RFA-2917

128 (95 cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Deputy Chief Engineer and anr.

Zulfi Ram and another

CORAM:

Present:

2917-2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR

cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

*****

Date of Decision:

RFA No.

Deputy Chief Engineer and anr.

Versus

Zulfi Ram and another

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate

for the appellants (Deputy Chief Engineer)

Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate and

Mr. Ajay S. Dhiman, Advocate

for the appellants-State.

Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate and

Mr.Nitish Kaushal, Advocate

Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate and

Mr. Vikram Rathore, Advocate

Mr.Sumit Rana, Advocate

for the landowners.

Mr. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate

for the respondents

(RFAs-748,757,4724 & 4726

Mr. Rajesh Tushar, Advocate,

Mr. Gaurav Jagota, Advocate

Mr. Rajeshwar Sharma, Advocate

for X-objectors.

Mr. Inderpal Singh, Advocate for

Mr. B.S. Randhawa, Advocate

for respondent No.3.

---

2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR-54/2024 [

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 14.10.2025

RFA No. 2917 of 2017 (O&M)

…….Appellants

Versus

..….Respondents

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate

for the appellants (Deputy Chief Engineer)

Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate and

Mr. Ajay S. Dhiman, Advocate

Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate and

Kaushal, Advocate

Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate and

Mr. Vikram Rathore, Advocate

Mr. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate

748,757,4724 & 4726-2018).

Mr. Rajesh Tushar, Advocate,

Mr. Gaurav Jagota, Advocate

Mr. Rajeshwar Sharma, Advocate

Mr. Inderpal Singh, Advocate for

Mr. B.S. Randhawa, Advocate

[1]

RFA-2917

HARKESH

Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment,

are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of same

acquisition/Award involving similar facts and question of law. For the

sake of brevity, facts are being taken from

2.

instance of

challenge has been laid to the decision dated 14.03.2017 passed by

the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar

Court, hereinafter referred to as “Reference Court” for setting aside/

modification of the same.

3.

situated within revenue estates of 09 v

sought to be acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notification

dated 18.08.2009 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894, for short ‘the Act’, for public purpose i.e. for construction of new

B.G. Railway

vide notification dated 25.05.2010 issued under Section 6 of the Act,

land measuring 62 acres 07 marlas situated within the revenue

estates of 05 villages, namely, Bhanupali, Nangli, Jandla, Daruli an

Bhallowal, Tehsil Nangal, District Ropar was acquired. The Land

2917-2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

Vide this common order, a bunch of 95 Regular First

Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment,

are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of same

acquisition/Award involving similar facts and question of law. For the

ke of brevity, facts are being taken from

By way of filing the present appeal(s) preferred at the

instance of appellants-state as well as respondents

challenge has been laid to the decision dated 14.03.2017 passed by

he learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar

Court, hereinafter referred to as “Reference Court” for setting aside/

modification of the same.

Briefly stating, 141 acres 04 kanals 07 marlas of land

situated within revenue estates of 09 v

sought to be acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notification

dated 18.08.2009 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894, for short ‘the Act’, for public purpose i.e. for construction of new

B.G. Railway Line from Village Bhanupali to Bilaspur

vide notification dated 25.05.2010 issued under Section 6 of the Act,

land measuring 62 acres 07 marlas situated within the revenue

estates of 05 villages, namely, Bhanupali, Nangli, Jandla, Daruli an

Bhallowal, Tehsil Nangal, District Ropar was acquired. The Land

2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR-54/2024 [

Vide this common order, a bunch of 95 Regular First

Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment,

are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of same

acquisition/Award involving similar facts and question of law. For the

ke of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.2917 of 2017.

By way of filing the present appeal(s) preferred at the

as well as respondents-landowners,

challenge has been laid to the decision dated 14.03.2017 passed by

he learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar-cum-Reference

Court, hereinafter referred to as “Reference Court” for setting aside/

Briefly stating, 141 acres 04 kanals 07 marlas of land

situated within revenue estates of 09 villages in District Ropar, was

sought to be acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notification

dated 18.08.2009 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894, for short ‘the Act’, for public purpose i.e. for construction of new

Line from Village Bhanupali to Bilaspur-Beri. However,

vide notification dated 25.05.2010 issued under Section 6 of the Act,

land measuring 62 acres 07 marlas situated within the revenue

estates of 05 villages, namely, Bhanupali, Nangli, Jandla, Daruli an

Bhallowal, Tehsil Nangal, District Ropar was acquired. The Land

[2]

Vide this common order, a bunch of 95 Regular First

Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment,

are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of same

acquisition/Award involving similar facts and question of law. For the

By way of filing the present appeal(s) preferred at the

landowners,

challenge has been laid to the decision dated 14.03.2017 passed by

Reference

Court, hereinafter referred to as “Reference Court” for setting aside/

Briefly stating, 141 acres 04 kanals 07 marlas of land

illages in District Ropar, was

sought to be acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notification

dated 18.08.2009 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894, for short ‘the Act’, for public purpose i.e. for construction of new

However,

vide notification dated 25.05.2010 issued under Section 6 of the Act,

land measuring 62 acres 07 marlas situated within the revenue

estates of 05 villages, namely, Bhanupali, Nangli, Jandla, Daruli and

Bhallowal, Tehsil Nangal, District Ropar was acquired. The Land

RFA-2917

Acquisition Collector, (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated

03.12.2013 assessed the market value in respect of the acquired land

besides granting all other statutory benefits under the Act

following manner:

i)

ii)

iii)

iv)

v)

vi)

vii)

viii)

4.

reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be

disposed of vide decision dated 14.03.2017 by the learned Reference

Court while determining the market value of the acquired la

uniform rate of Rs.77,00,000/

benefits under the Act including 15% of enhanced compensation as

damages towards severance.

5.

Court, the present appeals

appellants as well as landowners.

6.

2917-2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR

Acquisition Collector, (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated

03.12.2013 assessed the market value in respect of the acquired land

besides granting all other statutory benefits under the Act

following manner:-

Pahar : @ Rs.2,00,000/

Chou/ Khala : @ Rs.

