RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters v. Financial Commissioner & Principal

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Abhinash Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana (representing appellant-State) Mr. Anas Ahmed, Advocate for appellants (in RFA-367-2025 & RFA-376-2025) Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Advocate for respondent in RFA-366-2025 and for petitioner in RFA-1172-2025 Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate for appellant in RFA-1317-2025 *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

#1. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from RFA No.366 of 2025.

#2. The appellant-State through instant appeal is seeking setting aside of award dated 23.08.2024 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Nuh has enhanced amount of compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector.

#3. The Superintending Engineer, Yamuna Water Services Circle, Faridabad on 18.11.2013 issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) regarding acquisition of 108 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of village Akera, Tehsil & District Nuh for constructing a reservoir for irrigation in the village Akera. The said notification was followed by notification dated 20.01.2014 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act.

#4. The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-DRO, Mewat at Nuh passed Award No.1 of 2015 dated 30.01.2015. According to notification under Section 6, the area was 108 acres but upon actual measurement, the RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -6- award came up to be passed in respect of 107.1625 acres of land. Market value of the acquired land was fixed as ₹22 Lakhs per acre. Landowners were held entitled to solatium equivalent to 100% of compensation as per Section 30(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘2013 Act’). Landowners were also held entitled to an amount of 12% of the market value as per Section 30(3) of the 2013 Act from 18.11.2013 (date of publication of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act) to 30.01.2015 (date of award dated 30.01.2015). Aggrieved from aforesaid award, reference petitions were preferred by interested persons before the Land Acquisition Collector which were forwarded to Court as References under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.

#5. The landowners pleaded that compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector-cum-DRO, Nuh was grossly inadequate as the market value, on the date of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act, was not less than ₹1 Crore per acre. The Land Acquisition Collector while determining the market value of their land failed to take into account the prevailing market rates and passed the award without conducting a spot survey or considering the land's potential. The land in question is located near the State Highway, Rozka Meo Industrial Estate, KMP Expressway and is 18 Kms away from Sohna, an area with several resorts, hotels, golf clubs, tourist complexes, residential sectors, commercial institutions, farmhouses, poultry farms, and well-maintained roads, all of which existed before the notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act. The land contained valuable features such as tube-well rooms, wire-fencing, underground pipelines and valuable trees, however, none of which were assessed or compensated by the RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -7- Collector. The Haryana Government had previously acquired land in nearby villages such as Manesar and Kasan where higher compensation was awarded but this fact was not considered in the case of the reference petitioners. At the time of the notification, the average value of surrounding land was approximately ₹3 Crore per acre yet was ignored.

#6. Reference Court, considering evidence led by both sides, adjudicated 44 petitions vide award dated 12.09.2017, 28 petitions vide award dated 19.08.2017 and 4 petitions vide award dated 03.04.2018. In total 76 reference petitions were decided.

#7. Landowners as well as State assailed aforesaid awards before this Court which vide judgment dated 23.09.2021 passed in RFA No.236 of 2018, Financial Commissioner v. Attaulla Khan & connected 137 appeals, allowed all the appeals filed by landowners as well as by State of Haryana and set aside the awards dated 19.08.2017, 12.09.2017 & 03.04.2018. The matter was remanded to the Reference Court with a direction to decide the matter afresh after granting opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence.

#8. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Reference Court vide common award dated 02.04.2022 decided 76 reference petitions along with another reference petition LAC/11/2019 titled as Khurshid v. State. The parties preferred appeals before this Court against award dated 02.04.2022 which were disposed of vide order dated 13.12.2022 and matter was again remitted to the Reference Court. Learned Additional District Judge, Nuh vide impugned order dated 23.08.2024 has adjudicated reference petitions. State as well as landowners are in appeal before this Court. RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -8-

#9. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that Reference Court has not complied with provisions of 2013 Act in true spirit. The impugned orders deserve to be set aside. The Reference Court has wrongly applied multiplier of 1.25 whereas it should be 1 because as per notification dated 04.12.2014 issued by the State Government, multiplier factor of 1 in case of rural as well as urban land was applicable. The Reference Court has relied upon notification dated 23.01.2018 which could not be applied. The notification dated 23.01.2018 is not having retrospective effect, thus, Reference Court has wrongly invoked notification of 2018. The Reference Court has applied cut of 30% whereas it should be more. The land in question was not used for harvesting and there was no crop in the acquired land, thus, higher cut was warranted.

