/- per hectare.
It was submitted that enhancement granted by the Reference
Court cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
18. With regard to the objection relating to grant of statutory
benefits and interest, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that once enhancement of compensation is upheld,
payment of additional amount, solatium and statutory interest
under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act of 1894 follows as
a statutory consequence and the appellant cannot avoid such
liability by alleging delay in taking possession or refusal on the
part of landholders to accept compensation.
19. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the private
respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Horrmal (Deceased) through his LR’s and others vs.
State of Haryana and others (2024 INSC 797).
20. Mr. Prashant Kachhawaha, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant – Mani Ram, submitted that registered sale deeds (Ex.6
to Ex.10) pertaining to the same chak/land and proximate period
were erroneously discarded merely on the ground that they
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (18 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
related to small parcels of land or commercial plots, though such
exemplars constituted relevant and admissible evidence for
determination of prevailing market value.
21. Learned counsel submitted that acquired land was wrongly
treated as un-irrigated despite cogent evidence on record showing
existence of canal irrigation, inclusion of the area in the
command/CCA plan and availability of irrigation facilities through
FTG Minor Canal. It was further contended that similarly situated
landholders had been granted compensation treating the land as
irrigated notwithstanding revenue entries showing the land as
Barani/uncommand, however, the said comparable instances were
ignored by the Reference Court.
22. It was further argued that final award dated 05.07.2012 was
passed beyond the statutory period prescribed from the
declaration issued under Section 6 dated 25.06.2010 and,
therefore, the acquisition proceedings stood vitiated in law.
Learned counsel additionally submitted that compensation ought
to have been determined keeping in view the principles underlying
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, including
assessment of market value on the basis of comparable sale
deeds, application of multiplying factor and grant of statutory
benefits including solatium and interest.
23. It was contended that while the State authorities assessed
market value for purposes of registration and levy of stamp duty
on the basis of actual sale consideration reflected in registered
sale deeds, compensation for acquisition was arbitrarily restricted
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (19 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
to DLC rates, thereby adopting contradictory standards. Learned
counsel further submitted that acquired land possessed
considerable commercial and future potential in view of its
proximity to Hanumangarh town, Mega Highway and expanding
abadi area, which relevant factor was not adequately considered
by the Reference Court while determining compensation.
24. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.
25. The principal issue arising in the present batch of appeals
concerns determination of the correct market value of the
acquired land under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
and in particular, whether the Reference Court was justified in
placing primary reliance upon sale deed dated 02.04.2009 (Ex.6)
while discarding the remaining sale exemplars produced by the
parties.
26. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it is necessary to
notice the settled principles governing determination of
compensation under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. Sections 23
and 24 of the Act make it clear that compensation is to be
assessed with reference to the market value of the land as on the
date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1), while
excluding considerations expressly prohibited under Section 24.
Thus, the statutory scheme unequivocally treats the date of
publication of the Section 4 notification as the foundational date
for valuation. For ease of reference and convenience, relevant
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (20 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
Sections 23 and 24 of the Act of 1894 are reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“23. Matters to be considered on determining compensation. –
(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for
land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into
consideration-
first, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of
the [notification under section 4, sub-section (1)];
secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason
of the taking of any standing crops trees which may be on the land
at the time of the Collector’s taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the
time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land, by reason of
serving such land from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at
the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land, by reason
of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable
or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector,
the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place
of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such
change, and
sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of
the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the
declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector’s taking
possession of the land.
[(1A) 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 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.
Explanation. – In computing the period referred to in this sub-
section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the
acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or
injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.]
(2) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided,
the Court shall in every case award a sum of [thirty per centum] on
such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the
acquisition.