Khadkana/Sajar Kadim: @ Rs.3,00,000/

Barani : @ Rs.7,00,000/

Chahi/ Rasta/Sarak/Dher:

Abadi : @ Rs.40,00,000/

vii) Commercial/ Commercial: @ Rs.50,00,000/

(Nahar te Upper)

viii) Commercial (Main Road): @ Rs.70,00,000/

Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the landowners filed

reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be

disposed of vide decision dated 14.03.2017 by the learned Reference

Court while determining the market value of the acquired la

uniform rate of Rs.77,00,000/- per acre besides all other statutory

benefits under the Act including 15% of enhanced compensation as

damages towards severance.

Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference

Court, the present appeals/XOBJR were preferred at the instance of

appellants as well as landowners.

Impugning the aforementioned Award, learned counsel

2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR-54/2024 [

Acquisition Collector, (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated

03.12.2013 assessed the market value in respect of the acquired land

besides granting all other statutory benefits under the Act in the

: @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre

: @ Rs.2,50,000/- per acre

: @ Rs.3,00,000/- per acre;

: @ Rs.7,00,000/- per acre;

Chahi/ Rasta/Sarak/Dher: @ Rs.10,00,000/- per acre;

: @ Rs.40,00,000/- per acre;

Commercial/ Commercial: @ Rs.50,00,000/- per acre;

Commercial (Main Road): @ Rs.70,00,000/- per acre;

Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the landowners filed

reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be

disposed of vide decision dated 14.03.2017 by the learned Reference

Court while determining the market value of the acquired land at the

per acre besides all other statutory

benefits under the Act including 15% of enhanced compensation as

Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference

/XOBJR were preferred at the instance of

Impugning the aforementioned Award, learned counsel

[3]

Acquisition Collector, (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated

03.12.2013 assessed the market value in respect of the acquired land

in the

Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the landowners filed

reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be

disposed of vide decision dated 14.03.2017 by the learned Reference

nd at the

per acre besides all other statutory

benefits under the Act including 15% of enhanced compensation as

Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference

/XOBJR were preferred at the instance of

Impugning the aforementioned Award, learned counsel

RFA-2917

for the appellants submits that the Reference Court went wrong while

awarding the benefit of re

rate in favor of landowners of all the revenue estates in question,

having failed to take into account the nature; potential or even the

location of the land under acquisition. He also contends that the

learned Reference Court committed illeg

present was a case of no sale exemplar. Despite having noticed the

sale exemplars (Ex.R

of the appellants, the same were never dealt with in the Award.

6.1

dated 25.11.2008 (Ex.R

Village Jandla, 36.5 marla of land was sold for Rs.1 lakh, thereby,

making the market value per acre as Rs.4,38,356/

concludes that the award

called for no interference as the landowners were awarded

significantly higher amount

6.2.

benefit of damages @ 15% of the m

has been excessively awarded in favour of the respondents

landowners. He points out that in the absence of there being

evidence

the respondents

2917-2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR

for the appellants submits that the Reference Court went wrong while

awarding the benefit of re-assessment of market value a

rate in favor of landowners of all the revenue estates in question,

having failed to take into account the nature; potential or even the

location of the land under acquisition. He also contends that the

learned Reference Court committed illeg

present was a case of no sale exemplar. Despite having noticed the

sale exemplars (Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4), which were proved from the side

of the appellants, the same were never dealt with in the Award.

Learned counsel further submits that as per sale instance

dated 25.11.2008 (Ex.R-4), which relate

Village Jandla, 36.5 marla of land was sold for Rs.1 lakh, thereby,

making the market value per acre as Rs.4,38,356/

concludes that the award passed by the L

called for no interference as the landowners were awarded

significantly higher amount in the award dated 03.12.2013.

Learned counsel for the appellants also contends that the

benefit of damages @ 15% of the m

has been excessively awarded in favour of the respondents

landowners. He points out that in the absence of there being

evidence indicating loss towards irrigation facility or passage etc. to

the respondents-landowners on account of laying down of the

2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR-54/2024 [

for the appellants submits that the Reference Court went wrong while

assessment of market value at the uniform

rate in favor of landowners of all the revenue estates in question,

having failed to take into account the nature; potential or even the

location of the land under acquisition. He also contends that the

learned Reference Court committed illegality while recording that the

present was a case of no sale exemplar. Despite having noticed the

4), which were proved from the side

of the appellants, the same were never dealt with in the Award.

r submits that as per sale instance

4), which relates to the revenue estate of

Village Jandla, 36.5 marla of land was sold for Rs.1 lakh, thereby,

making the market value per acre as Rs.4,38,356/-. He thus,

passed by the Land Acquisition Collector

called for no interference as the landowners were awarded

in the award dated 03.12.2013.

Learned counsel for the appellants also contends that the

benefit of damages @ 15% of the market value towards severance

has been excessively awarded in favour of the respondents

landowners. He points out that in the absence of there being any

loss towards irrigation facility or passage etc. to

ccount of laying down of the

[4]

for the appellants submits that the Reference Court went wrong while

uniform

rate in favor of landowners of all the revenue estates in question,

having failed to take into account the nature; potential or even the

location of the land under acquisition. He also contends that the

ality while recording that the

present was a case of no sale exemplar. Despite having noticed the

4), which were proved from the side

r submits that as per sale instance

to the revenue estate of

Village Jandla, 36.5 marla of land was sold for Rs.1 lakh, thereby,

e thus,

and Acquisition Collector

called for no interference as the landowners were awarded

Learned counsel for the appellants also contends that the

arket value towards severance

has been excessively awarded in favour of the respondents-

any

loss towards irrigation facility or passage etc. to

ccount of laying down of the

RFA-2917

Railway Trac

awarded damages @ 15% towards severance. He thus submits that

the impugned award needs to be modified

Counsel further contends that the compensat

respondents

acquired land was

reduced.

6.3.

plan Ex.A21 could n

the year 2016 i.e.

under Section 4 of the Act which was dated 18.08.2009. He also

points out that the site plan Ex.A21 has been prepared at the

instance of l

made by AW3 Uday Singh

Nagal & Anandpur Sahib,

the distance of acquired land from the highway and was not even

aware of its kh

the revenue authorities, Numberdar, Panch or Sarpanch of the

Village before preparing the site plan. Learned counsel also points

out that the sale deed Ex.A26 dated 18.02.2019 which t

to Village Jandla, but

pertaining to small parcel of land measuring 2 marlas only.

