Punjab-Haryana High Court
Man Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana Through Collector … on 11 May, 2026
RFA-1204
1204-2025 (O&M) and other connected cases [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
*****
RFA
RFA-1204-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.05.2026
Man Singh and others .......Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Manish Kumar Garg, Advocate
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate and
Mr. A.K. Kansal, Advocate (through VC) and
Mr.Shadab Ahmad, Advocate
Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate
Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate
Mr. Mr. Dhruv Mittal, Advocate
Ms. Palak Arora, Advocate for
Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate
Mr. Gurdeep Singh Bidha, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate
Ms. Riya Kangra, Advocate for
Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate
for the landowners.
Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Bhupender Ahlawat, DDistrict Attorney, STC (HQ).
Mr. Arwind Sharma, Deputy Transport Controller,
State Transport Department Haryana (HQ),
Mr. Rahul Jain, General Manager, Jind.
Ms. Palvindra Kaur, Deputy District Attorney,
STC, Haryana (HQ).
Mr. Sunny, Patwari, DRO, Jind.
Mr. Praveen Kumar, Clerk,
Haryana Roadways, Jind Depot.
-.-
SANJAY GUPTA
2026.05.19 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RFA-1204-2025 (O&M) and other connected cases [2]
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
CMs-790-791-CI-2026 in RFA-359-2026
CMs-962-963-CI-2026 in RFA-412-2026
CMs-1429-1430-CI-2026 in RFA-680-2026
CM-614-CI-2026 in RFA-264-2026
Applications for condonation of delay in re-filing and filing
the appeals are allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions.
CMs-961-CI-2026 in RFA-412-2026
Application for permitting the LRs of Kaptan (appellant
No.3), who expired on 22.05.2025 (before filing of the appeal) to file
and pursue the present appeal is allowed as prayed for, subject to all
just exceptions. The applicants mentioned in para No.1 of the
application are ordered to be brought on record as legal
representatives of appellant No.3-Kaptan, to pursue the present
appeal.
CM-1431-CI-2026 in RFA-680-2026
Application for permitting the LRs of Mam Kaur (appellant
No.1), who expired on 28.11.2019 (before filing of the appeal) to file
and pursue the present appeal is allowed as prayed for, subject to all
just exceptions. The applicants mentioned in para No.1 of the
application are ordered to be brought on record as legal
representatives of appellant No.1-Mam Kaur, to pursue the present
appeal.
SANJAY GUPTA
2026.05.19 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RFA-1204-2025 (O&M) and other connected cases [3]
MAIN CASE(S)
Vide this common order, a bunch of 29 Regular First
Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment,
are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common
acquisition/Award involving identical facts and question of law. For
the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.1204 of 2025.
2. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to
the Award dated 04.08.2025 passed by the learned Addl. District
Judge, Jind (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’).
3. Briefly stating, in the present case(s), land measuring 95
kanals 15 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Village
Pindara, District Jind was acquired vide Notifications dated
08.08.2013 and 20.05.2014 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act’), respectively for the
public purpose, namely, “Transport Communication”. Award by the
Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) was passed on
07.01.2016 under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for
short the ‘2013 Act’), thereby, determining the market value of the
acquired land @ Rs.45,00,000/- per acre besides award of all other
statutory benefits and interests provided under the 1894 Act.
4 Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the LAC, the
appellants/ landowners preferred reference petition(s) under Section
64 of the 2013 Act, which were partly allowed by the learned
SANJAY GUPTA
2026.05.19 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RFA-1204-2025 (O&M) and other connected cases [4]
Reference Court vide its decision dated 04.08.2025 while granting
enhanced compensation @ Rs.4,50,00,000/- per acre including
100% solatium along with interest and other statutory benefits/interest
under the 2013 Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal(s) were
preferred at the instance of appellants-landowners as well as
respondent-State.
CONTENTION(S):
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-LANDOWNERS:-
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/ landowners submits
that for the purpose of determination of market value, the learned
Reference Court erred having not relied upon the sale instance dated
27.11.2006 (Ex.P29) vide which 101 Kanals – 4 Marlas of land
forming part of the same revenue estate of Village Pindara, was sold
for Rs.8,47,55,000/- with the base price of Rs.67,00,000/- per acre.