24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. – But the
Court shall not take into consideration –
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (21 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition;
secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part with the
land acquired;
thirdly, any damage sustained by him which, if caused by a private
person, would not render such person liable to a suit;
fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the land
acquired, after the date of the publication of the declaration under
section 6, by or in consequence of the use to which it will be put;
fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue
from the use to which it will be put when acquired;
sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person
interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired
will be put;
seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of the land
acquired, commenced, made or effected without the sanction of the
Collector after the date of the publication of the [notification under
section 4, sub-section (1); [or]
[eighthly, any increase to the value of the land on account of its
being put to any use, which is forbidden by law or opposed to public
policy.]”
27. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held as under :-
“3. Before tackling the problem of valuation of the land under
acquisition, it is necessary to make some general observations. The
compulsion to do so has arisen as the Trial Court has virtually
treated the award rendered by the Land Acquisition officer as a
judgment under appeal and has evinced unawareness of the
methodology for valuation to some extent. The true position
therefore requires to be capsulized.
4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:
(1) A reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is
not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take
into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition
officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and
proved before the Court.
(2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition officer is not to be
treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to
challenge before the Court hearing the Reference. It is
merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition officer and the
material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be
utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It
is not the function of the Court to suit in appeal against the
Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (22 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by
the Land Acquisition officer, as if it were an appellate court.
(3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original
proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh
on the basis of the material produced before it.
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show
that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate
on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of
course the materials placed and proved by the other side can
also be taken into account for this purpose.
(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be
determined as on the crucial date of publication of the
notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of
Notifications under secs. 6 and 9 are irrelevant).
(6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line
of valuation (date of publication of notification under sec. 4)
as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to
purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a
reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed
that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable
price.
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to
correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable
instance which provides the index of market value.
(8) only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Some
times instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of
land).
(9) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1)
if they are very proximate,(2) genuine and (3) the acquisition
itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price
on account of the resultant improvement in development
prospects.
(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances
have to be identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle.
(11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of
market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the
norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may
be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and
minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the
two in juxtaposition.
(12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for
this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in
terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do.
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (23 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has there
after to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the
instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for
minus factors.
(14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be
undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of
the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such
illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
Plus factors Minus factors
1. smallness of size. 1. largeness of area.
2. proximity to a road. 2. situation in the interior at a
distances from the Road.
3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land with very small
frontage compared to death.
4. nearness to developed area. 4. lower level requiring the
depressed portion to be filled up.
5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from developed locality.
6. level vis-a-vis land 6. some special under acquistion.
disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser.
7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to
whom it may have some very special advantage.
(15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the
facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid
rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For
instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of
land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared with a
large tract or block of land of say l000 sq. yds or more.
Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a
large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a
lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out
smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested
money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an
entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a
deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate
ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to account for land
required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out
small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend
on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building
activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during
which the capital of the entrepreneur would be looked up,
will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards.
(16) Every case must be dealt with on its own facts pattern
bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of
land in which position the Judge must place himself.
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (24 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
(17) These are general guidelines to be applied with
understanding informed with common sense. The problem
which has surfaced in the present appeals needs to be
recapitulated. The question is whether in scaling down the
total compensation payable to the appellant from Rs.1,14,517
to Rs.63,846, the High Court has violated any principle of
valuation or adopted any faulty methodology.”
28. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
further held that while evaluating comparable sale instances, the
Court must examine:
(i) proximity from time angle; (ii) proximity from situation angle;
(iii) similarity in nature and potentiality of the land; and
(iv) whether the transaction is genuine and free from extraneous
considerations.
29. Similarly, in Shaji Kuriakose and Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reiterated as under :-
“3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt Comparable Sales
Method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the
acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land,
Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred than other
methods of valuation of land such as Capitalisation of Net Income
Method or Expert Opinion Method. Comparable Sales Method of
valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for
determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a
willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it has been sold
in open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of
the Act. However, Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land for
fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always
conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be
fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be
awarded, according to the value the land reflected in the sales. The
factors laid down” inter alia are : (1) the sale must be a genuine
transaction, that (2) the sale deed must have been executed at the
time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of
the Act, that (3) the land covered by the sales must be in the vicinity
of the acquired land, that (4) the land covered by the sale must be
similar to the acquired land and that (5) the size of plot of the land
covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these
factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the
land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land.
