Punjab-Haryana High Court
Greater Mohali Area Development … vs Sushil Kumar Attri & Ors on 2 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
***
104 CM-3-CI-2022 in/and
RFA-7567-2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.07.2026
GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
…Appellant
Versus
SUSHIL KUMAR ATTRI & OTHERS …Respondents
And
Sr. Case No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
No.
2. RFA-7568-2013 Greater Mohali Area Sonu Chabbra &
(O&M) Development Authority Others
3. RFA-387-2014 Sonu Chabbra & Another State of Punjab &
Others
4. RFA-6691-2014 Sushil Kumar and State of Punjab &
Another Others
5. RFA-8169-2013 Greater Mohali Area Surjit Singh and
Development Authority Others
6. XOBJR-27-CI- Greater Mohali Area Surjit Singh etc.
2014 Development Authority
7. RFA-8170-2013 Greater Mohali Area Jarnail Singh and
Development Authority Others
8. RFA-8171-2013 Greater Mohali Area Achhar Singh &
(O&M) Development Authority Others
9. XOBJR-13-CI- Greater Mohali Area Achhar Singh and
2017 Development Authority Others
10. RFA-8172-2013 Greater Mohali Area Harchand Singh and
Development Authority Others
11. XOBJR-40-CI- Greater Mohali Area Harchand Singh and
2018 Development Authority Others
12. RFA-8173-2013 Greater Mohali Area Bal Krishan Goyal
(O&M) Development Authority and Another
13. XOBJR-16-CI- Greater Mohali Area Bal Krishan Goyal
2017 (O&M) Development Authority etc.
14. RFA-5512-2014 Greater Mohali Area Surinderjit Singh &
(O&M) Development Authority Another
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.07.06 09:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -2-
15. RFA-4311-2014 Gagandeep Singh State of Punjab and
Anr.
16. RFA-4312-2014 Surinderjit Singh State of Punjab and
Another
17. RFA-1111-2022 Malwinder Kaur and State of Punjab and
Another Another
18. RFA-1217-2023 Greater Mohali Area Malwinder Kaur and
Development Authority Others
Present:- Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate and
Mr. Munish, Advocate for the appellant (in RFA-7567-2013)
Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate
for the appellant (in RFA-8169-2013, RFA-8170-2013,
RFA-8171-2013, RFA-8172-2013, RFA-8173-2013 and
RFA-5512-2014)
Mr. V.G. Jauhar, Advocate and
Mr. Ajay Poonia, Advocate
for the appellant (in RFA-1217-2023)
Mr. Puru Jarewal, DAG Punjab
Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate and
Mr. Nitish Kaushal, Advocate
for the respondent-landowners
Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate and
Mr. Ajay Singh Dhiman, Advocate
for respondent No.1 (in RFA-7567-2013)
Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for
Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant (in RFA-387-2014 & RFA-6691-2014) and
for the remaining respondents (in RFA-7567-2013) and
for respondents (in RFA-7568-2013)
***
1. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals and
cross-objections, 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-7567-2013.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.07.06 09:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -3-
2. The appellant-Greater Mohali Area Development Authority
(GMADA) through instant appeal is seeking setting aside of award dated
07.05.2013 whereby Ld. Addl. Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali has enhanced
market value of land from ₹99 lacs to ₹2.58 crore per acre for the purpose
of determination of compensation payable to landowners with respect to
208.95 acre land acquired by appellant for widening/constructing 200 ft.
wide road.
