MA No. 269/2015 Page 1 of 15

Sr. No.111

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

MA No.269/2015

CM No.4651/2019 Reserved on: 05.02.2026

Pronounced on: 19.02.2026

Uploaded on: 19.02.2026

Whether the operative part or

full judgment is pronounced : full

1. Mumtaz Ahmed, Age 40 years

S/O Abdul Gani

2. Abdul Hamid Raina Age 75 years

S/O Abdul Gani

3. Mirza Wazir Hussain Age 70 years

S/O Suba Khan

4. Javed Raina Age 46 years

S/O Abdul Rashid Raina

5. Mohd. Iqbal Age 45 years

S/O Ghulam Hussain

6. Mohd. Shabir Age 42 years

S/O Dil Mohd

All residents of Tehsil Thanamandi District Rajouri

…..Petitioners/Appellants

Through: Mr. M.I Sherkhan, Advocate.

Vs.

1. Collector Land Acquisition Rajouri.

2. Director Higher Education, Jammu.

.…. Respondents

Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY , JUDGE

(JUDGMENT)

1. Appellants, through the medium of this appeal, assail judgment dated

30.09.2015 (impugned judgment) passed by learned Principal District Judge,

Rajouri (Reference Court) in Land Acquisition Reference No.11 titled “Abdul

Hamid & Ors. Vs. Collector Land Acquisition & Anr.” to the extent of

MA No. 269/2015 Page 2 of 15

assessing compensation of their land @ ₹3.00 lacs per kanal. Additionally, they

seek a direction to the respondents to grant compensation @ ₹10.00 lakh per

Kanal as has been granted in one of the sale deed executed on 29.11.2006.

2. The facts in brief as narrated in the appeal are that:

Pursuant to an indent placed by respondent No.2-Director Colleges,

Higher Education Department, J&K Government- vide communication No.

HE/Plan-66/2005 dated 18.08.2005, for the purpose of construction of building

for Government Degree College at Thanamandi, respondent No.1-Collector Land

Acquisition, Rajouri, issued Notification dated 19.08.2005 under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act, calling objections from the interested persons relating to

the acquisition of the land and in response to this notice, appellants submitted

their objections. Thereafter, the respondents acquired the land of the appellants

and determined the compensation @ 1.50 lakh per Kanal, which was received by

the appellants under protest.

Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded to them, the

appellants applied for making Reference under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the rate

of the land in the vicinity adjoining to the land of the appellants is very high as

the land in question falls under Municipal limits of Tehsil Thanamandi, as such,

Reference was made to District Court Rajouri. On the basis of pleadings and after

hearing both the sides, the reference was decided by the Reference Court by

enhancing amount of compensation at the rate of ₹ 3.00 lakh per Kanal along with

MA No. 269/2015 Page 3 of 15

Jabrana @ 15% on the enhanced amount and with interest @ 6% per annum from

the date on which the possession of the acquired land was taken by the

respondents, till excess amount is made.

3. Appellants land owners, however, not even satisfied with the judgment

dated 30.09.2015, passed by the Reference Court preferred the instant appeal,

assailing the judgment on the grounds that the appellants had examined witnesses

in the Court including revenue officers/officials, who had stated that the rate of

the land in the vicinity where the land of the appellants is situated, is very high

and not less than ₹ 10.00 lakhs; and had produced some registered sale deeds

pertaining to year 2005 wherein in one of the sale deed, the rate of the land was

shown as ₹ 4.00 lakhs per kanal before the award was passed on 27.12.2006; and

whereas in another, the rate of such land had been shown as ₹ 6.00 lakh per kanal,

however, the Reference Court had not considered the rates of the land in the

vicinity of the acquired land.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Apex Court in

various judgments, had observed that the market value of the land cannot be

avoided and whatsoever is the rate in the vicinity of the adjoining land which has

been acquired and which is evident from the sale deeds, the compensation is

required to be given at the said rate as per the market value, however, the

Collector as well as the Reference Court had rejected the claim of the appellants

though substantial evidence was produced by the appellants, in support of their

contention. He has further argued that the Apex Court in a case titled “Haridwar

MA No. 269/2015 Page 4 of 15

Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh” reported as (2010) 11 SCC 581,

had held that no deduction or cut should have been effected in the price disclosed

by the sale deed for arriving at the market value and that the same view was taken

by the Apex Court in other cases as well. He further argued that the market value

of the land as per the sale deed executed by one Hussain Mohd. in favour of

Saghir Ahmed on 29.11.2006 with regard to 3 marlas of land was shown as ₹

90,000/- which means ₹6.00 lakh per kanal and as such, the compensation is

required to be enhanced; that the Reference Court had not appreciated the

documentary evidence produced by the appellants; that the land of the appellants

acquired by the respondents was at a prime place adjoining the road, government

buildings and finally it was prayed that the impugned judgment be quashed to the

extent of assessing the rate of the land of the appellants as ₹ 3.00 lakh per kanal;

and that the respondents be directed to pay compensation at the market rate of

₹10.00 lakh per kanal, as had been the sale consideration in one of the sale deeds

executed on 29.11.2006.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has argued that

the land of the appellants was acquired for the construction of building of

Government Degree College at Thannamandi in the year 2005 and after soliciting

objections from the interested persons and land owners, relating to acquisition of

the land, the Collector after initiating the process of acquisition, had proposed

compensation @ ₹ 1.50 per kanal along with 15% Jabrana which had been

approved by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, J & K, vide his order dated