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (25 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality shape, site or
nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is
open to Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for
acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the
disadvantages attached with the acquired land. In the present case,
what we find is that the first two factors are satisfied. The sale
transaction covered by the sale Ex. A-4 is genuine, inasmuch as sale
was executed in proximity to the date of notification under Section 4
of the Act. However, there is a difference in the similarity in the land
acquired and the land covered by Ex. A-4. The land covered by Ex.
A-4 is situated at Kottayam and Ernakulam, PWD Road, whereas
the acquired land is situated at a distance of 3 furlong from the main
road. There is no access to the acquired land and there exists only
an internal mud road which belonged to one of the claimants, whose
land has also been acquired. Further, the land covered by Ex. A-4 is
a dry land and whereas the acquired land is a wet land. After
acquisition, the acquired land has to be re-claimed and a lot of
amount would be spent for filling the land. Moreover, the land
covered by Ex. A-4 relates to a small piece of land which do not
reflect the true market value of the acquired land. It is often seen
that a sale for a smaller plot of land fetches more consideration than
larger or bigger piece of land. For all these reasons, the High Court
was fully justified in lowering the rate of compensation that what
was the market value of the land covered by Ex. A-4. We therefore,
do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. So far as
the second argument is concerned, the High Court has granted
compensation on the basis of Comparable Sales Method of valuation
of land and the reference regarding Capitalisation Method of
valuation of the land was only by way of illustration. We, therefore,
do not find any merit in this submission.”
30. In Chaturbhuja Modi and Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed that:
“10. The High Court appears to have taken notice of the
aforementioned criteria and has given some discount in
compensation as the land under Exhibit 1 is a very small piece of
land and the land acquired in the case in hand is much larger in
size. After giving the said discount, the High Court computed the
compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre for the acquired
land. While determining compensation, some conjecture is
unavoidable as it is generally not possible to have any documentary
evidence of sale of land of similar nature and in the near vicinity of
the acquired land. The value shown in Exhibit 1 cannot be assessed
as the value of the acquired land for the reason that the said land
which is sold under Exhibit 1 is a very small piece of land, whereas
the acquired land being a large tract of land. This Court has held in
Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi,
reported at (1988) 2 SCC 150, that where large tracts of land are(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (26 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]required to be valued, valuation in transactions with regard to small
plots is not to be taken as the real basis for determining the
compensation of large tracts of land. It follows that where the
market-value of large block of land is determined on the basis of
sale transactions for smaller property, appropriate deduction has to
be made for making allowance for the loss of the acquired land
required to be used for internal development such as construction of
roads, drains, sewers, open spaces and the expenditure involved in
providing other amenities like water, electricity etc. The extent of
area required to be set apart has to be assessed by the Court having
regard to the shape, size and situation of the concerned block of
land.”
31. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this
Court finds that the impugned award suffers from certain material
deficiencies which go to the root of the valuation exercise
undertaken by the Reference Court.
32. The first issue requiring consideration pertains to
identification of the effective notification under Section 4(1) of the
Act for the purpose of determination of market value.
33. The record reflects that an initial notification under Section 4
was issued on 27.01.2009, followed by an amended notification
dated 03.08.2009. The Reference Court proceeded on the premise
that the relevant date for valuation was 03.08.2009 and
accordingly treated sale deed dated 02.04.2009 (Ex.6) as a pre-
notification transaction.
34. However, the Reference Court has not examined whether the
notification dated 03.08.2009 merely corrected or supplemented
the earlier notification dated 27.01.2009, or whether it constituted
an independent and fresh notification initiating a separate
acquisition process. The answer to this issue is foundational to the
entire valuation exercise.