5.1. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the time
gap of approximately 6 years 8 months between the date of sale
deed Ex.P29 and the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in
the case(s) in hand, an appreciation @ 15% per annum on
cumulative basis over the base price per acre derived from sale
instance dated 27.11.2006 (Ex. P29) ought to be granted, especially
when, the acquired land formed part of the Municipal Limits, Jind and
was also located within the National Capital Region territory. He
thus, submits that on the basis of evidence available on record, the
market value was required to be re-assessed and the appeal(s)
SANJAY GUPTA
2026.05.19 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RFA-1204-2025 (O&M) and other connected cases [5]preferred at the instance of landowners were to be allowed whereas
the appeal(s) filed by the State were to be dismissed.
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE:-
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent State submits that rather than relying upon the sale
instance dated 27.11.2006 (Ex.P29) which was executed
approximately 7 years prior to the acquisition in hand, the sale deed
Ex.P7 dated 25.11.2015 vide which 4 kanals of land forming part of
the same revenue estate of Village Pindara sold for Rs.50,00,000/-
with the base price of Rs.1 crore per acre; was required to be relied
upon. He also points out that though the aforesaid sale instance
pertained to the period subsequent to the notification under Section 4
of the 1894 Act in case(s) in hand, the land parcel forming part of the
sale instance Ex.P7 pertained to the same rectangle number as the
acquired land, thus, it would be more appropriate to rely upon the
same to assess the market value by applying the principle of de-
escalation for the time gap between the said sale instance up to the
date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
6.1. Learned State counsel further submits that the acquired
land was admittedly located within the Municipal Limits of Jind and as
such, the multiplication factor of 1.25 in terms of Section 26 (2) as
specified in First Schedule of the 2013 Act, was not to be made
applicable. Learned State counsel further points out that while
computing the final market value of the acquired land, the learned
SANJAY GUPTA
2026.05.19 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RFA-1204-2025 (O&M) and other connected cases [6]
Reference Court committed an arithmetical error, resulting in an
excessive and incorrect award of compensation which needs to be
rectified accordingly. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned
counsel for the respondent submits that the appeal(s) filed at the
instance of State were required to be allowed and that of the
appellants/ landowners were to be dismissed.
DISCUSSION AND REASONING: –
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the contents of the paper-book.
8. Before proceeding further, following are the details of two
sale deeds relied upon by the respective parties during the course of
making their submissions: –
Details of sale instances: –
Sale Date of Total Sale
Sr. Name of
Exhibit sale Area consideration Value per acre
No. village
s deed (Rs.)
1. Ex.P7 27.11.2015 4 Kanal Pindara Rs.50,00,000/- Rs.1,00,00,00/-
2. Ex.P29 27.11.2006 101K-4M Pindara Rs.8,47,55,000/- Rs.67,00,000/-
9. Pertinently, the concerned official, present in Court along
with the learned State counsel, has submitted that the Collector rate
for the revenue estate of Village Pindara, District Jind, for the year
2006-2007 was Rs. 20,00,000/- per acre, which stood enhanced to
Rs. 1,00,00,000/- per acre for the year 2015-2016, thereby indicating
a significant appreciation in land values in the vicinity of the acquired
land. However, it is relevant to note that Collector rates are
SANJAY GUPTA
2026.05.19 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RFA-1204-2025 (O&M) and other connected cases [7]maintained solely for the purpose of levy of stamp duty under the
Stamp Act and, therefore, cannot exclusively form the foundation for
determination of market value in land acquisition proceedings and
need not be taken into account for the said purpose. Reliance is
being placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in U.P. Jal
Nigam, Lucknow v. M/s. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. Lucknow
reported as 1996(3) SCC 124 whereby, it was held that the market
value cannot be fixed solely on the basis of the rates mentioned in
the basic valuation registers. These registers are maintained to curb
the under-valuation of land, a practice adopted to evade the payment
of proper stamp duty. The relevant portion thereof are extracted
hereunder:-
“5. This Court in Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional
Officer, Allahabad, A.P., (1994) 4 SCC 595, had considered
whether market value of the acquired land would be
determining on the basis of basic valuation register
maintained by the Collector for the purpose of levy of stamp
duty under the Stamp Act and the method of valuation on
that basis is valid in law. This question was considered in
extenso in the context of the power of the State under
Section 47A of the Stamp Act to fix the basic valuation for
stamp duty. After elaborate survey of the amendment made
by the State legislature by local amendment to the Stamps
Act under Section 47A, this Court had held that the market
value shall be determined only on the basis of the evidence
adduced by the claimant and in rebuttal thereof by the
State, as to the prevailing market value of that particular
land. The basic valuation is only for the purpose of
collecting the stamp duty and that, therefore, it cannot form
foundation to determine the market value.
