Chet Ram etc. Vs St.of Haryana — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Chet Ram etc. Vs St.of Haryana — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeals allowed: market value enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,80,000/- per acre (50% cut on the Rs.3,60,000/- per acre value disclosed in sale deed Ex.P-3 dated 24.01.1994), with statutory benefits including interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the market value of the acquired land should be determined with reference to sale deed Ex.P-3 dated 24.01.1994 (disclosing Rs.3,60,000/- per acre), which the Reference Court rejected as relating to a small portion of land, and what cut, if any, should be applied to it.

Court's answer

Considering the size of the land covered by Ex.P-3 and any construction thereon, a cut could be imposed, but the sale deed evidence could not be ignored in totality.

Ratio / Principle

Keeping in mind the Supreme Court judgments in Lal Chand, Chimanlal Hargovinddas and Trishala Jain, a cut of 50% is imposed on the value of Rs.3,60,000/- per acre disclosed in sale deed Ex.P-3 dated 24.01.1994, fixing the market price of the land at Rs.1,80,000/- per acre.

Key takeaways

The evidence led by the State cannot be relied upon where a genuine sale deed disclosing a higher value is available; there is no dispute about the genuineness of sale deed Ex.P-3.ratio¶20
The market value assessed by the Collector is enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,80,000/- per acre.ratio¶21
The appellants shall be entitled to statutory benefits including interest as provided under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Regular First Appeals against award dated 19.07.2001 of Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (Reference Court) declining claimed compensation for land in Village Bhirdana, Tehsil & District Fatehabad – Sale deed Ex.P-3 dated 24.01.1994 (same village) disclosed Rs.3,60,000/- per acre; Reference Court rejected it as relating to a small portion of land with construction – Held, though a cut was permissible on account of the small size and construction, the exemplar could not be ignored in totality; guided by Supreme Court decisions in Lal Chand v. Union of India, Chimanlal Hargovinddas and Trishala Jain, a cut of 50% imposed – Market value enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,80,000/- per acre, with statutory benefits including interest under Section 28, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – State evidence discarded in face of genuine higher-value sale deed – Appeals allowed.

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *****

211

RFA-1974-2002 (O&M) Date of decision: July 14, 2026

Chet Ram and Others

...... Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana and Another

......Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :- M r. Radhe Shyam Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. M r. Abhinash Jain, Addl. Advoc a te General, Haryana.

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

T he appellants through ins t ant appeals are seeking modification of award dated 19.07.2001 w hereby learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (hereinafter called as ‘Reference Court’) has not awarded clai m ed amount of compensation.

T he State Government issued n otification dated 27.02.1998 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) to acquire 4.79 acres land situated within th e revenue estate of Village Bhirdana Te h sil & District Fatehabad with i ntent to construct Ayalki to ShekhupurSo t tar Road. The said notification was followed by notification dated 11.06.1 9 98 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act. Land Acquisition Collector (fo r short ‘Collector’) passed an a ward qua acquired property which was f u rther referred to learned Distri c t Judge under section 18 of 1894 Act.

ARCHANA ARORA 2026.07.15 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

L earned counsel for the appellants submits that Reference Court has m iserably failed to appreciate sale deed Ex. P-3 dated 24.01.1994. A s per said sale deed, value o f land was Rs.3,60,000/- per acre. Refer e nce Court could impose cut, however could not ignore aforesaid sale deed especially when it related t o same village.

P er contra , learned State counsel submits that sale deed (Ex.P3) related to a small portion of land and th e re was construction over the said land. 5. H eard the arguments and peruse d the record. 6. O n perusal of record, it is e v ident that sale deed dated 24.01.1994 ( E x.P-3) with respect to Village Bhirdana was available, however, Re f erence Court rejected said ev i dence on the ground that it related to a s m all portion of land. The ap p ellant’s land acquired was 5 Kanal 15 Mar l as and total land acquired was 4 .79 acres.

C onsidering the size of land o f Ex.P-3 and construction, if any, cut coul d be imposed, however said evi d ence could not be ignored in totality. This Court keeping in mind judgme n ts of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769; ChimanlalHargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona 1998 (3) SCC 751; Trishala Jain & another v. State of Uttaranchal & another (2011) 6 SCC 47 finds it appropriate to impose cut of 50% qua the value disclosed in sale deed dated 24.0 1 .1994 (Ex.P-3). The value disclosed in s a le deed dated 24.01.1994 (Ex. P -3) is Rs.3,60,000/- per acre. After imposing a cut of 50%, the market pric e of land in question comes to Rs.1,80,000/-. The evidence led by State can n ot be relied upon when sale

ARCHANA ARORA 2026.07.15 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

deed disclosi n g higher value, coupled with t h e fact that there is no dispute about genuineness of sale deed Ex.P-3, is ava i lable.

T he market value assessed by Collector is enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/to Rs.1,80,000/- per acre. The appellant shall be entitled to statutory ben e fits including interest as provi d ed under Section 28 of Land Acquisition A ct, 1894.

A llowed in above terms.

P ending Misc. application(s), if a ny, shall stand disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

July 14, 2026 archana

Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

ARCHANA ARORA 2026.07.15 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document