3. The Government of State of Punjab, Department of Housing
and Urban Development issued notification dated 24.12.2008 under
Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) for
acquisition of 245.5 acre land situated in 6 villages namely Kishanpura,
Chhaju Majra, Bakarpur, Pappri, Chhat and Chilla. The aforesaid
notification was followed by notification dated 13.02.2009 issued under
Section 6 of 1894 Act. The appellant finally acquired 208.95 acre land
comprised in 4 villages namely Kishanpura, Chhaju Majra, Bakarpur and
Chhat. Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 25.05.2009
determined compensation of ₹1.50 crore per acre which included 30%
solatium, 12% additional amount from 24.12.2008 till 25.05.2009 and
10% incentive for non-institution of Court proceedings. The landowners
filed reference petitions under Section 18 and matter came to be referred
to Reference Court which vide order dated 07.05.2013 enhanced the
market value from ₹99 lacs to ₹2.58 crore per acre.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Reference
Court has failed to consider 3 sale deeds i.e. Exhibits R-5 to R-7 which
related to Village Chhaju Majra. The Reference Court has relied upon
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.07.06 09:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -4-
one sale deed i.e. Exhibit P-5 which comprised 6 kanal 10 marla 7 sarsai
land. Land of Exhibit P-5 of Village Bakarpur was located at a distance
of 1.2564 km from the acquired land and reflects 850% increase in value
than the sale deeds relied upon by appellant vide Annexures A-8, A-9, A-
13, A-19 to A-21. Said land was further close to International Airport,
Mohali, thus, it has a special adaptability. The appellant has collected
and placed on record 28 more sale deeds and there are many sale deeds
which relate to acquired land. It is settled proposition of law that if sale
deed of acquired land itself is available, the same is the best evidence for
determination of market value and sale deed of any other land cannot be
relied upon and at least given preference. The relevant date for
considering sale deeds was 24.12.2008 (date of notification under Section
4). Exhibit P-5 is sale deed dated 10.04.2008 whereas sale deeds of
10.12.2008, 15.12.2008 and April’ 2008 onwards were available still
Reference Court relied upon sale deed of 10.04.2008. Thus, Reference
Court has made grave mistake while placing reliance upon one sale deed
i.e. Annexure P-5 without corroboration with any other evidence of
villages of which land is under acquisition. The consideration disclosed
in more than 28 sale deeds produced by appellant discloses that average
market price of acquired land was not more than ₹40 lacs per acre.
Despite said fact, District Land Price Fixation Committee constituted
under Finance Commissioner’s standing order No.28, keeping in mind
chhant rate and collector rate of different villages, determined market
price of acquired land @ ₹99 lacs per acre. The matter was put up before
Cabinet Sub-Committee which approved recommendations of District
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.07.06 09:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -5-
Land Price Fixation Committee regarding market rate of the acquired
land. The landowners were paid ₹13,63,636/- for not instituting Court
proceedings. The landowners accepted aforesaid amount still filed
reference petitions and impugned orders came to be passed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents who are also
appearing for few landowners-appellants submit that application under
Order XLI Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC‘)
needs to be rejected because conditions of aforesaid order are not
complied with. The appellant-GMADA is custodian of record and was
well-aware of other sale deeds still did not produce before Reference
Court. The sale deeds, produced as additional evidence, at this belated
stage, should not be considered.
6. They further submit that it is settled proposition of law that
highest available price should be considered as market price. The
landowners produced sale deed Exhibit P-5 which discloses sale
consideration at ₹3.41 crore per acre. The Reference Court imposed cut
of 25% despite the fact that land was acquired for construction/widening
of road. Cut is inapplicable in case of roads. Exhibit P-5 relates to same
revenue estate which was subject matter of acquisition. The sale deed
(Exhibit P-5) produced by landowners was never doubted by GMADA or
Court, thus, there is no reason to discard Exhibit P-5 and rely upon any
other sale deed disclosing lower sale consideration. The respondent has
acquired land of adjoining villages. One notification under Section 4 was
issued in 2004 with respect to adjoining village. The Collector awarded
compensation at ₹1.08 crore per acre and Reference Court enhanced to
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.07.06 09:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -6-
₹2.30 crore per acre. Appeals against order determining compensation at
₹2.30 crore per acre are pending before this Court. There are more similar
examples.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that delay in
filing appeal in any case which is part of the present bunch may be
condoned. Accordingly, delay, if any, in any case stands condoned.