SANJAY GUPTA
2026.05.19 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RFA-1204-2025 (O&M) and other connected cases [8]
6. The finding of the Court that the concession that the market
value determined by the Collector on the basis of basic
valuation would be properly applied, is obviously illegal.
Shri Gopal Subramaniam contended that the Government
of U. P. had issued three different circulars accepting the
position that the basic valuation would form basis for
determination of the compensation under Section 23 (1)
and that, therefore, the High Court was right in accepting
the valuation made by the Collector and in directing to pay
the compensation on that basis. After the judgment in
Nagnathan’s case (supra), the Division Bench of the High
Court of Allahabad in State of U.P. v. Shau Singh (1995
HVD Vol. 1 191) held that the rates fixed for the collection
of stamp duty cannot be relied upon to determine market
value. Therefore, the instructions issued by the
Government for determination of the market value on the
basis of basic valuation register were held illegal. The
Collector, therefore, was obviously wrong in determining
the compensation under Section 23 (1) on the basis of
prevailing rates in 1992 as per basic valuation circulars.”
9.1. Moreover, a perusal of the above chart shows that sale
instance dated 25.11.2015 (Ex.P7), pertaining to the revenue estate
of Village Pindara, reflected the base price per acre of Rs.1 crore
which is identical to the rates fixed by the Collector for the purpose of
payment of stamp duty on the registration of sale deeds. This Court is
mindful of the fact that as a matter of common practice, the sale
deeds are often executed at a value below the prevailing market rate
to avoid the payment of stamp duty, thus, the aforementioned sale
deed cannot be considered as reliable piece of evidence reflecting
the correct prevailing market value at relevant point of time in the
SANJAY GUPTA
2026.05.19 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RFA-1204-2025 (O&M) and other connected cases [9]
humble opinion of this Court. My aforesaid view is supported by
observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Haryana
State Industrial Development Corp. v. Pran Sukh reported as 2010
(11) SCC 175. The relevant paras 22 is extracted hereunder:-
“22. In our view, the learned Single Judge did not
commit any error by relying upon sale transaction
Exhibit P1 for the purpose of fixing market value of
the acquired land. Undisputedly, that sale
transaction was between two corporate entities and
the entire sale price was paid through bank drafts. It
is also not in dispute that the land which was
subject-matter of Exhibit P1 is situated at village
Naharpur Kasan and is adjacent to the acquired
land. The Corporation and the State Government did
not adduce any evidence to prove that the land sold
vide Exhibit P1 was over-valued with an oblique
motive of helping the land owners to claim higher
compensation. Therefore, we do not find
any justification to discard or ignore sate deed
Exhibit P1. The refusal of the learned Single
Judge to rely upon other sale transactions in
which sale price of the land was shown as Rs. 7
lakhs per acre also does not suffer from any
legal infirmity because its well-known that
transactions involving transfer of properties are
usually undervalued with a view to avoid
payment of the requisite stamp duty and
registration chars.