#10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents who are also representing appellants in appeals filed by few landowners submit that Reference Court has wrongly applied cut of 30%. There was no question to apply cut. There is no provision in the 2013 Act to apply cut still Reference Court has applied cut of 30%. The Reference Court has not further considered question of interest as provided under Section 80 of 2013 Act.

#12. Heard the arguments and perused the record. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that delay in filing any appeal which is part of present bunch may be condoned. Accordingly, delay, if any, in any case, stands condoned.

#13. This is third round of litigation. On the two earlier occasions, the matter was remanded to Reference Court which has passed impugned order. Two landowners namely Khurshid Ahmed and Azad Ahmed preferred RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -9- CWP No.25944 of 2014 which was allowed by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.09.2017. It was held that notification issued under Section 4 qua petitioners has lapsed. The appellant-State preferred SLP which came to be allowed vide order dated 28.07.2022, however, with a direction that provisions of 2013 Act shall be applied for the determination of compensation amount. Land Acquisition Collector has passed award dated 02.12.2025 whereby amount of compensation has been determined. The aforesaid petitioners have preferred reference petition against the aforesaid award. The respondents in present appeals were neither party to CWP No.25944 of 2014 nor CWP No.2649 of 2023. The State counsel, during the course of hearing, attempted to plead that award dated 02.12.2025 is applicable to entire acquired land. In view of impugned award of Authority-Reference Court, award dated 02.12.2025 passed by Land Acquisition Collector can neither be relied upon nor applied to the respondents herein.

#14. There is another aspect of the matter. Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 28.07.2022 passed in SLP (Civil) No.7490 of 2019 filed by State has ordered to apply 2013 Act for the determination of compensation amount. The impugned order has been passed applying provisions of 2013 Act, thus, there is compliance of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

#15. The appellant-State is not disputing either applicability of 2013 Act or sale deeds relied upon by Reference Court. The appellant-State is disputing only quantum of multiplier factor. As per appellant, the multiplier of 1, in terms of notification dated 04.12.2014, was applicable whereas Reference Court has applied multiplier of 1.25 as provided in notification RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -10- dated 23.01.2018. The said notification is not having retrospective effect, thus, has been wrongly applied.

#16. The appellant before the Reference Court pleaded multiplier of 1.25 should be applied instead of 1.50. The landowners were pleading that multiplier of 1.50 should be applied. Reference Court rejected contention of landowners-respondents and held that there is no evidence disclosing that acquired land is located at a distance of more than 10 Kms from the outer boundary of the urban area. The appellant-State before this Court is pleading that multiplier of 1 as per notification dated 04.12.2014 should be applied. Contention of the appellant deserves to be rejected on the sole ground that State before Reference Court did not plead that multiplier of 1 should be applied. The State was pleading that multiplier of 1.25 instead of

1.50 should be applied. The Reference Court has accepted contention of appellant-State, thus, their argument, at this stage that multiplier of 1 should be applied, is misconceived.

#17. The matter needs to be examined from another angle. The appellant is claiming that notification dated 04.12.2014 was required to be applied instead of notification dated 23.01.2018. By notification dated

04.12.2014, sub-rule (5) was inserted in Rule 4 of Haryana Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2014 (for short ‘2014 Rules’). The aforesaid Rules came to be repealed by Rule 35 of Haryana Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2018 (for short ‘2018 Rules’) which reads as: RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -11- “35. Repeal.- The Haryana Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2014 shall stand repealed: Provided that any action taken under the rules so repealed, shall be deemed to have been taken under these rules.” As per proviso to Rule 35, any action taken under the repealed Rules shall be deemed to have been taken under 2018 Rules. The impugned award was passed after introduction of 2018 Rules. No decision qua demised land was taken as per 2014 Rules.

#18. Rule 25(1) of 2018 Rules provides that compensation shall be determined as per provisions laid down under Sections 26 to 30 read with notification issued under Column 3 against Serial No.2 of the First Schedule to the 2013 Act. Rule 25(1) of 2018 Rules reads as: “25. Determination of compensation- (1) The compensation shall be determined as per the provisions laid down under Section 26 to Section 30 read with the notification issued under column 3 against serial number 2 of the First Schedule to the Act.”