2917-2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR

Railway Track, the learned Reference Court went wrong having

awarded damages @ 15% towards severance. He thus submits that

the impugned award needs to be modified

Counsel further contends that the compensat

respondents-landowners against the super structure existing over the

acquired land was unreasonably excessive and thus, was liable to be

reduced.

Learned counsel for the appellants also contends that site

plan Ex.A21 could not be relied upon as the same was prepared in

the year 2016 i.e. considerably later than

under Section 4 of the Act which was dated 18.08.2009. He also

points out that the site plan Ex.A21 has been prepared at the

instance of landowners. In support, he relies upon the deposition

made by AW3 Uday Singh, Valuer and Planner, Nagar Council,

Nagal & Anandpur Sahib, who stated that he never mentioned about

the distance of acquired land from the highway and was not even

aware of its khasra numbers; nor any notice was ever served upon

the revenue authorities, Numberdar, Panch or Sarpanch of the

Village before preparing the site plan. Learned counsel also points

out that the sale deed Ex.A26 dated 18.02.2019 which t

e Jandla, but was not to be relied upon being a transaction

pertaining to small parcel of land measuring 2 marlas only.

2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR-54/2024 [

, the learned Reference Court went wrong having

awarded damages @ 15% towards severance. He thus submits that

the impugned award needs to be modified accordingly. Learned

Counsel further contends that the compensation awarded in favour of

landowners against the super structure existing over the

excessive and thus, was liable to be

Learned counsel for the appellants also contends that site

ot be relied upon as the same was prepared in

considerably later than the issuance of notification

under Section 4 of the Act which was dated 18.08.2009. He also

points out that the site plan Ex.A21 has been prepared at the

andowners. In support, he relies upon the deposition

, Valuer and Planner, Nagar Council,

who stated that he never mentioned about

the distance of acquired land from the highway and was not even

asra numbers; nor any notice was ever served upon

the revenue authorities, Numberdar, Panch or Sarpanch of the

Village before preparing the site plan. Learned counsel also points

out that the sale deed Ex.A26 dated 18.02.2019 which though related

was not to be relied upon being a transaction

pertaining to small parcel of land measuring 2 marlas only. He further

[5]

, the learned Reference Court went wrong having

awarded damages @ 15% towards severance. He thus submits that

. Learned

ion awarded in favour of

landowners against the super structure existing over the

excessive and thus, was liable to be

Learned counsel for the appellants also contends that site

ot be relied upon as the same was prepared in

the issuance of notification

under Section 4 of the Act which was dated 18.08.2009. He also

points out that the site plan Ex.A21 has been prepared at the

andowners. In support, he relies upon the deposition

, Valuer and Planner, Nagar Council,

who stated that he never mentioned about

the distance of acquired land from the highway and was not even

asra numbers; nor any notice was ever served upon

the revenue authorities, Numberdar, Panch or Sarpanch of the

Village before preparing the site plan. Learned counsel also points

hough related

was not to be relied upon being a transaction

He further

RFA-2917

points out that as per the evidence available on record, the land

forming part of Ex.A26 was at a distance of around 01 km f

main road.

7.

behalf of the landowners submits that there is no illegality on the part

of the Reference Court having awarded uniform market value for the

acquired land forming part of the revenue estate of village

contends that the land under acquisition was sandwiched between

two village roads leading to Village Jandla and Bhalowal

respectively,

advantage and thus, same market value

7.1

the sale instance Ex.A26 dated 18.02.2009 which relates to 2 marla

of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Jandla formed

part of the acquired land.

instance and the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present

case, learned counsel submits that rect No.3, Killa No.23/2/2 which

relates to the alienation made in terms of the sale deed Ex.A26 also

forms part of the notification

therefore,

points out that the sale deed

2917-2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR

points out that as per the evidence available on record, the land

forming part of Ex.A26 was at a distance of around 01 km f

main road.

No other argument has been addressed

On the other hand, learned counsel(s) appearing on

behalf of the landowners submits that there is no illegality on the part

of the Reference Court having awarded uniform market value for the

acquired land forming part of the revenue estate of village

contends that the land under acquisition was sandwiched between

two village roads leading to Village Jandla and Bhalowal

respectively, and was having similar potential and locational

advantage and thus, same market value

Learned counsel for the landowners further submits that

the sale instance Ex.A26 dated 18.02.2009 which relates to 2 marla

of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Jandla formed

part of the acquired land. While referring to the aforesaid sale

instance and the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present

case, learned counsel submits that rect No.3, Killa No.23/2/2 which

to the alienation made in terms of the sale deed Ex.A26 also

part of the notifications under Section

therefore, is to be relied upon being the best sale exemplar. He also

points out that the sale deed Ex.A23 dated 16.09.2008 which relates

2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR-54/2024 [

points out that as per the evidence available on record, the land

forming part of Ex.A26 was at a distance of around 01 km from the

No other argument has been addressed.

On the other hand, learned counsel(s) appearing on

behalf of the landowners submits that there is no illegality on the part

of the Reference Court having awarded uniform market value for the

acquired land forming part of the revenue estate of village Jandla. He

contends that the land under acquisition was sandwiched between

two village roads leading to Village Jandla and Bhalowal

and was having similar potential and locational

advantage and thus, same market value was correctly awarded.

Learned counsel for the landowners further submits that

the sale instance Ex.A26 dated 18.02.2009 which relates to 2 marla

of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Jandla formed

While referring to the aforesaid sale

instance and the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present

case, learned counsel submits that rect No.3, Killa No.23/2/2 which

to the alienation made in terms of the sale deed Ex.A26 also

under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, and

s to be relied upon being the best sale exemplar. He also

Ex.A23 dated 16.09.2008 which relates

[6]

points out that as per the evidence available on record, the land

rom the

On the other hand, learned counsel(s) appearing on

behalf of the landowners submits that there is no illegality on the part

of the Reference Court having awarded uniform market value for the

a. He

contends that the land under acquisition was sandwiched between

two village roads leading to Village Jandla and Bhalowal ,

and was having similar potential and locational

Learned counsel for the landowners further submits that

the sale instance Ex.A26 dated 18.02.2009 which relates to 2 marla

of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Jandla formed

While referring to the aforesaid sale

instance and the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present

case, learned counsel submits that rect No.3, Killa No.23/2/2 which

to the alienation made in terms of the sale deed Ex.A26 also

4 and 6 of the Act, and

s to be relied upon being the best sale exemplar. He also

Ex.A23 dated 16.09.2008 which relates

RFA-2917

to Village Bhanupali

sale instance, 18 marla

for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs and the same also form

notifications under Section 4 & 6 of the present case. He thus submits

that the sale instances Exs.A26 and A23, both in terms of time period

as well as location were corresponding and comparative to the land

forming part of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present

case and thus being the best piece of evidence were to be taken into

consideration.

