Punja In Th High Court · 2026

upon the sale deed fetching the highest sale price. Learned counsel also points out that the learned Reference Court went wrong having applied deduction of 20% upon the average sale price derived from sale instances Exhibits P-16 to P-19 even without recording any justified reasons in support thereof. She thus submits that the market value of the acquired land was required to be re-assessed by taking into account the sale instances fetching the highest sale price and prays that the appeals preferred at the instance of landowners be allowed. ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT(S)-STATE OF HARYANA [7] On the other hand, learned State Counsel representing the respondents submits that the sale instances Exhibits P-9 to P-11 & P-15 were rightly discarded by the learned Reference Court as they pertained to small parcels of land and were located at a distance of approximately 40 to 100 acres from the acquired land. [7.1] Learned State Counsel further points out that 20% deduction was appropriately applied by the learned Reference Court towards development cost and thus, the appellant(s)-landowner(s) were adequately compensated. DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.23 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:19)(cid:28)(cid:26)(cid:28)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) [7.2] (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) -4- (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) Lastly, learned State Counsel submits that the award passed by the learned Reference Court being based upon proper appreciation of pleadings and the evidence available on record, calls for no interference and the appeal(s) in hand were liable to be dismissed. DISCUSSION AND REASONING [8] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the paper-book / records, I find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant(s)-landowner(s). [9] It is not in dispute that neither any cross-appeal nor cross-objections were filed at the instance of respondent(s)-State of Haryana, assailing the award passed by the learned Reference Court. [10] Learned State Counsel assisted by Sh. Ajay Kumar, SDO, Water Services, Sub Division No. 2, Rewari, who is even present in Court, after having gone through the records has provided a chart containing the details of the sale instances produced by the appellant(s)-landowner(s) alongwith the distance of the land parcels involved therein from the acquired land. For the convenience of this Court, the said details are re-produced hereunder:- Exhibit on Sale Deed No. / Date of execution Area in kanals and marlas Sale consideration (In Rs.) Rate per acre (In Rs.) Revenue estate (village ) Distance acquired 50 acre 10 marla 12,60,000/- 2,01,60,000/- Rewari 07 marla 16,26,640/- 3,71,80,320/- Rewari 40acre 09 marla 19,32,000/- 3,43,46,666/- Rewari 100acre 01 kanal 3,69,000/- 29,52,000/- Rewari 33 acre 02 kanal 7,38,000/- 29,52,000/- Rewari 20 acre 02 kanal 7,38,000/- 29,52,000/- Rewari 20 acre Ex P9 Ex.P10 Ex. P11 Ex.P12 Ex.P13 Ex.P14 4314/ 10.10.2008 8977/ 24.03.2008 2688/ 28.07.2008 409/ 24.04.2008 868/ 14.05.2008 1040/ 21.05.2008 DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.23 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:19)(cid:28)(cid:26)(cid:28)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) 01 kanal 15,47,500/- (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) 1,23,80,000/- -5- (cid:4) (cid:4) Rewari 50 acre 16 K-15M 62,81,250/- 29,12,260/- Budana 02 acre 06 K-13 M 24,93,750/- 30,00,000/- Budana 17 acre 10K-19M 41,06,250/- 30,00,000/- Budana 17 acre 05K-13M 26,00,000/- 36,80,000/- Budana 14 acre Ex.P15 Ex.P16 Ex.P17 Ex.P18 Ex.P19 1717 16.06.2008 4092/ 01.10.2008 4090/ 01.10.2008 4091/ 01.10.2008 4826/ 03.11.2008 (cid:1) [10.1] (cid:1) A copy of the above chart provided by the learned State Counsel has also been handed over to the learned counsel representing the appellant(s)-landowner(s), who has not controverted the same. [10.2] A perusal of the above chart shows that the land parcels involved in the sale instances Exhibits P-9 to P-11 and P-15 were located at a distance of approximately 40 to 100 acres from the acquired land, besides even relating to small parcels of land. As such, the land parcels involved in the above-mentioned sale instances cannot be relied upon as they are not of similar nature and potential vis-a-vis the acquired land. Further, the sale instances Exhibits P-12 to P-14 and P-16 to P-19 are located in close vicinity of the acquired land; thus need to be considered while assessing the market value in the present case(s). The details of the sale instances Exhibits P-12 to P-14 and P-16 to P-19 are recapitulated hereunder:- Exhibit on sale deeds Sale Deed No. / Date of execution Area in kanals and marlas Sale consideration. (In Rs.) Rate per acre (In Rs.) Revenue estate (village ) Distance acquired 33 acre 01 kanal 3,69,000/- 29,52,000/- Rewari 02 kanal 7,38,000/- 29,52,000/- Rewari 20 acre 02 kanal 7,38,000/- 29,52,000/- Rewari 20 acre 16 K-15M 62,81,250/- 29,12,260/- Budana 02 acre Ex.P12 Ex.P13 Ex.P14 Ex.P16 409/ 24.04.2008 868/ 14.05.2008 1040/ 21.05.2008 4092/ 01.10.2008 DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.23 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:19)(cid:28)(cid:26)(cid:28)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) 06 K-13 M 24,93,750/- (cid:4) (cid:4) -6- (cid:4) 30,00,000/- (cid:4) Budana 17 acre 10K-19M 41,06,250/- 30,00,000/- Budana 17 acre 05K-13M 26,00,000/- 36,80,000/- Budana 14 acre Ex.P17 Ex.P18 Ex.P19 4090/ 01.10.2008 4091/ 01.10.2008 4826/ 03.11.2008 [10.3](cid:1)(cid:1) A perusal of the above sale instances Exhibits P-12 to P- 14 and P-16 to P-19 shows that the sale consideration reflected in these sale deeds is closely range-bound between Rs.29,52,000/- per acre to Rs. 36,80,000/- per acre. [11] Further, it also transpires from the record and as apprised by Sh. Ajay Kumar, SDO, who is present in Court that the land under acquisition starting from Village Rewari to Village Budani falls within the close geographical proximity of abadi of Villages. Also, it