STATE OF HARYANA v. HARKESH MANUJA

Mr. Varun Baanth, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Varun Baanth, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Varun Baanth, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) HARKESH MANUJA **** By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the passed by the learned Additional District judgment dated 22.07.1997 passed by the learned Additional District passed by the learned Additional District judgment dated , whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of Judge, Ambala, whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of , whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of , whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of ‘the Act’) by the the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as appellant-landowner landowner, seeking enhancement of compensation was , seeking enhancement of compensation was partly allowed.

2. Briefly stating, land measuring 2.66 acres Briefly stating, land measuring , situated within the 2.66 acres, situated within the Mallah, Hadbast No. 174, Tehsil Kalka, District revenue estate of Village Mallah, Hadbast No. 174, Tehsil Kalka, District Mallah, Hadbast No. 174, Tehsil Kalka, District revenue estate of Village construction of link road was acquired for the public purpose for construction of link road was acquired for the public purpose for Ambala was acquired for the public purpose for from Nandpur to Mallah Nandpur to Mallah vide notifications dated otifications dated 03.02.1987 and issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. The 25.03.1987 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. The issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. The issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award No.93 dated Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award No. Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award No. assessing the market value at the rate of Rs.19,900/- per assessing the market value at the rate of Rs. 14.02.1989 assessing the market value at the rate of Rs. acre for Banjar ar land and Rs.4975/- per acre for per acre for gair mumkin choe land along with other statutory benefits. along with other statutory benefits. TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.01.16 11:34 I agree to specified portions of this document 2

3. RFA-2134-1997 (O&M) The appellant-landowner, feeling dissatisfied with the award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act pleading that the price of land was not less than Rs.5000/- per Bigha. Moreover, it was pleaded that due to construction of road, the land had become uneconomical and consequently, the price of the land had reduced.

4. Upon notice, the same was contested by the respondent- State and further, it was contended that the market value assessed by the assessing authority was fair and the road was constructed on the old path which was not being used by any landowner including the appellant and as such, no reduction of price due to acquisition had occurred.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Reference Court on 23.02.1996:- “1. What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP

2. Relief.”

6. After considering the evidence, the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, vide award dated 22.07.1997 enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.95,000/- per acre.

8. Aggrieved of the aforesaid award dated 22.07.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, the appellant-landowner filed the present appeal.

9. Impugning the aforementioned, learned counsel for the appellant-landowner submits that the Reference Court went wrong having failed to award suitable appreciation over the base price derived from the sale instance Ex.P-5 dated 24.12.1982 vide which 2 biswas of land was sold for a sum of Rs.4,000/- and the said parcel formed part of TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.01.16 11:34 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 RFA-2134-1997 (O&M) the very same khasra No.320 out of which land was acquired in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant also points out that the deduction of 50% as imposed by the learned Reference Court was also on the higher side and as such, the impugned award was liable to be modified.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-State points out that there was no evidence available on record with respect to the appreciation of value of land between 1982 to 1987 and as such, there was no case made out in favour of the appellant-landowner for award of any such appreciation as claimed by him. He also points out that while taking into account the small parcel of land involved in Ex.P-5, no interference was called for with respect to the deduction made by the learned Reference Court @ 50% over the base price derived from the sale instance Ex.P-5.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-landowner.

12. A perusal of award shows that only sale instance produced pertaining to the period prior to notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in the present case is Ex.P5 (dated 24.12.1982). Pertinently, the 2 biswas of land forming part of sale instance Ex.P-5 dated 24.12.1982 falls within khasra No.320 which also forms part of the present acquisition proceedings and the same is located on already existing kucha path providing direct access to the land of the appellant. Further, a positive finding has been recorded by the learned Reference Court regarding similarity of potential of the land forming part of sale instance Ex.P-5 and that of the acquired land. In such circumstances, sale deed TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.01.16 11:34 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 RFA-2134-1997 (O&M) Ex.P-5 was required to be relied upon as the best suitable sale exemplar for the purposes of assessment of market value of the acquired land especially, when the same formed part of revenue estate of village Mullah in which the acquired land falls.

13. Furthermore, it may also be noticed here that the observation made by the learned Reference Court to the effect that ‘the possibility of exaggerated amount of sale consideration in the sale deed Ex.P-5 in anticipation of acquisition proceedings could not be ruled out’, is wholly unjustified in the absence of any such evidence having been led by the respondent to question the genuineness of sale consideration forming part of Ex.P-5. Furthermore, in view of the settled proposition of law, an appreciation @10% per annum needs to be applied over the base price mentioned in the sale deed Ex.P-5 for the time gap between the sale deed i.e. 24.12.1982 and the date of publication of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 04.02.1987.

14. Moreover, in view of the fact that the present acquisition relates to 1 bigha and 19 biswas of land and the sale deed Ex.P-5 relates to 2 biswas of land, deduction of 40% over the base price derived from Ex.P-5 instead of 50% would suffice as the land under acquisition is already having direct access to the already existing rasta. Accordingly, the appellant-landowner is entitled for grant of benefit of Rs. 1,61,880/- per acre (269800 – 269800 x 40%) along with all other statutory benefits including interest on solatium with respect to the acquisition in hand. No cut towards development cost is required as the acquisition has been done merely for widening of the already existing rasta.

15. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification. TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.01.16 11:34 I agree to specified portions of this document 5 RFA-2134-1997 (O&M)

16. Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications before the learned Executing Court.

17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

13.01.2026 Tejwinder (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.01.16 11:34 I agree to specified portions of this document