7.2

having considered the similarity of location and potential of the entire

acquired land, the Reference Court rightly awarded uniform rate for

all the five revenue estates of Villages Bhanupali, Nangli, Jandla,

Daruli and Bhallowal as al

7.3

deposition made by Halqa Patwari

got bifurcated on account of acquisition and thus the damages

towards severance were rightl

Learned Counsel however, submits that considering the actual loss

suffered by the land owners, the benefits under severance needs to

be enhanced. Learned counsel for the landowners also submits that

the compensation a

2917-2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR

to Village Bhanupali is also relevant piece of evidence as vide this

sale instance, 18 marlas of land forming part of rect. No.16 was sold

for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs and the same also form

notifications under Section 4 & 6 of the present case. He thus submits

that the sale instances Exs.A26 and A23, both in terms of time period

l as location were corresponding and comparative to the land

forming part of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present

case and thus being the best piece of evidence were to be taken into

consideration.

Learned counsel for the landowners

having considered the similarity of location and potential of the entire

acquired land, the Reference Court rightly awarded uniform rate for

all the five revenue estates of Villages Bhanupali, Nangli, Jandla,

Daruli and Bhallowal as all are abutting and adjoining to each other.

It has been further submitted that even as per the

deposition made by Halqa Patwari Sh.

got bifurcated on account of acquisition and thus the damages

towards severance were rightly awarded in favour of the landowners.

Learned Counsel however, submits that considering the actual loss

suffered by the land owners, the benefits under severance needs to

be enhanced. Learned counsel for the landowners also submits that

the compensation awarded towards

2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR-54/2024 [

s also relevant piece of evidence as vide this

s of land forming part of rect. No.16 was sold

for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs and the same also formed part of the

notifications under Section 4 & 6 of the present case. He thus submits

that the sale instances Exs.A26 and A23, both in terms of time period

l as location were corresponding and comparative to the land

forming part of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present

case and thus being the best piece of evidence were to be taken into

Learned counsel for the landowners also points out that

having considered the similarity of location and potential of the entire

acquired land, the Reference Court rightly awarded uniform rate for

all the five revenue estates of Villages Bhanupali, Nangli, Jandla,

l are abutting and adjoining to each other.

It has been further submitted that even as per the

Sh. Sham Avtar (AW4), the land

got bifurcated on account of acquisition and thus the damages

y awarded in favour of the landowners.

Learned Counsel however, submits that considering the actual loss

suffered by the land owners, the benefits under severance needs to

be enhanced. Learned counsel for the landowners also submits that

warded towards superstructures was also

[7]

s also relevant piece of evidence as vide this

s of land forming part of rect. No.16 was sold

part of the

notifications under Section 4 & 6 of the present case. He thus submits

that the sale instances Exs.A26 and A23, both in terms of time period

l as location were corresponding and comparative to the land

forming part of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present

case and thus being the best piece of evidence were to be taken into

also points out that

having considered the similarity of location and potential of the entire

acquired land, the Reference Court rightly awarded uniform rate for

all the five revenue estates of Villages Bhanupali, Nangli, Jandla,

l are abutting and adjoining to each other.

It has been further submitted that even as per the

Sham Avtar (AW4), the land

got bifurcated on account of acquisition and thus the damages

y awarded in favour of the landowners.

Learned Counsel however, submits that considering the actual loss

suffered by the land owners, the benefits under severance needs to

be enhanced. Learned counsel for the landowners also submits that

structures was also

RFA-2917

required to be enhanced.

8.

through the paper

substance in the submission made on behalf of landowners.

9.

shape of deposition made by Halqa Patwari Sh.Sham Avtar (AW4),

that the distance between Nangal and Sri Ananadpur Sahib is around

18 to 20 kms and the cluster of aforementioned five revenue estates

is existing near Municipal Council, Nangal; at a distance of around 5

to 7 kms.

within a radius of 4 to 5 kms. only

Reference Court has rightly awarded uniform rate for all the five

revenue estates of Villages Bhanupali, Nangli, Jandla, Daruli and

Bhallowal as all are abutting and adjoining to each other and are

situated between the two fully developed cities of Nangal and Sri

Anandpur Sahib and the length of acquired land is only aro

kilometers. Moreover, no evidence has been brought on record to

show that there was any difference in the nature or potential of land

forming part of these five revenue estates.

10.

grant of market value, the learned Reference Court was required to

take to account the sale instances Exs.A23 to A28 which were

2917-2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR

required to be enhanced.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the paper-book as well as records of the case. I find

substance in the submission made on behalf of landowners.

From the evidence available on record, especially in the

shape of deposition made by Halqa Patwari Sh.Sham Avtar (AW4),

that the distance between Nangal and Sri Ananadpur Sahib is around

18 to 20 kms and the cluster of aforementioned five revenue estates

ng near Municipal Council, Nangal; at a distance of around 5

kms. and all the aforementioned revenue estates are existing

within a radius of 4 to 5 kms. only

Reference Court has rightly awarded uniform rate for all the five

revenue estates of Villages Bhanupali, Nangli, Jandla, Daruli and

Bhallowal as all are abutting and adjoining to each other and are

situated between the two fully developed cities of Nangal and Sri

Anandpur Sahib and the length of acquired land is only aro

kilometers. Moreover, no evidence has been brought on record to

show that there was any difference in the nature or potential of land

forming part of these five revenue estates.