9. From the perusal of record, it is evident that landowners
before Reference Court produced different documents in support of their
contention that market price of their land was more than ₹3 crore per
acre. The Reference Court rejected all the sale deeds and awards,
however, considered and relied upon Exhibit P-5 i.e. sale deed dated
10.04.2008. Notification under Section 4 was issued on 24.12.2008, thus,
sale deed dated 10.04.2008 could be relied upon especially when it
related to revenue estate which was under consideration. The appellant-
GMADA produced three sale deeds i.e. Exhibits R-5 to R-7. All the sale
deeds related to Village Chhaju Majra i.e. one of the villages under
consideration. Reference Court rejected all the sale deeds produced by
GMADA. The appellant during the pendency of present appeals along
with application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC has placed on record
more than 20 sale deeds relating to villages Bakarpur and Chhat. Details
of sale price disclosed in sale deeds produced by landowners and
GMADA, in tabulated form, are reproduced as below:-
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.07.06 09:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -7-
Sale deeds relied upon by landowners/respondent:-
Sr. Exh. Date of Area Sale Rate Per Revenue
No. Sale (K- Consideration Acre (₹) Estate
M-S) (₹)
1. P-4 11.07.2006 26- 193025000 58052632 Ballo
12 Majra
2. P-5 10.04.2008 6-10- 27731250 33947972 Bakarpur
Relied Prior to 7 Note: Of
upon DON: the same
24.12.2008 village, a
parcel of
which is
under
acquisition
3. P-6 31.03.2006 46-3 88261875 15300000 Dhol
4. P-7 23.05.2007 0-17 35000 32941176 Lakhnaur
5. P-8 20.09.2006 12- 22312500 14627451 Mauli
15 Baidwan
6. P-9 02.11.2006 21-9 42900000 16000000 Dhurali
Sale deeds relied upon by appellant before Reference Court:-
Sr Exhibits Dated Area Sale Rate Per Village
No. (K- Consideration Acre (₹)
M-S) (₹)
1. R-5 15.10.2008 8-0 3000000 3000000 Chhaju
Majra
2. R-6 03.12.2008 8-0 3000000 3000000 Chhaju
Majra
3. R-7 19.01.2009 8-0 3000000 3000000 Chhaju
MajraSale deeds of Villages Bakarpur and Chhat produced before this Court:-
Anne Date of Area SoldPrice per Vendor Vendee
xures Sale acre
A-5 24.12.2007 4K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Mann Singh Achhar
Singh etc.
A-6 01.01.2008 2K-19.5M ₹40,33,613/- Lalkar Satnam
Singh Singh Dua
A-7 11.01.2008 3K-0.6M ₹40,21,978/- Jai Singh Davinder
etc. Kaur
A-8 30.01.2008 9K-18.7M ₹40,24,595/- Narinder Sukhraj
Kaur etc. Kaur etc.
A-9 22.01.2008 5K-10M ₹40,00,000/- Gurbaksh Inderjeet
Singh Singh etc.
A-10 31.01.2008 4K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Jaswinder Surjit Kaur
Singh etc.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.07.06 09:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -8-
A-11 06.02.2008 4K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Narinder Gurpreet
Kaur etc. Singh
A-12 12.02.2008 3K-18M ₹40,00,000/- Sonu Gurbachan
Chhabra Singh
Mehar etc.
A-13 12.03.2008 28K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Sucha Singh Gian Chand
etc. Aggarwal
A-14 14.03.2008 24K-0M ₹45,00,000/- Harinder Tejbir
Kaur Singh
A-15 10.04.2008 7K-11M ₹40,00,000/- Swaranjit Kirpal Kaur
Kaur etc. etc.
A-16 16.04.2008 4K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Gurmail Rupinderjit
Singh etc. Singh
A-17 05.05.2008 8K-3M ₹44,17,178/- Rajinder Gurpreet
Singh Singh
A-18 30.05.2008 2K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Sushil Soma Bati
Kumar
A-19 02.06.2008 2K-9M ₹40,48,980/- Swaranjit Gurpreet
Kaur etc. Singh etc.