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (27 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
35. The distinction assumes significance because if the original
notification dated 27.01.2009 continued to remain operative, then
sale deed dated 02.04.2009 would necessarily assume the
character of a post-notification transaction. In that event, the
transaction would require strict scrutiny in light of the settled
principle that post-notification transactions ordinarily do not
furnish a safe basis for determination of market value unless their
genuineness and independence from acquisition-induced
escalation are clearly established.
36. The amended notification dated 03.08.2009, prima facie,
appears to have been issued for rectification of the area and
correction of discrepancies occurring in the earlier notification
dated 27.01.2009. However, the legal consequence flowing from
such amendment has not been examined by the Reference Court.
For brevity, the amended notification dated 03.08.2009 is
reproduced as under :-
“la[;k i- 4¼55½ m|ksx@fofo/k@1@08%&uohu vkS|ksfxd {ks= dksgyk
¼guqekux<+½ ds fy;s xzke dksgyk dh Hkwfe vokfIr ds fy;s bl
foHkkx }kjk Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 dh /kkjk 4 dh le&la[;d
vf/klwpuk fnukad 27&1&09 dks tkjh dh xbZ Fkh mlds iSjk 3] 4 o 5 esa
vafdr jdck rFkk layXu LFky fooj.k esa =qfV;ka gksus ds dkj.k
vokIrk/khu Hkwfe dk {ks=Qy 112-46 gSDVs;j vafdr gks x;k gS tcfd
la’kksf/kr LFky fooj.k i= esa mä vokIrk/khu Hkwfe dk {ks=Qy 112-24
gSDVs;j vkrk gSA
vr% bl foHkkx }kjk tkjh lela[;d vf/klwpuk fnukad 27&1&09 esa
vkaf’kd la’kks/ku djrs gq, mlds iSjk 3] 4 o 5 esa vafdr jdck “112-46
gSDVs;j” ds LFkku ij “112-24 gSDVs;j” ,oa vf/klwpuk ds lkFk lyXu
fd;s x;s “LFky fooj.k i=” ds LFkku ij “la’kksf/kr LFky fooj.k”
çfrLFkkfir fd;k tkrk gSA”
37. The Reference Court appears to have proceeded on the
assumption that the amended notification itself constituted the
operative notification under Section 4(1) without recording any
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (28 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
reasoned finding as to whether the original notification stood
superseded, substituted or merely corrected. Such determination
was essential because the admissibility and evidentiary weight of
Ex.6 substantially depend upon the answer to this question.
38. In this context, the applicability and legal effect of the
amended notification dated 03.08.2009, relied upon by the
Reference Court, also requires careful scrutiny. The Reference
Court appears to have proceeded on the assumption that the
amended notification constituted the operative notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 for the purpose of determining
market value, thereby treating the transaction dated 02.04.2009
(Ex.6) as a pre-notification exemplar. However, this assumption
has not been preceded by a reasoned determination as to whether
the amended notification merely corrected clerical/quantitative
aspects of the earlier notification dated 27.01.2009, or whether it
in fact supplanted and replaced the original notification so as to
give rise to a fresh point of reference for valuation under Section
23 of the Act.
39. The distinction is not merely technical but goes to the root of
the valuation exercise. If the notification dated 27.01.2009 is held
to be the effective notification under Section 4(1), then the sale
deed dated 02.04.2009 would prima facie assume the character of
a post-notification transaction, which ordinarily requires close
scrutiny before being accepted as a reliable index of market value,
in light of the settled principles that post-notification sales may be
influenced by impending acquisition and consequent escalation in
prices.
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (29 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
40. Conversely, if the amended notification dated 03.08.2009 is
construed as a mere correction or clarification of the earlier
notification without altering the substance of acquisition
proceedings already set in motion, then the legal effect of the
initial notification dated 27.01.2009 would remain unaltered. In
either view, a clear finding on this foundational aspect was
necessary, particularly because it directly impacts the admissibility
and evidentiary weight of Ex.6.
41. The amended notification dated 03.08.2009 indicates that it
was issued to correct the area and rectify typographical
discrepancies in the earlier notification dated 27.01.2009.