does not appear that there exists significant difference in the geographical location or topography of the land in both the Villages as these revenue estates are contiguous and abutting to each other. The sale deeds presented before this Court relate to Village Rewari and Budana and considering the uniformity in location and potential of land parcels falling in both the estates, the sale instances Exhibits P- 12 to P-14 and P-16 to P-19 need to be taken into account for the purpose of determination of market value in the present case(s). [12] Keeping in view the discussion made hereinabove and the fact that it is time and again emphasized by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the objective of the 1894 Act is to grant just and fair compensation to the landowners and to determine such definitive value, some guesstimation work has to be done by the Court, since the value of sale consideration reflected in sale instances Exhibits P- 12 to P-14 and P-16 to P-19 are closely range-bound between DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.23 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:19)(cid:28)(cid:26)(cid:28)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) Rs.29,52,000/- per acre to Rs. 36,80,000/- per acre, this Court is of (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -7- the opinion that taking average of the seven sale instances would be the most appropriate way to determine the market price in the case(s) in hand. The aforesaid view is also derived from decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Phoolvati Dharambir Agarwal” reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2162, whereby it was held that the Courts can deviate from the general principle of taking the highest sale instance by taking average of the sale deed(s) and the same would depend upon the facts of the case. The relevant portions of paragraphs 17 and 20 are extracted hereinbelow:- “17. We may also hasten to add that though the general practice is of considering the highest sale Exemplar, but, many a time, Courts take an average of relevant sale instances to arrive at the nearest possible market value of the acquired land. Averaging of sale instances, as per judicial precedents, is not wholly impermissible….. …….True it is that where multiple exemplars are relied upon, and such exemplars relate to adjoining or nearby areas having similar potentiality, the highest bona fide exemplar ought to be the benchmark for estimation of the fair and just value. It is equally true that the Courts do not possess a magic wand to determine the exact and the definitive value of the land and in the process of guess work, the Court would rely upon every possible material brought on record by the parties. Applying the principle of guesstimate for fixation of fair and just market value of the acquired land, we thus deem it appropriate to rely upon (i) the sale instance(s) of highest consideration with appropriate deduction; (ii) the valuation report (Exhibit "C35") which stipulates the fair market value of the land @ Rs.2,50,000/- per ground; and (iii) the average of all the examplars relied upon by the respondent-claimants. Hence, we are of the firm opinion that the fair and just market value of the acquired land at the relevant time was about DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.23 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:19)(cid:28)(cid:26)(cid:28)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -8- Rs.2,50,000/- per ground. Having held so, we set aside the deductions of 15% towards largeness of the area or 10% as development charges as made by the High Court…..” [13] Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa” reported as (2010) 13 SCC 710 and in the latest decision of “Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs and others vs. State of Haryana” reported as 2024(4) RCR(Civil) 758, has held that where there are several sale instances of similar nature of land with prices ranging in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken as representing the market price. The relevant extract of Horrmal’s case (supra) is extracted hereunder:- “28. This view has been reiterated in Sh. Himmat Singh v. State of M.P., (2013) 16 SCC 392 where a three-judge bench of this Court consolidated various precedents to affirm that in circumstances where there are multiple sale deeds available for consideration, the Court shall rely on the highest valued exemplars unless the prices fall within a narrow range, in which case calculating an average of the values therein may be more congruous.” [14] Accordingly, for award of just and fair compensation to the landowners and taking into account the peculiar circumstances of the case(s) in hand, this Court deems it fit to take average of multiple sale deeds produced on record before this Court for determining the market value in the present case(s). However, considering the location and potential attached to the acquired land, appreciation of 12% needs to be applied for the time gap between the date of sale exemplar and the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case in hand. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the appreciation is being awarded only qua the sale deeds wherein the DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.23 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:19)(cid:28)(cid:26)(cid:28)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) time period between the date of sale deed and the date of notification (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -9- is more than six months in case(s) in hand, i.e. Exhibits P-12 to P-14. Applying the same, the average value comes to Rs. 31,85,629.00 per acre as per calculation made hereunder:- Exhibit / Date of Execution of sale deed (1) P-12/ 24.04.2008 P-13/ 14.05.2008 P-14/ 21.05.2008 P-16/ 01.10.2008 P-17/ 01.10.2008 P-18/ 01.10.2008 P-19/ 03.11.2008 Rate Per Acre (Rs.) (2) Section 4 Notification Date (3) Time Period Between Execution & Notification (4) Interest Rate (5) Interest Amount (Rs.) (6) Amount after appreciation (2+6) (Rs.) (7) 29,52,000/-

