Nirmal Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Present: Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocat e Mr. Lekh Raj Nandal, Adv o cate Mr.Arvinder Arora, Advoc a te and Mr. Govind Arora, Advocate for the landowners.

¶11

Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, H aryana.

¶12

-.-

¶13

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Vide this common order , a bunch of 14 Regular First Appeals and two XOBJRs, details of which are given in the footnote of this ju d gment, are being decided a s all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and questio n of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.1582

¶15

-2000 .

¶16

By way of filing the prese n t appeal(s) challenge has b e en

¶17

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

RFA-1582-2000 (O&M) & other connected cases [2]

¶19

laid to the decision dated 30.09.1999 passed by the lear n ed Addition a l District Judge, Amabla (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Referen c e Court’).

¶20

Briefly stating, notificatio n under Section 4 of the L a nd Acquisiti o n Act, 1894, for short ‘the A ct’, relating to acquisition f r om three re v enue estate of Villages Hus s aini, Rampur and Jangu Ma j ra, Tehsil N araingarh, District Ambal a was issued on 24.06.1 9 86 (publish e d on 08.07.1986) of the Act, followed by notifica t ion 11.02.1 9 87 (published on 16.02.1987) issued under Section 6 the r eof for the p ublic purpose, namely, ‘ fo r construction of Naraingarh to Village M ajri Road’ . Award under Se c tion 11 was passed by the L a nd Acquisiti o n Collector, for short ‘LA C ’ on 31.07.1987, whereby the market v alue for the three different r e venue estates was determi n ed to the following effect:-

¶21

“ VILLAGE HUSSAINI

¶22

*Sr. No.*	*Nature of Land*	*Market value (per acre)*
1.	Chahi Land	Rs.27680/-
2.	Barani and Lal hira	Rs.18400/-
	Darakhtan Land
3.	Gair Mumkin lan d	Rs.4640/-

¶23

*VILLAGE*	*RAMPUR*
*Sr. No.*	*Nature of Land*	*Market value (per acre)*
1.	Chahi Land	Rs.35040/-
2.	Barani Land	Rs.23360/-

¶24

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

RFA-1582-2000 (O&M) & other connected cases [3]

¶26

3. Gair	Mumkin	lan d	Rs.5760/-

¶27

VILLAGE JANGU MAJRA

¶28

*Sr. No.*	*Nature of Land*	*Market value (per acre)*
1.	Chahi Land	Rs.28000/-
2.	Gair Mumkin Lan d	Rs.4640/-

¶29

Aggrieved thereof, the appellants/ landowners filed objectio n s under Section 18 of the A ct which were decided by t he learned Reference Court vide awa r d dated 31.03.1987, with the following determination at a uniform r a te:-

¶30

“ VILLAGE HUSSAINI

¶31

Rs.375/- per marla (Rs.60,000/- per acre) VILLAGE RAMPUR

¶32

Rs.2000/- per marla ( R s.3,20,000/- per acre)

¶33

VILLAGE JANGU MAJRA

¶34

Rs.2000/- per marla ( R s.3,20,000/- per acre)”

¶35

Still aggrieved, the prese n t appeals have been filed at the

¶36

instance of appellants/ landowners as well as respondent State.

¶37

Impugning the aforementi o ned award, learned counsel for the app e llants/ landowners submits t h at the learned Reference C o urt went wr o ng having discarded the a w ard dated 01.04.1994 (Ex. P 4) passed by the learned Reference Court in an earlier acquisi t ion proceeding which commenced vide notification dated 29.06.1 9 86 pertaining to the land forming part o f the revenue estate of Vill a ge Naraing a rh, wherein the purpose of a cquisition was the same i.e. for

¶38

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

RFA-1582-2000 (O&M) & other connected cases [4]

¶40

construc t ion of ‘ Link Road Naraingar h to Ujra Majra Road (comm o nly known a s ‘ Naraingarh to Village Majri Road ’). Learned counsel for the appellan t s/ landowners further submi t s that in the cases pertainin g to the landowners from the revenue e state of Villages Rampur a nd Jangu M ajra, they were granted ma r ket value @ Rs.3.20 lakhs p er acre while relying upon the award d a ted 01.04.1994 (Ex.P4) al o ng with all other statutory benefits un d er the Act and therefore, w ith respect to the market value rega r ding acquired land of Vill a ge Hussaini which was rather abutting N a raingarh, the same benefit w as required to be accorded.