A-20 07.07.2008 15K-6M ₹40,00,000/- Gurmeet Surjit Singh
Singh etc.
A-21 07.07.2008 7K-3M- ₹40,24,845/- Jaswinder Parveen
1S Singh Gupta etc.
A-22 07.07.2008 3K-2M ₹40,00,000/- Gurmeet Gurjit Kaur
Singh
A-23 15.07.2008 4K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Kulwinder Babeeta
Singh Goyal etc.
A-24 15.07.2008 4K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Bhag Singh Hardeep
Singh
A-25 15.07.2008 4K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Bhag Singh Gurjant
Singh etc.
A-26 06.08.2008 3K-0M- ₹41,02,941/- Gurmeet Raghbir
4S Singh Singh etc.
A-27 12.09.2008 5K-10M ₹40,00,000/- Jai Pal Neena Garg
Singh
A-28 22.09.2008 9K-2M- ₹40,31,649/- Baljinder Harchand
5S Singh
A-29 15.10.2008 8K-0M ₹40,00,000/- Mahinder Dr. Vasu
Singh etc. Gupta etc.
A-30 10.12.2008 10K-2M ₹40,00,000/- Balwinder Gurinder
Singh etc. Singh
A-31 15.12.2008 2K-17M ₹40,00,000/- Gurmail Gurmeet
Singh Singh etc.
A-32 19.06.2008 7B-7B ₹66,61,224/- Simranpreet Sunil Gupta
Vill.Chhat Singh Gill etc.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.07.06 09:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -9-
10. It appears that GMADA officials either due to negligence or
under wrong belief that sale deeds Exhibits R-5 to R-7 are sufficient in
support of their contention, did not produce sale deeds which are
produced before this Court as Annexure A-5 to A-32. GMADA is a
public authority and public money is involved. The landowners are
strongly claiming that additional evidence led by appellant should not be
considered and its application should be rejected because it does not
comply with conditions of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. Order XLI Rule 27
CPC reads as:-
“27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate
Court.–(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled
to produce additional evidence, whether oral or
documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if —
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is
preferred has refused to admit evidence which
ought to have been admitted, or
(aa) the party seeking to produce additional
evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the
exercise of due diligence, such evidence was
not within his knowledge or could not, after
the exercise of due diligence, be produced by
him at the time when the decree appealed
against was passed, or
(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to
be produced or any witness to be examined to
enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any
other substantial cause,
the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document
to be produced, or witness to be examined.
(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be
produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record
the reason for its admission.”
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.07.06 09:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -10-
11. From the perusal of above-quoted provision, it is evident that
party seeking to produce additional evidence requires to establish that
despite due diligence such evidence was not within his knowledge or
could not be produced when the decree was passed. The Appellate Court
may also require any document to be produced to enable it to pronounce
judgment or for any substantial cause. Sale deeds as per Section 51 A of
1894 Act read with Sections 74(2), 76 and 77 of Evidence Act, 1872 are
per se admissible in evidence. These are part of official record. The
respondents are not doubting genuineness of these sale deeds. Hon’ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court has liberally condoned delay even of
more than 20 years in filing RFA before this Court. Section 28A of 1894
Act has also been liberally interpreted in favour of landowners. The
appellant-GMADA ought to be given same treatment because interest of
no individual employee is involved and huge financial burden is
involved. The appellant is a public authority and public money is
involved, thus, it would not be just and fair to ignore additional evidence.
Sale deeds submitted by appellant in the form of additional evidence need
to be considered. The objection raised by the respondent-landowners
seeking rejection of the appellant’s application to lead additional evidence
deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. Application seeking
permission to file additional evidence is allowed and enclosed Annexures
are taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate
place.