However, whether such correction amounts to a continuation of
the same acquisition process or results in a fresh notification for
purposes of Section 4(1), has not been judicially determined by
the Reference Court. This omission has led to an incomplete
application of the legal principles governing determination of
market value.
42. The Reference Court’s reliance upon the decision in Horrmal
(Deceased) through LRs (supra) also requires to be viewed in
this context. While the said judgment reiterates that post-
notification transactions are ordinarily to be excluded unless
shown to be genuine and unaffected by the acquisition process,
the threshold question as to the relevant “cut-off” notification
itself has not been first determined in the present case.
43. This Court is therefore of the view that the foundational issue
regarding the effective date of notification under Section 4(1)
must be conclusively determined before any sale instance is tested
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (30 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
on the parameters of genuineness, proximity or comparability. In
absence of such determination, the evaluative exercise undertaken
by the Reference Court remains legally incomplete.
44. The second aspect which requires reconsideration is the
genuineness and evidentiary value of sale deed dated 02.04.2009
(Ex.6). The appellant-RIICO has specifically contended that the
transaction is inflated and not reflective of prevailing market
conditions, particularly since it pertains to land situated within the
acquired tract and executed in proximity to the acquisition
proceedings.
45. It has further been urged that the vendor was aware of the
impending acquisition, and the consideration disclosed in the sale
deed is disproportionately higher than contemporaneous sale
instances and DLC rates. These circumstances, according to the
appellant, cast a serious doubt on the reliability of the transaction
as a guiding exemplar under Section 23 of the Act.
46. While the Reference Court has accepted Ex.6 as a genuine
transaction, it has not undertaken a detailed analysis of
surrounding circumstances, nor recorded a clear finding on
whether the escalation reflected therein was market-driven or
influenced by acquisition-related speculation. The mere fact that a
sale deed is registered does not, by itself, conclude the inquiry
into its evidentiary worth in land acquisition proceedings.
47. At the same time, the contention raised on behalf of the
landholders that a post-notification transaction is not per se
inadmissible is also well founded. However, such acceptance is
permissible only upon a clear judicial satisfaction that the
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (31 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
transaction is bona fide, proximate in time and geography, and not
a product of speculative escalation triggered by acquisition
proceedings. Such satisfaction is absent in the impugned
judgment.
48. The third aspect relates to comparative evaluation of the sale
exemplars produced by both sides. The Reference Court, while
considering this issue, referred to the principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaji Kuriakose (supra) and observed
that a sale exemplar can be relied upon if the transaction is
genuine, proximate in point of time to the Section 4 notification,
situated in the vicinity of the acquired land, comparable in nature,
and relatable in size to the acquired land. Proceeding on the said
parameters, the Reference Court accepted sale deed dated
02.04.2009 (Ex.6) as the most reliable exemplar for determining
market value and discarded Ex.A/1 to Ex.A/3 produced by RIICO.
49. However, notwithstanding the aforesaid observations, this
Court finds that evaluative exercise undertaken by the Reference
Court remains incomplete in material respects. Though the
Reference Court noticed the governing legal principles, it did not
undertake a comparative analysis of Ex.6 vis-à-vis Ex.A/1 to
Ex.A/3 on the parameters mandated in Chimanlal Hargovinddas
(supra) and Shaji Kuriakose (supra). Mere observation that Ex.A/1
to Ex.A/3 were “not relevant” does not satisfy the requirement of
a reasoned determination, particularly when the exemplars
produced by RIICO were contemporaneous transactions relied
upon by the acquiring authority itself.
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (32 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
50. The impugned judgment does not disclose any detailed
examination regarding the exact location, size, nature,
developmental status, frontage, accessibility or comparative
advantages/disadvantages of the lands covered under Ex.6 and
Ex.A/1 to Ex.A/3. The law consistently requires that where
multiple exemplars are available, the Court must assess their
comparative probative value through a structured analysis instead
of accepting one transaction in isolation.