¶41

Further, no argument w as advanced concerning the assess m ent of market value for the acquired land pertaining to the other t w o revenue estates of Villa g e Rampur and Jangu Ma j ra, expect f o r praying that the same we r e not required to be reduce d in the app e als preferred at the instance o f respondent-State. 7. On the other hand, learn e d counsel appearing on be h alf of the re s pondent State submits that once the sale instances Exs . P1 to P3 pertaining to the revenue e s tate of Village Hussaini w e re availabl e on record, the Reference Court award dated 01.04.1 9 94 (Ex.P4) pertaining to the revenue e s tate of Village Naraingarh w as liable to be ignored. He also points out that the learned Refere n ce Court er r ed having awarded market v alue @ Rs.3.20 lakhs per acre in favou r of the landowners for the o f two revenue estates of Vill a ge

¶42

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

RFA-1582-2000 (O&M) & other connected cases [5]

¶44

Rampur and Jangu Majra while relying upon the previous aw a rd dated 01.04.1994 (Ex.P4), especially when no material was available on reco r d to establish the geographical proximity of the reve n ue estate o f Village Naraingarh viz-a-v i z Villages Rampur and Ja n gu Majra. L earned State counsel thus submits that the market value with res p ect to the revenue estate o f Villages Rampur and Ja n gu Majra were required to be re-asse s sed on the basis of material availabl e on record while ignorin g the previous award dated 01.04.1 9 94 (Ex.P4) and the same w as thus liable to be redu c ed accordin g ly.

¶45

I have heard learned co u nsel for the parties and g o ne through t he paper-book. I find substa n ce in the submissions made on behalf o f the appellants/ landowners.

¶46

DETERMINATION W.R.T. VILLAGE HUSSAINI

¶47

From perusal of the recor d in the appeal(s), related to the revenue estate of Village Hussaini, it is evident that the reve n ue estate o f Village Hussaini abuts and adjoins Village Naraingarh. T he learned R eference Court has record e d a positive finding that the B us Stand, N araingarh is at a distance of merely ½ killa from the acquired land of V illage Hussaini. It has also been recorded that the lan d of Village H ussaini has great potenti a l value. The findings to the aforesai d been recorded in paragraph 13 of the Reference C o urt award b e ing relevant, are extracted h e reunder:-

¶48

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

RFA-1582-2000 (O&M) & other connected cases [6]

¶50

“13. From the evi d ence referred /and mention e d above and fro m these two notifications this f a ct becomes appa r ent on file that village Naraing a rh adjoins with vill a ge Hussaini and the village M a jri is also not at a more distance from Hussai n i. There is lot of d ifference in the rates of the la n d acquired vide t hese two different notificatio n s. The developm e nt of Naraingarh definitely ha s a prospective ef f ect on the development of t h e adjoining villa g e. Village Hussaini is j u st adjoining to Naraingarh. The Bus sta n d Naraingarh is a t a distance of half Killa fr o m acquired land of village Hussaini, and ot h er offices situate d in Naraingarh Town are al s o adjoining. So t h e Land of Hussaini has a gr e at potentiality abo u t the prices comparatively giv e n by the land ac q uisition Collector which are mu c h on the lower s ide. So taking into account t h e future potential i ty of village Hussaini which is a proximity of N a raingarh town, it is a fit case f or enhancing the marketing value of the acquir e d land. The pric e s given for the acquired land of village Hussain i are a through away prices bei n g on very lower s i de.”