26.02.2009 29,52,000/-

26.02.2009 29,52,000/-

26.02.2009 29,12,260/-

26.02.2009 30,00,000/-

26.02.2009 30,00,000/-

26.02.2009 36,80,000/-

26.02.2009 0 Years 10 Months 2 Days 0 Years 9 Months 12 Days 0 Years 9 Months 5 Days 0 Years 4 Months 25 Days 0 Years 4 Months 25 Days 0 Years 4 Months 25 Days 0 Years 3 Months 23 Days Total Average of sale deeds Rs. 2,22,99,406 ÷ 7 Net amount 12% 2,98,920/- 32,50,920.00 12% 2,79,510/- 32,31,510.00 12% 2,72,716/- 32,24,716.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 29,12,260.00 30,00,000.00 30,00,000.00 36,80,000.00 2,22,99,406.00 31,85,629.42 31,85,629.00 (Round Off) [15] Insofar as the smallness of the land parcels forming part of the seven sale exemplars measuring 1 kanal, 2 kanals, 2 kanals, 16 kanals - 5 marlas, 6 kanals – 13 marlas, 10 kanals – 19 marlas, 5 kanals – 13 marlas respectively (total measuring 44 kanals–10 marlas), vis-a-vis the acquired land measuring 16.874 acres, is concerned, this Court having adopted the average of aforementioned sale instances for determining the market value in the case(s) in hand, is not inclined to apply any such deduction. Had the determination been based solely on the sale exemplar fetching the highest sale consideration, an appropriate deduction on account of the comparatively small size of the land parcel involved therein may have been warranted; however, that is not the position in the present DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.23 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:19)(cid:28)(cid:26)(cid:28)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) matter(s), thus, no deduction is made towards smallness of area (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -10- herein.(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) [16] Furthermore, in the given facts and circumstances, no deduction towards the development cost needs to be applied as the acquisition proceedings were carried out for the public purpose of construction of Bhagwanpur Budana Distributory from Km. 0.000 to

4.560 and the respondent(s)-State neither suffered any loss of land nor did it incur any cost towards providing of additional infrastructural amenities. [17] Accordingly, the market price for the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case(s) in hand comes to Rs. 31,85,629.00 per acre, as per average of seven sale deeds Exhibits P-12 to P-14 & P-16 to P-19. DECISION [18] In view of the aforesaid discussion, impugned award dated 28.08.2014 passed by the learned Reference Court is modified and the appellant(s)-landowner(s) are held entitled for award of market value at the rate of Rs. 31,85,629.00 per acre. The appellant(s)-landowner(s) are also awarded consequential / statutory benefits and interest as provided in the 1894 Act (as amended up-to- date), especially the interest on solatium as well. [19] Also, wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately died in the appeal(s) / cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal representatives have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.23 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:19)(cid:28)(cid:26)(cid:28)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) [20] (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) -11- (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) Before parting with this order, this Court places on record the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Abhinash Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Ajay Kumar, SDO, Water Services, Sub Division No. 2, Rewari for providing complete assistance to this Court. [21] All the appeals are disposed off accordingly. [22] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off. (cid:1) March 12, 2026 ‘dk kamra’ (cid:1) ( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:1) (cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:1) (cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:1) (cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:1) (cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:1) DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.23 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document