#19. Notification under Column 3 of Serial No.2 of First Schedule of 2013 Act was issued on 23.01.2018 whereby multiplier factor was notified. 2014 Rules were framed in exercise of power conferred by Section 109 read with Section 112 of 2013 Act. The said Rules were not framed in exercise of power conferred by Column 3 of Serial No.2 of the First Schedule of 2013 Act. The State Government is empowered to notify multiplier factor by First Schedule of 2013 Act. The State Government has issued notification dated

23.01.2018 under First Schedule of 2013 Act. There is no Rule in 2018 Act which provides for multiplier factor. It shows that Rule 4(5) of 2014 Rules RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -12- could not be relied upon. It is further apt to notice that notification dated

04.12.2014 [Rule 4(5) of 2014 Rules] notified multiplier factor 1 in respect of rural areas irrespective of distance from urban areas. This Rule was patently contrary to Schedule I of 2013 Act. As per First Schedule, multiplier factor of urban areas is 1 and State Government is required to notify multiplier factor for rural areas ranging from 1 to 2 as per distance of project from the urban area. The State Government by notifying multiplier factor 1 for rural areas irrespective of distance from urban area outraged intent of First Schedule of 2013 Act. In this backdrop, notification dated

23.01.2018 was rightly relied upon instead of Rule 4(5) of 2014 Rules.

#20. The appellant has further contended that Reference Court has wrongly applied cut of 30% whereas it should be more, may be 50%. The respondent-landowners are claiming that there is no provision in 2013 Act permitting to apply cut. The Reference Court has wrongly relied upon different judgments of Hon’ble Courts which are dealing with provisions of 1894 Act whereas their case is governed by 2013 Act.

#21. Reference Court has considered at length question of cut. The relevant extracts of impugned award read as:- “93. A perusal of the evidence adduced from the side of respondents shows that Ankit Bhardwaj, SDO Nuh Water Services Sub-Division, Nuh appeared as RW1 on 5.6.2017 & Rajesh Kumar, Sub-Divisional Officer, Nuh Water Services Sub-Division, Nuh appeared as RW2 on 7.3.2022. A threadbare examination of their affidavits would show that apart from a cursory mention in Para No. 2 of their respective affidavits that ".....the land has been acquired for the public purposes namely Kotla Jheel..", there is no mention of any fact as regards the developmental work required for RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -13- construction of reservoir. Instead of proving facts in this regard, towards justifying any deduction as a developmental cut, there is not even a mention of any costs, likely to be incurred. There is no mention of any valuation of civil work, which would be required in respect of the acquired land.

#94. For want of any evidence from the side of respondents justifying any deduction as aforesaid, and in light of the observations made in various judicial pronouncements as noted hereinbefore from para 87 to 92, wherein it is held that no deduction is to be applied for development, in such like cases, where acquisition is made for construction of a reservoir and the land is required for submersion, this authority finds no reason to apply any deduction on the market value, towards developmental charges.

#95. However, considering the small size of the exemplar sale deeds, as mentioned in Table III, for areas of 484,

1058.75 & 181.5, in Sq. Yards, for calculating the market value of 107.125 acres of land, this Authority, in light of the judicial pronouncements discussed above, finds a deduction of 30% to be appropriate in the given circumstances of the case.

#96. Accordingly, in the instant case as well, applying the deduction of 30% on the amount of Rs. 52,00,000/-, the market value for the purposes of Section 26(1), is determined as Rs. 36,40,000/- per acre.”

#22. Reference Court has recorded aforesaid findings while relying upon various judgments of different High Courts as well as judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh (2010) 11 SCC 581; Haryana State Agricultural Market Board v. Krishan Kumar (2011) 15 SCC 297; Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769; Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona 1998 (3) SCC 751; Trishala Jain & another v. State of RFA-366-2025 (O&M) and connected matters -14- Uttaranchal & another (2011) 6 SCC 47; Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board v. K.S. Gangadharappa, (2009) 11 SCC 164. In all the judgments, Supreme Court has held that deduction on account of development charges has to be considered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. The purpose of acquisition is also a relevant factor for applying cut. The Court has permitted deduction for development cost ranging from 20% to 75% of price of small flats.

#23. In the present case, acquisition was for construction of reservoir, thus, no portion of acquired land was required for roads or common facilities. The area of land acquired was 107.1625 acres whereas size of exemplar sale deeds was 484, 1058.75 and 181.5 sq.yds. All the relied upon sale deeds comprised small pieces of land. In view of size of land acquired vis-à-vis size of land comprised in relied upon sale deeds, the Reference Court was justified in imposing cut of 30%. Supreme Court’s aforecited judgments are applicable to present case with full force. There is no illegality in the impugned decision. Cut imposed neither appears to be on the higher nor lower side.

#24. In the wake of above discussion and findings, appeals of State as well as landowners deserve to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. It is hereby made clear that landowners, in view of statutory provision i.e. Section 80 of 2013 Act, shall be entitled to interest. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

02.07.2026 Mohit Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No