Savitri etc. Vs State of Haryana

A batch of 2 connected Regula r First Appeals (details whereo f are given on the foot of the judgment) s h all stand disposed of by thi s common orde r , as they involve common que s tion of law and facts. F o r convenience, the facts are being taken from RFA-3528 -

¶16

¶17

By way of present appeal, chall e nge has been laid to an awar d dated 11.05.1998 passed by the learn e d Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, w hereby the reference petition s filed under Section 18 of th e Land Acquisi t ion Act, 1894 (hereinafter re f erred to as ‘the Act’) by th e appellants-landowners for seeking enhanc e ment of market value of th e acquired land were partly allowed. 2. Briefly stating, land measuring 2.39 acres situated within th e revenue estate of Village Berthla, Tehsil Th a nesar and District Kurukshetr a was acquired for the public purpose namel y , for construction of road fro m

¶18

TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.11.30 07:46 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶19

RFA-3528-1998 and other connected cases

¶20

2

¶21

Yara to Berthla Berhli vide notifications dated 25.08.1987 and 27.07.1988 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award No. 35-K assessing the market value at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre for Chahi and Gair Mumkin Ahta and Rs.6,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land.

¶22

The appellants-landowners, feeling dissatisfied with the said award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act while pleading that the market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.1,80,000/- per acre and compensation for Kikar trees worth Rs.5000/- existing on the acquired land was also not provided to them.

¶23

Upon notice, respondents contested the case by pleading that the Land Acquisition Collector rightly awarded the compensation as the road had been constructed over the kacha path and the construction of the road greatly benefitted the landowners and the residents.

¶24

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Reference Court on 07.08.1997:-

¶25

“1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act? OPP

¶26

Relief.”

¶27

In order to prove their case, petitioners examined Mr. Jai Singh as PW-1, Mr. Arjun Singh as PW-2, Mr. Sultan Singh as PW-3, Mr. Ronki Ram as PW-4. On the other hand, respondents examined Mr. Satyawan Kanungo, office of PWD (B&R) Pipli as RW-1.

¶28

After considering the evidence, the learned Reference Court vide award dated 11.05.1998 partly allowed the petitions filed on behalf of the landowners while granting Rs.40,000/- per acre irrespective of the category of land.

¶29

Aggrieved of the aforesaid award dated 11.05.1998, the present Regular First Appeal(s) (RFAs) were filed by the appellants-landowners.

¶30

TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.11.30 07:46 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶31

RFA-3528-1998 and other connected cases

¶32

3

¶33

Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellant(s)-landowner(s) submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having discarded the sale deed Ex.P-2 dated 01.05.1986 produced on record by the appellant(s)-landowner(s) by which 16 kanals of land was sold for Rs.1,00,000/- and the base price per acre was Rs.50,000/-. He also submits that the land forming part of sale deed Ex.P-2 pertained to the same revenue estate of village Berthla, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra and thus the same was required to be relied upon for the purpose of determination of market value and accordingly, the impugned award was liable to be modified.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-State submits that in the wake of the evidence led by the respondents in the form of sale deeds, the sale price per acre of the area under acquisition was around Rs.30,000-40,000/- and thus, no interference was called for with the well-reasoned award passed by the learned Reference Court which was based on proper appreciation of pleadings and the evidence available on record and the market value was awarded @ Rs.40,000/- per acre by the Land Acquisition Collector was upheld. .

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. 13. A perusal of the record shows that the sale instance Ex.P-2 dated 01.05.1986 measuring 16 kanals of land pertains to the revenue estate of village Berthla, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra and the base price per acre comes to Rs.50,000/-. Considering the fact that the total land under acquisition is around 19 kanals and 2 marlas, the sale instance Ex.P2 dated 01.05.1986 being related to the same revenue estate was required to be taken into account by the learned Reference Court for the purpose of determination of market value of the acquired land. There being a time gap

¶36

of around 16 months between the date of sale deed Ex.P-1 (dated

¶37

TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.11.30 07:46 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶38

RFA-3528-1998 and other connected cases

¶39

4

¶40

05.06.1986) and the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand i.e. 25.08.1987, an appropriate increase of around 20% needs to be granted in favour of appellant(s)-landowner(s) over the base price and the market value for the acquired land, thus, comes to Rs.60,000/- per acre. Considering the fact that the sale deed Ex.P-1 relates to 16 kanals of land and the land under acquisition is around 19 kanals and 2 marlas, no cut is required to be imposed towards smallness of area under sale, Example Ex.P-1. Furthermore, even no cut is required to be applied towards development cost as the purpose of acquisition is road and the respondent-State has not suffered any loss of land or cost towards providing of any additional infrastructural amenities to the acquired land.

¶41

In view of the aforesaid, the present appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

¶42

Besides it, the landowner-appellant shall also be entitled for all the statutory benefits and interest, especially, on solatium, provided under the provisions of the Act.

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

19.11.2025 Tejwinder	(HAR	KESH MANUJA) JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	Yes/No
	RFA No. RFA-4683-1998

¶46

TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.11.30 07:46 I agree to specified portions of this document

Savitri etc. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri etc. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajwant Singh (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Harjeet Singh Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Sushil Kumar Vs the Land Acquisition Collector & Anrs

Paramjit Singh Vs Amarjit Singh and Others

Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kailash Rani Vs State of Punjab