12. The landowners are claiming that Reference Court has
wrongly imposed cut of 25%. The land was acquired for construction of
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.07.06 09:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -11-
road, thus, there was no occasion to impose cut of 25%. The price
declared in sale deed (Exhibit P-5) should be considered as market price
for determining compensation. The appellants are further claiming that
LAC as well as Reference Court, with respect to adjoining villages, have
granted compensation equal to compensation in question or higher than
that. The appellant-GMADA is claiming that as per sale deeds, the
average sale price comes to ₹40 lacs. Exhibit P-5 is a stray evidence and
should not be relied upon. Law does not provide that one exceptional
sale deed should be relied upon ignoring multiple other sale deeds
disclosing one pattern of market price. The appellant is further claiming
that sale deed of acquired land is the best piece of evidence in comparison
to sale deed of any other land may be adjoining to acquired land.
13. The appellant itself constituted a Land Price Fixation
Committee which determined market price of ₹99 lakh per acre. The said
committee was well aware of sale deeds of period in question. Despite
said fact, committee as well as sub-committee of Cabinet approved
market price of ₹99 lacs per acre. By accepting price of ₹99 lacs per
acre, the appellant itself accepted that sale landowners should be paid
more than declared disclosed in the sale deeds. In 1894 Act, there is no
provision of constituting such a committee and determine price ignoring
sale deeds. It appears that to avoid litigation, the State Government
determined market price which was more than two times of consideration
disclosed in sale deeds. Reference Court has ignored this fact and relied
upon one sale deed. Once value determined by Committee which
comprised senior revenue officials was ignored, it was inevitable to
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.07.06 09:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -12-
consider all available sale deeds especially relating to part of land in
question. One sale deed disclosing exorbitant consideration i.e. 850% of
average sale consideration could not be blindly relied upon. Area of land
involved, distance from acquired land and consideration disclosed in
Exhibit P-5 vis-à-vis Exhibit R-5 to R-7 and sale deeds produced before
this Court need to be considered.
14. 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 Uttaranchal & another (2011) 6 SCC 47;
Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board v. K.S.
Gangadharappa, (2009) 11 SCC 164 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.
In the case in hand, land was acquired for road, thus, no
development cost like residential or commercial complex was involved,
however, sale deed relied upon by Reference Court comprised less than 1
acre land whereas acquired land was 208 acres.
15. The Reference Court did not get opportunity to consider
sale deeds produced before this Court as additional evidence. The
respondent-landowner deserves to be given opportunity to rebut said
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.07.06 09:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -13-
evidence as well as lead any other evidence. The appellant has acquired
land of adjoining villages for the same purpose i.e. widening of road or
setting up of new sectors. Many awards have been passed by different
Collectors as well as Reference Courts. All these evidence need to be
reconsidered because Reference Court has considered only one sale deed
i.e. Exhibit P-5. Public money is involved, thus, compensation needs to
be determined strictly in accordance with law. In the obtained facts and
circumstances, instead of adjudicating itself, this Court finds it more
appropriate to remand the matter to the adjudication of Reference Court.
Accordingly, matter is remanded to Ld. Reference Court for fresh
adjudication.
16. Learned counsel for respondent-landowners submit that till
the re-adjudication of reference petitions, the enhanced amount already
paid may not be recovered from them. It may be made subject to fresh
order of Reference Court. The appellant is claiming that few landowners
have filed reference despite acceptance of non-litigation incentive.
17. The landowners have already been paid 50% of enhanced
compensation. It is made clear that till the passing of fresh order by
Reference Court no recovery of amount already paid would be affected
from landowners and it would be subject to outcome of fresh order
passed by Reference Court. The said Court would consider evidence led
by appellant-GMADA as well as landowners. The landowners/GMADA
would be free to lead evidence besides evidence already on record.
18. Needless to mention that Reference Court shall pass fresh
order in accordance with law. The Reference Court is further requested
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.07.06 09:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
RFA-7567-2013 and connected cases -14-
to adjudicate the matter expeditiously and preferably within 1½ year from
today.
19. All the appeals and cross-objections are disposed of in above
terms.
20. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
July 02,2026 JUDGE
Deepak DPA
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.07.06 09:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