In the humble opinion of this Court, with respect to the

grant of market value, the learned Reference Court was required to

take to account the sale instances Exs.A23 to A28 which were

2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR-54/2024 [

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

book as well as records of the case. I find

substance in the submission made on behalf of landowners.

evidence available on record, especially in the

shape of deposition made by Halqa Patwari Sh.Sham Avtar (AW4),

that the distance between Nangal and Sri Ananadpur Sahib is around

18 to 20 kms and the cluster of aforementioned five revenue estates

ng near Municipal Council, Nangal; at a distance of around 5

and all the aforementioned revenue estates are existing

within a radius of 4 to 5 kms. only. Consequently, the learned

Reference Court has rightly awarded uniform rate for all the five

revenue estates of Villages Bhanupali, Nangli, Jandla, Daruli and

Bhallowal as all are abutting and adjoining to each other and are

situated between the two fully developed cities of Nangal and Sri

Anandpur Sahib and the length of acquired land is only around

kilometers. Moreover, no evidence has been brought on record to

show that there was any difference in the nature or potential of land

forming part of these five revenue estates.

In the humble opinion of this Court, with respect to the

grant of market value, the learned Reference Court was required to

take to account the sale instances Exs.A23 to A28 which were

[8]

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

book as well as records of the case. I find

evidence available on record, especially in the

shape of deposition made by Halqa Patwari Sh.Sham Avtar (AW4),

that the distance between Nangal and Sri Ananadpur Sahib is around

18 to 20 kms and the cluster of aforementioned five revenue estates

ng near Municipal Council, Nangal; at a distance of around 5

and all the aforementioned revenue estates are existing

the learned

Reference Court has rightly awarded uniform rate for all the five

revenue estates of Villages Bhanupali, Nangli, Jandla, Daruli and

Bhallowal as all are abutting and adjoining to each other and are

situated between the two fully developed cities of Nangal and Sri

und 4

kilometers. Moreover, no evidence has been brought on record to

show that there was any difference in the nature or potential of land

In the humble opinion of this Court, with respect to the

grant of market value, the learned Reference Court was required to

take to account the sale instances Exs.A23 to A28 which were

RFA-2917

produced and prove

extracted

Sr.

No.

Exhibits

1. A-23

2. A-24

3. A-25

4. A-26

5. A-27

6. A-28

exemplars Exs.A24, A25 and A27 relate to post notification under

Section 4 of the Act and thus cannot be relied upon

sale instances Exs.A23 & A26

under section 4 of the Act

need to be taken into account.

that the sale instance Ex.A26 dated 18.0

revenue estate of Village Jandla vide which 2 marlas of land forming

part of rect. No.3 Killa No.23./2/2 was sold for a sum of Rs.1 lakh and

the market value per acre comes to Rs.80 lacs. From the records, it

can also be traced out th

No.3 Killa No.

sale instance Ex.A26 being of similar nature and potential as that of

acquired land becomes the most relevant piece of evidence and thus

has to be relied upon. Since there

2917-2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR

produced and proven on record by the landowners. The same are

extracted hereunder:-

Exhibits Revenue

Estate/

Village

Date of Sale

Deed

Area of

Sale Deed

Bhanupali 16.09.2008 18 marla

Nangli 19.09.2011 23 marla

Jandla 29.05.2012 18 marla

Jandla 18.02.2009 02 marla

Nangli 08.11.2012 05 marla

Jandla 11.02.2009 20 marla

A perusal of the aforesaid chart shows that the sale

exemplars Exs.A24, A25 and A27 relate to post notification under

Section 4 of the Act and thus cannot be relied upon

sale instances Exs.A23 & A26 are prior to the date of notification

under section 4 of the Act thus, being relevant piece of evidence

need to be taken into account. An examination of the record reveals

that the sale instance Ex.A26 dated 18.0

revenue estate of Village Jandla vide which 2 marlas of land forming

part of rect. No.3 Killa No.23./2/2 was sold for a sum of Rs.1 lakh and

the market value per acre comes to Rs.80 lacs. From the records, it

can also be traced out that some portion of above

No.3 Killa No.23/2/2 also forms part of the acquired land

sale instance Ex.A26 being of similar nature and potential as that of

acquired land becomes the most relevant piece of evidence and thus

be relied upon. Since there is a time gap of about 06 months

2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR-54/2024 [

on record by the landowners. The same are

Area of

Sale Deed

Sale price Sale price per

acre

18 marla Rs.15,00,000/- Rs.1,33,33,333/

23 marla Rs.28,98,000/- Rs.2,01,60,000/

(Post notification)

18 marla Rs.4,32,000/- Rs.38,40,000/-

(Post notification)

02 marla Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.80,00,000 /-

05 marla Rs.8,26,000/- Rs. 2,64,32,000

(Post notification)

20 marla Rs.4,00,000/- Rs.32,00,000/-

A perusal of the aforesaid chart shows that the sale

exemplars Exs.A24, A25 and A27 relate to post notification under

Section 4 of the Act and thus cannot be relied upon. However, the

prior to the date of notification

being relevant piece of evidence

An examination of the record reveals

that the sale instance Ex.A26 dated 18.02.2009 relates to the

revenue estate of Village Jandla vide which 2 marlas of land forming

part of rect. No.3 Killa No.23./2/2 was sold for a sum of Rs.1 lakh and

the market value per acre comes to Rs.80 lacs. From the records, it

at some portion of above-mentioned Rect.

forms part of the acquired land and thus the

sale instance Ex.A26 being of similar nature and potential as that of

acquired land becomes the most relevant piece of evidence and thus

is a time gap of about 06 months

[9]

on record by the landowners. The same are

Sale price per

Rs.1,33,33,333/-

2,01,60,000/-

(Post notification)

(Post notification)

-

2,64,32,000/-

(Post notification)

A perusal of the aforesaid chart shows that the sale

exemplars Exs.A24, A25 and A27 relate to post notification under

owever, the

prior to the date of notification

being relevant piece of evidence

An examination of the record reveals

2.2009 relates to the

revenue estate of Village Jandla vide which 2 marlas of land forming

part of rect. No.3 Killa No.23./2/2 was sold for a sum of Rs.1 lakh and

the market value per acre comes to Rs.80 lacs. From the records, it

mentioned Rect.

and thus the

sale instance Ex.A26 being of similar nature and potential as that of

acquired land becomes the most relevant piece of evidence and thus

is a time gap of about 06 months

RFA-2917

between the sale instance Ex.A26 dated 18.02.2009 and the

notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 18.08.2009, an

appreciation @ 6% requires to be applied over the sale price per acre

relating to the sale exemplar Ex.A26 and the same thus comes to

Rs.80,00,000/

11.