In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the
considered view that the sale instance dated 25.11.2015 (Ex. P-7) is
not a reliable indicator of market value, the same having apparently
been executed at the minimum basic Collector rate fixed for the area
SANJAY GUPTA
2026.05.19 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RFA-1204-2025 (O&M) and other connected cases [10]rather than reflecting the price that a willing purchaser would
genuinely offer to a willing seller in an open market. Thus, the same
need not to be taken into account for determining the market value.
10. On the other hand, as per the record, the land forming
part of the sale instance Ex. P-29 is situated in close proximity to the
acquired land; the distance between the two being approximately 2 to
4 acres only. In such circumstances, sale instance dated 27.11.2006
(Ex.P29) pertaining to the same revenue estate of Village Pindara,
being the best suitable sale exemplar, needs to be relied upon for the
purposes of assessment of market value in the present case(s).
11. As per the sale instance dated 27.11.2006 (Ex.P29),
101K-4M of land was sold for Rs.8,47,55,000/- with the base price of
Rs.67,00,000/- per acre. Taking into account the fact that there exists
a time gap of approximately 6 years 7 months and 15 days between
the date of sale instance Ex.P29 (27.11.2006) and the notification
issued under Section 4 of the Act in the case(s) in hand (08.08.2013),
therefore, for the said time period, an appropriate appreciation needs
to be awarded in favour of the appellants-landowners. The learned
Reference Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record,
recorded the following findings of fact, which are clearly indicative of
a rapid and consistent rise in land prices in the vicinity of the acquired
land owing to its locational advantages:-
“28. The undisputed fact is that vide awards Ex. P33 and
Ex. P34, the land was acquired for the National
Highway in front of the acquired land, the
SANJAY GUPTA
2026.05.19 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RFA-1204-2025 (O&M) and other connected cases [11]notifications of which were issued in the year 2012
i.e. prior to the notification of acquisition of the
acquired land and the market value of the acquired
land vide these awards was assessed as Rs. 65
lakhs per acre and 80 lakhs per acre respectively.
29. Vide Award Ex.P35, the land of village Ashrafgarh
which is admittedly far away from the acquired land
of village Pindari, the compensation at the rate of
Rs.65 lakhs per acre was given……
……..There is no evidence from the side of
respondent/State that price of any land in village
Pindari had ever gone down. Moreover, the
evidence of the respondent in the shape of collector
rates is reflective of the fact that the prices of the
land in the area are rising at very fast pace.”
11.1. Moreover, from the perusal of the record it is evident that
undisputedly, the acquired land situated within the Municipal limits of
Jind since May 2008, fell within the territory of the National Capital
Region and was also located in close proximity to State Highway No.
19 leading from Jind to Gohana, at a distance of approximately 6
acres from the said Highway, thereby, having significant locational
advantage and potential value. In such circumstances, an
appreciation @ 12% per annum (compounded) needs to be awarded
in favour of the appellants/ landowners for the time gap between the
sale instance Ex.P29 dated 27.11.2006 up to the date of notification
under Section 4 of the Act in the case (s) in hand i.e. 08.08.2013 on
the base price of Rs.67,00,000/- per acre derived from said sale
instance and the same thus comes to Rs.1,42,16,456/- per acre.
12. Further, with respect to the contention raised on behalf of
SANJAY GUPTA
2026.05.19 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RFA-1204-2025 (O&M) and other connected cases [12]
the learned State counsel about the multiplier factor, it may be
relevant to extract the paragraph No.30 from the impugned award
passed by the learned Reference Court which is reproduced
hereunder:-
“The petitioners are held entitled for the fair
compensation as per the following calculations on
amount of Rs.1 crore as mentioned under Section 64 of
New Act:-
a. Date of notification under Section 4 08.08.2013
of LAC Act 1894
b. Date of Award of LAC 07.01.2016
c. Factor as per Section 26 (2) as Rs.1.25
specified in first schedule of Village
Pindara which adjoins Jind City
d. Rs.1,00,00,000/- x 1.25 Rs.1,25,00,000/-
e. Compensation which comes as per Rs.2,25,00,000/-
Section 26 of the Act (Rs.1,00,00,000/- + Rs.1,25,00,000/-) f. 100% solatium upon as per Section Rs.2,25,00,000/- 30 of the New Act on the amount of (e) g. Total of (e) and (f) Rs.4,50,00,000/-
From the aforesaid calculations, it is evident that the
learned Reference Court erred in applying the multiplier of 1.25 as
per the First Schedule to the 2013 Act, by treating the acquired land
as forming part of a rural revenue estate of Village Pindara. It is
pertinent to note that none of the parties have disputed that though
the acquired land forms part of the revenue estate of Village Pindara,
it was admittedly situated within the Municipal limits of Jind and was
therefore required to be treated as part of an urban area. Accordingly,
in terms of the Entry No.3 in the First Schedule to the 2013 Act, a
SANJAY GUPTA
2026.05.19 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RFA-1204-2025 (O&M) and other connected cases [13]multiplier of 1 alone was required to be applied. In that view of the
matter, the application of a multiplier of 1.25 by the learned
Reference Court is liable to be set aside.