¶51

The aforesaid findings r e corded in the reference C o urt award r e lating to the revenue estat e of Village Hussaini, have not been challenged by the respondent-State either by way of filing cross-appeals or any cross-objec t ions. The same thus being conclusi v e and final are binding. 10. Furthermore, a perusal o f the previous award passed by

¶52

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶53

RFA-1582-2000 (O&M) & other connected cases [7]

¶54

the lear n ed Reference Court dated 0 1.04.1994 (Ex.P4) shows that the acq u isition in the said case wa s for the same public purp o se, namely, for construction of link Road from Naraingarh to Uraj Ma j ra, as has b een admitted by the learne d State counsel on instructi o ns from Mr. Virender Singh, SDE, PWD (B&R), Naraingarh. The rec o rd further s hows that the acquisition in the case(s) in hand w h ich commenced vide notification dated 08.07.1986 pertaining to the revenue estates of Village Hussaini, Rampur and Jangu Majra, w as also for the same public purpose, namely, for constructions of Naraing a rh to Village Majri Road an d thus in fact was in contin u ity, with th e acquisition initiated vide notification dated 29.06.1 9 86 relating t o the award dated 01.04.199 4 (Ex.P4).

¶55

Rather, during the course of arguments, it has also b e en admitted by learned State counsel, on instructions from Mr. Viren d er Singh, S DE, PWD (B&R), Naraing a rh that the acquisition in the present c ase was in fact for widening of already existing consolida t ion path wh i ch further adds to the pot e ntial of the acquired land, the same being located on the already existing path. 11. Thus, once it was establ i shed on record that the pu b lic purpose for acquisition of the land under two notifications dated 29.06.1 9 86 and 08.07.1986 was sa m e i.e. for construction of L ink Road le a ding from Naraingarh to U j ra Majra (commonly known as ‘ Naraing a rh-Majra road ’) and the fac t that the acquired land forming

¶56

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶57

RFA-1582-2000 (O&M) & other connected cases [8]

¶58

part of r evenue estate of Village H u ssaini was just half acre a w ay from the Bus Stand of Naraingarh, b esides being located near the other pu b lic offices of Naraingarh, it w as wholly unjustified on the p art of learned Reference Court to h a ve ignored the award dated 01.04.1 9 94 (Ex.P4) pertaining to the land acquired from the reve n ue estate o f Village Hussaini especiall y when it was established that both the parcels of acquired land wer e even located geographicall y in continuit y , just abutting each other an d horizontally in one line. 12. Taking into account the aforementioned circumstan c es, rather than relying upon the sale ins t ances Ex.P1 to Ex.P3, in s u ch special a nd exceptional circumstanc e s, wherein the two land par c els were abutting and adjoining, rathe r than relying upon three s ale deeds, i.e. Exs.P1 to P3, it was s a fe to place reliance upon the determi n ation made by the learned R eference Court on its previ o us award d a ted 01.04.1994 (Ex.P4) so as to make assessment of just and fair c ompensation in favour of th e appellants/landowners. 13. It has also come on r ecord that the award of t he Referen c e Court dated 01.04.1994 ( E x.P4) was further modified by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide its decision dated 13.11.2009, passed in RFA No.2970-1994 and ot h er connected appeals, titled as Subhash Chand and another Vs. State of Haryana , and the ma r ket value w a s further enhanced to Rs.23 0 0/- per marla. 14. Accordingly, relying up o n the same, the appella n ts/

¶59

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

RFA-1582-2000 (O&M) & other connected cases [9]

¶61

landown e rs pertaining to the revenu e estate of Village Hussaini a re held ent i tled for the award of similar market value @ Rs.2300/- p er marla b esides award of other s t atutory benefits and inte r est especially interest on solatium.

¶62

DETERMINATION W.E.T. VILLAGES RAMPUR AND JANGU MAJRA

¶63

The present appeal(s) h ave been preferred by both appellan t s/ landowners as well as res p ondent-State. 16. From the discussion mad e in the preceding paragraph s , it has be e n established that previou s acquisition relating to aw a rd dated 01.04.1994 (Ex.P4) pertained t o the revenue estate of Vill a ge Naraing a rh, which commenced vid e notification dated 29.06.1 9 86 under S e ction 4 of the Act and the p r esent acquisition relating to the three re v enue estates of Village Hussaini, Rampur, Jangu M a jra initiated v ide notification dated 08.07. 1 986 under Section 4 of the A ct, happen e d to be for the same public p u rpose, namely, for construc t ion of link r o ad from Naraingarh to (Uj r a Majra (commonly known as ‘ Naraing a rh-Majra road ’) in continui t y; leading from Naraingarh to Ujra Majra and the revenue estates on the said road were abut t ing and adj o ining leading from Naraingar h to Hussaini, then Rampur a nd Jangu Majra.