instance Ex.A23 dated 16.09.2008, 18 marlas of land situated within

the revenue estate of Village Bhanupali was sold for Rs.15 lakhs and

the market value per acre comes to Rs.1.33 crores approx. A perusal

of record further shows that vide sale instance Ex.A23, the land

forming part of rect No.16 was alienated and a part of it

within the present acquisition. Thus, again the sale instance Ex.A23

also being of similar nature of land needs to be relied upon for the

purpose of making re

there is a difference of about 11 months bet

Ex.A23 and the notification under Section 4 of the Act dated

18.08.2009, thus an appreciation @ 11% is required to be applied

over the sale price per acre relating to the sale exemplar Ex.A23

comes to Rs.1,33,00,000/

Rs.1,47,63,000/

12.

instance Ex.A26 while recording that the same pertains to a

2917-2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR

between the sale instance Ex.A26 dated 18.02.2009 and the

notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 18.08.2009, an

appreciation @ 6% requires to be applied over the sale price per acre

ng to the sale exemplar Ex.A26 and the same thus comes to

Rs.80,00,000/- + (6%of Rs.80,00,000/

In addition, it may also be noticed here that vide sale

instance Ex.A23 dated 16.09.2008, 18 marlas of land situated within

revenue estate of Village Bhanupali was sold for Rs.15 lakhs and

the market value per acre comes to Rs.1.33 crores approx. A perusal

of record further shows that vide sale instance Ex.A23, the land

forming part of rect No.16 was alienated and a part of it

within the present acquisition. Thus, again the sale instance Ex.A23

also being of similar nature of land needs to be relied upon for the

purpose of making re-assessment of the compensation. However,

there is a difference of about 11 months bet

Ex.A23 and the notification under Section 4 of the Act dated

18.08.2009, thus an appreciation @ 11% is required to be applied

over the sale price per acre relating to the sale exemplar Ex.A23

comes to Rs.1,33,00,000/- + (11% of Rs.1,

Rs.1,47,63,000/- per acre.

Learned Reference Court although rejected the sale

instance Ex.A26 while recording that the same pertains to a

2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR-54/2024 [

between the sale instance Ex.A26 dated 18.02.2009 and the

notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 18.08.2009, an

appreciation @ 6% requires to be applied over the sale price per acre

ng to the sale exemplar Ex.A26 and the same thus comes to

+ (6%of Rs.80,00,000/-) = Rs.84,80,000/- per acre.

In addition, it may also be noticed here that vide sale

instance Ex.A23 dated 16.09.2008, 18 marlas of land situated within

revenue estate of Village Bhanupali was sold for Rs.15 lakhs and

the market value per acre comes to Rs.1.33 crores approx. A perusal

of record further shows that vide sale instance Ex.A23, the land

forming part of rect No.16 was alienated and a part of it also falls

within the present acquisition. Thus, again the sale instance Ex.A23

also being of similar nature of land needs to be relied upon for the

assessment of the compensation. However,

there is a difference of about 11 months between the sale instance

Ex.A23 and the notification under Section 4 of the Act dated

18.08.2009, thus an appreciation @ 11% is required to be applied

over the sale price per acre relating to the sale exemplar Ex.A23

+ (11% of Rs.1,33,00,000/-) =

eference Court although rejected the sale

instance Ex.A26 while recording that the same pertains to a

[10]

between the sale instance Ex.A26 dated 18.02.2009 and the

notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 18.08.2009, an

appreciation @ 6% requires to be applied over the sale price per acre

ng to the sale exemplar Ex.A26 and the same thus comes to

In addition, it may also be noticed here that vide sale

instance Ex.A23 dated 16.09.2008, 18 marlas of land situated within

revenue estate of Village Bhanupali was sold for Rs.15 lakhs and

the market value per acre comes to Rs.1.33 crores approx. A perusal

of record further shows that vide sale instance Ex.A23, the land

also falls

within the present acquisition. Thus, again the sale instance Ex.A23

also being of similar nature of land needs to be relied upon for the

assessment of the compensation. However,

ween the sale instance

Ex.A23 and the notification under Section 4 of the Act dated

18.08.2009, thus an appreciation @ 11% is required to be applied

over the sale price per acre relating to the sale exemplar Ex.A23

) =

eference Court although rejected the sale

instance Ex.A26 while recording that the same pertains to a

RFA-2917

residential plot, however, considering the fact that the land forming

part of sale instance Ex.A26

formed part of the acquired land as per notifications under Sections 4

and 6 of the Act in the present case, the reasoning recorded by the

learned Reference Court towards discarding of Ex.A26 was wholly

unjustified.

such circumstances, was to draw a positive inference that the land

under acquisition was

purposes.

13.

highest of the sale ex

purpose of reassessment of market value. However, considering the

fact that the present acquisition relates to a cluster of five revenue

estates, it would be more appropriate to dr

instances Exs.A23 and A26, which as per the records comes to

Rs.1,16,21

14.

the present case is for the purpose of laying down of Railway Track

as such the app

of land or cost towards providing

civic amenities like roads, green belt, parks, community buildings etc.

However, taking into account the small parcel

2917-2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR

residential plot, however, considering the fact that the land forming

part of sale instance Ex.A26 i.e. Rect. No.3, Killa No.23/2/2

formed part of the acquired land as per notifications under Sections 4

and 6 of the Act in the present case, the reasoning recorded by the

learned Reference Court towards discarding of Ex.A26 was wholly

unjustified. Rather, on the contrary, the learned Reference Court, in

such circumstances, was to draw a positive inference that the land

under acquisition was also having potential to be used for residential

purposes.

Under normal circumstances, in view of the set

highest of the sale exemplar has to be taken into account for the

purpose of reassessment of market value. However, considering the

fact that the present acquisition relates to a cluster of five revenue

estates, it would be more appropriate to dr

instances Exs.A23 and A26, which as per the records comes to

Rs.1,16,21,500/- per acre.

Furthermore, considering the fact that the acquisition in

the present case is for the purpose of laying down of Railway Track

as such the appellants / beneficiaries are not going to suffer any loss

of land or cost towards providing any kind of additional infrastructural

civic amenities like roads, green belt, parks, community buildings etc.