13. Accordingly, the market value of the acquired land is
assessed at the rate Rs.1,42,16,456/- per acre. In addition, the
landowner(s) shall also be entitled for award of all statutory benefits
and interest as provided under the provisions of the 2013 Act
(amended upto date). The landowner(s) shall also be entitled for
100% solatium besides award of interest thereupon.
14. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the
appeal(s) preferred at the instance of respondent-State as well as the
appeals filed at the instance of appellants/ landowners are hereby
disposed of with the aforesaid modifications.
15. To ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the
middleman in the process of disbursement of compensation, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pran Sukh‘s case (supra), issued certain
directions. I deem it appropriate to issue same directions in the
present set of appeals as well, which are as under:-
“with a view to ensure that the land owners are not
fleeced by the middleman, we deem it appropriate to issue
following further directions:
(i) The land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers
subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar,
who shall get in touch with all the land owner
representatives and inform them about their entitlement
and right to receive enhanced compensation.
SANJAY GUPTA
2026.05.19 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RFA-1204-2025 (O&M) and other connected cases [14]
(ii) The concerned officer shall also instruct the land owners
and /or their legal representatives to open saving bank
account in case they already do not have such account.
(iii) The bank account numbers of the land owners should be
given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months.
(iv) (iv) The land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the
cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land
owners”
16. Further, in case of unfortunate demise of any of the
landowners, if the legal heir(s)-legal representative(s) have not been
brought on record, they shall be entitled for filing execution
applications in their own names being legal heirs or legal
representatives of the deceased-landowners; subject of course to any
testamentary document created by the deceased.
17. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
11.05.2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
sanjay JUDGE
Sr. No. Case No.
1. RFA-1241-2025 (O&M)
2. RFA-161-2026 (O&M)
3. RFA-162-2026 (O&M)
4. RFA-166-2026 (O&M)
5. RFA-1766-2026 (O&M)
6. RFA-1866-2026 (O&M)
7. RFA-1950-2025 (O&M)
8. RFA-1981-2025 (O&M)
9. RFA-1987-2025 (O&M)
10. RFA-2002-2025 (O&M)
11. RFA-22-2026 (O&M)
12. RFA-264-2026 (O&M)
13. RFA-265-2026 (O&M)
14. RFA-267-2026 (O&M)
SANJAY GUPTA
2026.05.19 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RFA-1204-2025 (O&M) and other connected cases [15]
15. RFA-317-2026 (O&M)
16. RFA-346-2026 (O&M)
17. RFA-349-2026 (O&M)
18. RFA-350-2026 (O&M)
19. RFA-351-2026 (O&M)
20. RFA-369-2026 (O&M)
21. RFA-370-2026 (O&M)
22. RFA-371-2026 (O&M)
23. RFA-373-2026 (O&M)
24. RFA-412-2026 (O&M)
25. RFA-680-2026 (O&M)
26. RFA-359-2026 (O&M)
27. RFA-361-2026 (O&M)
28. RFA-1848-2025 (O&M)
11.05.2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
sanjay JUDGE
SANJAY GUPTA
2026.05.19 18:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
