Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Surender Singh S/O Ranbir Singh & ... on 26 November, 2025
1
RFA Nos.1950 & 1680 of 1997 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
107
1. RFA No.1950
No.1950 of 1997 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.11.202
26.11.2025
.2025
THE STATE OF HARYANA .....Appellant
.....Appellant
Vs
SURENDER SINGH AND ANR. ...Respondent
...Respondent(
.Respondent(s)
2. RFA No.1680 of 1997 (O&M)
THE STATE OF HARYANA ......Appellant
......Appellant
Vs
SMT. GIRRAJO AND OTHERS ...Respondent
...Respondent(
.Respondent(s)
MANUJA
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ A
Present: Mr. Abhinash Jain, D.A.G., Haryana
for the appellant(s).
appellant
Mr. Adarsh Jain, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur, Advocate
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate and
Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate foror respondent No.2.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)
CM No.2830-CI
CI of 1997 in RFA No.1680 of 1997
There is delay of 130 days in filing the present appeal.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and for the reason
mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 130 days in filing the
present appeal is condoned.
Main Appeal(s)
[1]. Vide this common order, RFA Nos.1680 and 1950 of 1997 (O&M),
(O&M)
are being decided as both the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition
involving identical facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are
being taken from RFA No.1950
No. of 1997.
1 of 3
RFA Nos.1950 & 1680 of 1997 (O&M)
[2]. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the Award
dated 01.08.1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Faridabad (hereinafter
after to be
referred as the 'Reference Court'), whereby Reference Petition filed under Section
28-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for shor
short 'the 1894 Act') at the
instance of the landowners was partly allowed while granting them the benefit of
enhanced market value @ Rs.16/- per square yard qua the acquired land besides
award of statutory benefits/interest
be as provided under the 1894 Act.
[3]. Briefly stating, in the present case(s), some land owned by the
respondents/landowners situated within the revenue estate of village Ajrounda,
Hadbast No.118, Tehsil Ballabhgarh,
Ballabhgarh came to be acquired vide Notification
Notifications dated
07.07.1971 and 04.02.1972 issued under Section
Sections 4 & 6 of the 1894 Act
respectively for the public purpose namely for the planned development in the area
of village Ajrounda,
Ajrounda, followed by an Award passed by the Land Acquisition
Collector (for short 'the LAC')
LAC on 28.03.1972 whereby market value was assessed
@ Rs.210/- per marla for class-I
class I category of land and Rs.160/
Rs.160/- per marla for
II category of land i.e. gair mumkin
class-II mkin rasta and gair mumkin sarak pukhta.
[3]. As a matter of record,
re the respondents
respondents-landowners did not prefer any
Reference under
nder Section 18 of the 1894 Act, however oon
n Reference Petitions
preferred by the other landowners pertaining to same acquisition, the market value
was assessed @ Rs.250/-
Rs.250/ per marla by the learned Reference Court vide its
decision dated 22.08.1995. Later the market value was enhanced to Rs.16/- per
square yard by this Court vide decision dated 17.04.1980 passed in RFA No.1470
of 1978 titled 'DLF United Ltd. Vs. State of Haryan
Haryanaa'. In the meanwhile,, based on
Award dated 22.08.1995 passed by the learned Reference Court pertaining to the
same acquisition, the respondents/landowners moved an application under Section
2 of 3
RFA Nos.1950 & 1680 of 1997 (O&M)
28-A(1)
A(1) of the 1894 Act for re-determination
determination of compensation in the same terms,
however the same was dismissed by the LAC on 02.02.1996.
[4]. Aggrieved thereof, the respondents
respondents-landowners preferred
erred Reference
under Section 28-A(3)
28 A(3) of the 1894 Act which was allowed by the learned
Reference Court vide judgment dated 01.08.1996 granting them the benefit of
similar market value @ Rs.16/-
Rs.16/ per square yard besides awarding all other
statutory benefits/interest in their favour under the 1894 Act. Aggrieved thereof,
both the appeals were preferred at the instance of appellant/State.
[5]. I have learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book
as well as records of the case(s).
[6]. In the humble opinion of this Court, there is no merit in the present
appeals preferred at the instance of the appellant as the respondents/landow
respondents/landowners
ners
have merely been awarded the benefit of similar market value as awarded in favour
of other identically placed landowners related to the same acquisition pr
proceedings;
oceedings;
especially when the Reference Petition dated 08
08.09.1995 preferred at the instance
of respondents/landowners based on Award dated 22.08.1995 passed under Section
18 of the 1894 Act in case of other similarly placed landowners was held
maintainable.
[7]. In view of aforesaid, no interference is called for in the impugned
Award passed by the learned Reference Court. Both the appeals stand dismissed.
[8]. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
November 26,
26, 2025 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