However, taking into account the small parcel

2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR-54/2024 [

residential plot, however, considering the fact that the land forming

i.e. Rect. No.3, Killa No.23/2/2 also

formed part of the acquired land as per notifications under Sections 4

and 6 of the Act in the present case, the reasoning recorded by the

learned Reference Court towards discarding of Ex.A26 was wholly

Rather, on the contrary, the learned Reference Court, in

such circumstances, was to draw a positive inference that the land

having potential to be used for residential

Under normal circumstances, in view of the settled law,

r has to be taken into account for the

purpose of reassessment of market value. However, considering the

fact that the present acquisition relates to a cluster of five revenue

estates, it would be more appropriate to draw an average of sale

instances Exs.A23 and A26, which as per the records comes to

Furthermore, considering the fact that the acquisition in

the present case is for the purpose of laying down of Railway Track

ellants / beneficiaries are not going to suffer any loss

any kind of additional infrastructural

civic amenities like roads, green belt, parks, community buildings etc.

However, taking into account the small parcels of land forming part

[11]

residential plot, however, considering the fact that the land forming

also

formed part of the acquired land as per notifications under Sections 4

and 6 of the Act in the present case, the reasoning recorded by the

learned Reference Court towards discarding of Ex.A26 was wholly

Rather, on the contrary, the learned Reference Court, in

such circumstances, was to draw a positive inference that the land

having potential to be used for residential

tled law,

r has to be taken into account for the

purpose of reassessment of market value. However, considering the

fact that the present acquisition relates to a cluster of five revenue

aw an average of sale

instances Exs.A23 and A26, which as per the records comes to

Furthermore, considering the fact that the acquisition in

the present case is for the purpose of laying down of Railway Track

ellants / beneficiaries are not going to suffer any loss

any kind of additional infrastructural

civic amenities like roads, green belt, parks, community buildings etc.

d forming part

RFA-2917

of the sale exemplars Exs. A23 and A26, as a matter of abundant

caution, a development cut of 20% needs to be applied and the

market value of the acquired land per acre thus comes to

Rs.92,97,200/

Act (Upto date).

15.

land in favour of the landowners, it is noticed that a positive finding of

fact has been recorded by the learned Reference Court that as a

consequence

divided into two parts. However, the learned Reference Court has

granted the benefit of approximately @ 10% of market value towards

damages against severance of land. The factum of bifurcation has

been admitted by the

landowners are bound to suffer loss towards cultivation of land

besides causing them inconvenience towards connectivity of the two

parcels left on either side of the railway track. Moreover, severance

also causes red

access, useability and irregularity of shape etc.

appropriate to award damages against severance of land in favour of

the landowners @ Rs.25% of the market value as assessed by thi

court.

16.

2917-2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR

of the sale exemplars Exs. A23 and A26, as a matter of abundant

caution, a development cut of 20% needs to be applied and the

market value of the acquired land per acre thus comes to

Rs.92,97,200/- along with all statutory

Act (Upto date).

On the issue of award of damages towards severance of

land in favour of the landowners, it is noticed that a positive finding of

fact has been recorded by the learned Reference Court that as a

consequence of present acquisition proceedings, the land has been

divided into two parts. However, the learned Reference Court has

granted the benefit of approximately @ 10% of market value towards

damages against severance of land. The factum of bifurcation has

been admitted by the respondents. In such circumstances, the

landowners are bound to suffer loss towards cultivation of land

besides causing them inconvenience towards connectivity of the two

parcels left on either side of the railway track. Moreover, severance

also causes reduction in value of remaining land due to alteration in

access, useability and irregularity of shape etc.

appropriate to award damages against severance of land in favour of

the landowners @ Rs.25% of the market value as assessed by thi

No material evidence has been

2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR-54/2024 [

of the sale exemplars Exs. A23 and A26, as a matter of abundant

caution, a development cut of 20% needs to be applied and the

market value of the acquired land per acre thus comes to

along with all statutory benefits as provided under the

On the issue of award of damages towards severance of

land in favour of the landowners, it is noticed that a positive finding of

fact has been recorded by the learned Reference Court that as a

sition proceedings, the land has been

divided into two parts. However, the learned Reference Court has

granted the benefit of approximately @ 10% of market value towards

damages against severance of land. The factum of bifurcation has

respondents. In such circumstances, the

landowners are bound to suffer loss towards cultivation of land

besides causing them inconvenience towards connectivity of the two

parcels left on either side of the railway track. Moreover, severance

uction in value of remaining land due to alteration in

access, useability and irregularity of shape etc. As such, it would be

appropriate to award damages against severance of land in favour of

the landowners @ Rs.25% of the market value as assessed by thi

No material evidence has been produced by the learned

[12]

of the sale exemplars Exs. A23 and A26, as a matter of abundant

caution, a development cut of 20% needs to be applied and the

market value of the acquired land per acre thus comes to

ed under the

On the issue of award of damages towards severance of

land in favour of the landowners, it is noticed that a positive finding of

fact has been recorded by the learned Reference Court that as a

sition proceedings, the land has been

divided into two parts. However, the learned Reference Court has

granted the benefit of approximately @ 10% of market value towards

damages against severance of land. The factum of bifurcation has

respondents. In such circumstances, the

landowners are bound to suffer loss towards cultivation of land

besides causing them inconvenience towards connectivity of the two

parcels left on either side of the railway track. Moreover, severance

uction in value of remaining land due to alteration in

s such, it would be

appropriate to award damages against severance of land in favour of

the landowners @ Rs.25% of the market value as assessed by this

by the learned

RFA-2917

counsel appearing on behalf of the landowners to substantiate

comprehensively

superstructure, as such the said plea is rejected.

17.

all the appeals preferred at the instance of appellants

dismissed whereas the appeals as well as XOBJR

preferred at the instance of landowners are hereby disposed of with

the aforesaid modification in the Award dated 14.03.2017 passed by

the learned Reference Court.

18.

unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross

thereof and the legal heirs have not been

liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving

appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court.

19.

disposed of

14.10.2025

sanjay

Sr. No.

1.

2.

2917-2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR

counsel appearing on behalf of the landowners to substantiate

comprehensively towards increase of compensation against

superstructure, as such the said plea is rejected.