51. Further, although the Reference Court relied upon the
principle that the highest bona fide exemplar may be adopted,
such principle becomes applicable only after the Court records a
clear finding that the exemplar relied upon is genuinely
comparable and free from acquisition-induced inflation or
extraneous considerations. In the present case, the objections
raised by RIICO regarding the timing of Ex.6, the identity of the
vendor, the proximity of the transaction to the acquisition
proceedings, and the substantial variation between the
consideration reflected therein and other contemporaneous
transactions, have not been comprehensively dealt with.
52. Likewise, the nature and classification of the acquired land,
namely whether it should be treated as irrigated/command land or
uncommand land, also appears to have been decided without
reconciling material contradictions on record. While the Reference
Court has referred to irrigation potential, nearby canal facilities
and surrounding development, the revenue entries and material
relied upon by RIICO showing the land as uncommand land have
not been conclusively addressed through a reasoned finding.
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (33 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
53. The relevance of future potential, though undoubtedly a
relevant consideration in valuation proceedings, cannot by itself
override the existing classification and character of the land unless
supported by cogent evidence demonstrating actual and effective
developmental or irrigation advantages existing on the date of
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894.
54. Further, the impugned judgment does not clearly indicate the
methodology adopted for arriving at the enhanced compensation
of ₹33,99,580/- per hectare. Apart from reproducing the valuation
reflected in Ex.6, there is no transparent computation showing
how the final figure was deduced, nor is there any discussion
regarding deductions, adjustments, or balancing factors ordinarily
required while valuing a large tract of acquired agricultural land on
the basis of a comparatively smaller exemplar transaction.
55. In land acquisition matters, determination of compensation
must reflect a structured and reasoned process, particularly
because the exercise involves balancing the statutory obligation of
awarding just compensation to landholders with the public law
character of compulsory acquisition. The reasoning must therefore
demonstrate not merely the acceptance of a particular exemplar,
but also the process by which the final valuation has been
judicially arrived at.
56. As regards statutory benefits, there is no dispute that once
compensation is determined, statutory additions under Sections
23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act of 1894 follow as a consequence
of law. However, their computation would necessarily depend upon
findings relating to possession, deposit and delay, which in turn
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (34 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
remain connected to the correctness of the compensation
determination itself.
57. In view of the cumulative deficiencies noticed hereinabove,
this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned judgment
cannot be sustained in its present form. Since several foundational
issues bearing directly upon determination of market value have
not been conclusively adjudicated by the Reference Court, it would
not be appropriate for this Court, in appellate jurisdiction, to
undertake an independent reassessment of compensation on the
existing record.
58. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2024
passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in
Land Acquisition Reference Case No.03/2013 is set aside and the
matters are remanded to the Reference Court for fresh
adjudication in accordance with law.
59. While doing so, the Reference Court shall specifically
consider and return findings on:
(i) the effectiveness of Section 4(1) notification in light
of the original and amended notifications dated
27.01.2009 and 03.08.2009;
(ii) the effect of publication and amendment of the
notifications;
(iii) the genuineness and evidentiary value of sale deed
dated 02.04.2009 (Ex.6);
(iv) comparative probative value of all exemplars
including Ex.A/1 to Ex.A/3;
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22622] (35 of 35) [CMA-1218/2025]
(v) correct classification of the acquired land and
relevance of irrigation potential; and
(vi) consequential entitlement to statutory benefits.
60. The Reference Court shall afford full opportunity of hearing
to the parties and may permit limited additional evidence, if so
required, confined strictly to the aforesaid issues.
61. Having regard to the age of the proceedings, the Reference
Court shall decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within six
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
62. Since all the connected appeals arise out of the same
acquisition proceedings and involve common questions of fact and
law, the findings and directions contained herein shall govern all
connected matters as well. Accordingly, the impugned judgments
in all connected appeals are also set aside and the matters are
remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
63. Stay petitions and all pending application(s), if any, stand
disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
359-382/Inder//-
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 04:01:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/05/2026 at 09:51:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