¶64

Further, as per the res p ondents themselves the t o tal stretch o f this road leading from Naraingarh to Jangu Majra has b e en

¶65

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶66

RFA-1582-2000 (O&M) & other connected cases [10]

¶67

of 4 km s . Admittedly, the revenue e s tates of Village Naraingarh a nd Hussaini are abutting and adjoining t h ereafter, the revenue estate s of Village H ussaini abuts Rampur and t hen comes Jangu Majra w h ich in-turn a b uts Rampur. 17. Having recorded that the revenue estate of landowners pertaining to the revenue estate of V illage Hussaini are entitled for the sam e market value i.e. @ Rs.2300/- per marla, keeping in v i ew the fact t hat the revenue estates of Villages Rampur and Jangu M a jra are loca t ed relatively farther from Na r aingarh, a suitable deductio n of 12% ne e ds to be applied upon the market value assessed for the revenue estate of Village Hussaini and the figure thus comes to Rs.2300 / - per marla – (minus) 12% = Rs.2024/- per marla. The same thus ro u nded off to Rs.2000/- p e r marla with base price of Rs.3,20, 0 00/- per acre, as alrea d y assessed by the lear n ed Referen c e Court for the revenue e s tates of Villages Rampur a nd Jangu M ajra besides all other statu t ory benefits as provided un d er the Act. Thus, the award passed by the learned Reference Court, in relation t o the revenue estate of Vill a ges Rampur and Jangu M a jra warrants no interference. 18. In view of the above, th e appeals as well as XOBJRs filed by the appellants/ landowners from the revenue estate of Village H ussaini are partly allowed , w hereas the appeals filed at t he instance of respondent State are h e reby dismissed . However, w ith

¶68

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶69

RFA-1582-2000 (O&M) & other connected cases [11]

¶70

respect to the landowners from th e revenue estates of Villa g es Rampur and Jangu Majra, the appeals and the cross-objection s , if any, by both the parties are dismi s sed. The landowners shall be entitled f or all other statutory benefits and interest, including the interest o n solatium as well.

¶71

Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/h a ve unfortun a tely expired in the appeal( s )/ cross-objection(s) after filing thereof a nd the legal heirs have not b een impleaded, they shall b e at liberty t o seek execution of the present decision by mo v ing appropri a te application(s) before the l e arned Executing Court. 20. Pending misc. applicati o n(s), if any, shall also st a nd dispose d of.

¶72

20.02.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sanjay JUDGE

¶73

Whether speaking/reason e d? Yes/No Whether Reportable? Yes/No

¶74

S r. No.	Case No.
1 .	RFA-409-2001 (O &M)
2 .	RFA-410-2001 (O &M)
3 .	RFA-5599-2009 ( O&M)
4 .	RFA-5600-2009 ( O&M)
5 .	RFA-5601-2009 ( OBJR-89-CI-2010 O&M) &
6 .	RFA-5602-2009 ( O&M)
7 .	RFA-5603-2009 ( OBJR-90-CI-2010 O&M) &
8 .	RFA-672-2011 (O &M)
9 .	RFA-2714-2011 ( O&M)
1 0.	RFA-2715-2011 ( O&M)

¶75

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶76

RFA-1582-2000 (O&M) & other connected cases [12]

¶77

1 1.	RFA-1583-2000 ( O&M)
1 2.	RFA-1584-2000 ( O&M)
1 3.	RFA-1585-2000 ( O&M)

¶78

20.02.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sanjay JUDGE

¶79

SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.24 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Nirmal Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Singh & Ors. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheila Emile Vs Pradeep Parshad

Gurdaspur Improvement Trust Vs Hardial Singh Since Deceased Thr Lrs and Others

Pradeep Prasad Vs Sheila Emile and Anr.

Babu Ram Vs Hy.State

Gurdial Singh Vs Hy.State

Kirpa Ram Vs Hy.State