Accordingly, in view of the discussion made herein above,

all the appeals preferred at the instance of appellants

dismissed whereas the appeals as well as XOBJR

preferred at the instance of landowners are hereby disposed of with

aforesaid modification in the Award dated 14.03.2017 passed by

the learned Reference Court.

Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have

unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross

thereof and the legal heirs have not been

liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving

appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court.

Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

.10.2025

Whether speaking/reasoned?

Whether Reportable?

Sr. No. Case No.

RFA-2918-2017 (O&M)

RFA-2919-2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR-54/2024 [

counsel appearing on behalf of the landowners to substantiate

towards increase of compensation against

superstructure, as such the said plea is rejected.

Accordingly, in view of the discussion made herein above,

all the appeals preferred at the instance of appellants are hereby

dismissed whereas the appeals as well as XOBJR-54 of 2024

preferred at the instance of landowners are hereby disposed of with

aforesaid modification in the Award dated 14.03.2017 passed by

Further, 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 application(s) before the learned Executing Court.

Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand

(HARKESH MANU JA)

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

Yes/No

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

[13]

counsel appearing on behalf of the landowners to substantiate

towards increase of compensation against

Accordingly, in view of the discussion made herein above,

are hereby

54 of 2024

preferred at the instance of landowners are hereby disposed of with

aforesaid modification in the Award dated 14.03.2017 passed by

Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have

objection(s) after filing

impleaded, they shall be at

liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving

Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand

JA)

RFA-2917

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

398.

40.

41.

42.

43.

2917-2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR

RFA-2920-2017 (O&M)

RFA-2921-2017 (O&M)

RFA-2922-2017 (O&M)

RFA-2923-2017 (O&M)

RFA-2924-2017 (O&M)

RFA-2925-2017 (O&M)

RFA-2926-2017 (O&M)

10. RFA-2927-2017 (O&M)

11. RFA-2928-2017 (O&M)

12. RFA-2929-2017 (O&M)

13. RFA-2930-2017 (O&M)

14. RFA-2931-2017 (O&M)

15. RFA-2932-2017 (O&M)

16. RFA-2933-2017 (O&M)

17. RFA-2934-2017 (O&M)

18. RFA-2935-2017 (O&M)

19. RFA-2936-2017 (O&M)

20. RFA-2937-2017 (O&M)

21. RFA-2938-2017 (O&M)

22. RFA-2939-2017 (O&M)

23. RFA-2940-2017 (O&M)

24. RFA-2941-2017 (O&M)

25. RFA-2942-2017 (O&M)

26. RFA-2943-2017 (O&M)

27. RFA-3128-2017 (O&M)

28. RFA-3190-2017 (O&M)

29. RFA-3191-2017 (O&M)

30. RFA-3192-2017 (O&M)

31. RFA-3193-2017 (O&M)

32. RFA-3194-2017 (O&M)

33. RFA-3195-2017 (O&M)

34. RFA-3196-2017 (O&M)

35. RFA-3197-2017 (O&M)

36. RFA-3198-2017 (O&M)

37. RFA-3199-2017 (O&M)

38. RFA-3200-2017 (O&M)

398. RFA-3201-2017 (O&M)

40. RFA-3202-2017 (O&M)

41. RFA-3203-2017 (O&M)

42. RFA-3204-2017 (O&M)

43. RFA-3205-2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR-54/2024 [

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M) & XOBJR-54-2024

2017 (O&M)

(O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

[14]

RFA-2917

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

2917-2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR

44. RFA-3206-2017 (O&M)

45. RFA-3525-2017 (O&M)

46. RFA-3526-2017 (O&M)

47. RFA-3527-2017 (O&M)

48. RFA-4562-2017 (O&M)

49. RFA-4563-2017 (O&M)

50. RFA-4564-2017 (O&M)

51. RFA-5578-2017 (O&M)

52. RFA-2892-2017 (O&M)

53. RFA-2893-2017 (O&M)

54. RFA-2894-2017 (O&M)

55. RFA-2895-2017 (O&M)

56. RFA-2896-2017 (O&M)

57. RFA-2897-2017 (O&M)

58. RFA-2898-2017 (O&M)

59. RFA-2899-2017 (O&M)

60. RFA-2900-2017 (O&M)

61. RFA-2901-2017 (O&M)

62. RFA-2902-2017 (O&M)

63. RFA-2903-2017 (O&M)

64. RFA-2904-2017 (O&M)

65. RFA-2905-2017 (O&M)

66. RFA-2906-2017 (O&M)

67. RFA-2907-2017 (O&M)

68. RFA-2908-2017 (O&M)

69. RFA-2909-2017 (O&M)

70. RFA-2910-2017 (O&M)

71. RFA-2911-2017 (O&M)

72. RFA-2912-2017 (O&M)

73. RFA-2913-2017 (O&M)

74. RFA-2914-2017 (O&M)

75. RFA-2915-2017 (O&M)

76. RFA-2916-2017 (O&M)

77. RFA-5144-2017 (O&M)

78. RFA-5145-2017 (O&M)

79. RFA-5146-2017 (O&M)

80. RFA-5591-2017 (O&M)

81. RFA-5592-2017 (O&M)

82. RFA-5593-2017 (O&M)

83. RFA-5594-2017 (O&M)

84. RFA-58-2018 (O&M)

2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR-54/2024 [

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2017 (O&M)

2018 (O&M)

[15]

RFA-2917

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

14.10.2025

sanjay

2917-2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR

85. RFA-59-2018 (O&M)

86. RFA-60-2018 (O&M)

87. RFA-501-2018 (O&M)

88. RFA-748-2018 (O&M)

89. RFA-749-2018 (O&M)

90. RFA-757-2018 (O&M)

91. RFA-759-2018 (O&M)

92. RFA-4726-2018 (O&M)

93. RFA-758-2018 (O&M)

94. RFA-4724-2018 (O&M)

.10.2025

2017 (O&M) & 94 other appeals with XOBJR-54/2024 [

2018 (O&M)

(O&M)

2018 (O&M)

2018 (O&M)

2018 (O&M)

2018 (O&M)

2018 (O&M)

2018 (O&M)

2018 (O&M)

2018 (O&M)

(HARKESH MANUJA)

JUDGE

[16]

(HARKESH MANUJA)