MA No. 269/2015 Page 5 of 15

13.12.2006; that the appellants after receiving the compensation had prayed for

making a reference to the District Court which was made by the Collector and the

Reference Court vide impugned judgment, after consideration of the oral as well

as documentary evidence adduced , had modified the award passed by the District

Collector enhancing the compensation of the land payable to the appellants @ of

₹ 3.00 lakh per kanal besides statutory Jabrana.

6. Learned Sr. AAG has also argued that the witnesses examined by the

appellants before the Court below had stated that the land was situated at

Thannamandi about more than 20 kilometers from District Headquarters of

Rajouri, had not very potential market value as the land was situated at

Thannamandi-Shahdra road, away from the market; that the copies of the sale

deeds that the appellants had produced before the Reference Court were

pertaining to distant land and also small parcel which cannot be made basis for

grant of compensation for the land in question. She has finally argued that the

compensation granted by the Collector had already been doubled by the

Reference Court and does not call for any interference by this Court, invoking the

appellate jurisdiction.

7. The Government of Jammu & Kashmir had acquired 38 kanals 10

marlas of land situated at village Hasplote Tehsil Thannamandi, Rajouri, for the

construction of building for establishment of Government Degree College at

Thannamandi in the year 2005, the Collector during acquisition proceedings had

called objections from the interested persons as land owners and the indenting

MA No. 269/2015 Page 6 of 15

department, acquired the land granting compensation @ ₹ 1.5 lakh per kanal.

After receiving the compensation by the appellants land owners under protest, an

application was moved for making reference to the District Court, the reference

was made, which was decided by the Reference Court on 30.09.2015, enhancing

the rate of compensation from ₹ 1.50 to ₹ 3.00 lakh per kanal in favour of the land

owners. The appellants, however, assailed the award passed by the Reference

Court before this Court on the afore-stated grounds that the Reference Court had

ignored the statements of the witnesses examined by the appellants and the

documentary evidence led in the form of copies of the sale deeds.

8. The Reference Court on filing of pleadings by the parties, had framed

following issues for trial of the Reference:

1. Whether the Collector has failed to assess the market

rate of the acquired land as per prevailing market

value?

2. In case the issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, what is

the just and proper compensation to which the

claimants are entitled to? OPP

3. Whether the reference of dispute is time barred? OPD.

4. Relief.

9. The appellants had examined land owners-Abdul Rashid, Manzoor

Hussain, Haji Ghulam Hussain, Abdul Rashid, Mohd. Hussain, Mohd. Bashir,

Mohd. Riaz, Wazir Hussain, Guftar Ahmed, Mohd. Shabir, Mohd. Iqbal, Kala

Khan, Mohd. Sadiq, Hassan Mohd., Abdul Aziz, Ayaz Ahmed, Mumtaz Ahmed,

MA No. 269/2015 Page 7 of 15

Javed and Mohd. Azam-Patwaries, Mohd. Farooq Khan-Tehsildar as their

witnesses, whereas the respondents did not lead any evidence, in support of their

case.

10. The land owners- Abdul Hamid, Manzoor Hussain, Haji Ghulam

Hussain, Abdul Rashid, Mohd. Hussain, Mohd. Shabir, Mohd. Iqbal, examined

themselves as their witnesses before the Reference Court. All of them made

almost similar statements stating that their land has been acquired for the

construction of the building of Govt. Degree College at Thannamandi, for which

they had been given compensation at a low rate, whereas the fact of the matter

was that the land acquired was within the municipal jurisdiction of Thannamandi

and was cultivable land producing rice, wheat, and vegetables. The land was plain

and was adjoining to the Thannamandi-Shahdra Sharief road having much

commercial value as the Army unit and the buildings of Muslims Education Trust

and shops were in the vicinity. The land had a potential value of at least Rs.10.00

lakhs per kanal; on their cross-examination they have stated that the land of the

appellants was at a distance of more than 20 kms from Rajouri town and that

there were no industries in the area.

11. The appellants had also examined Hasan Mohd., Abdul Aziz, Ayaz

Akhter, Mumtaz Ahmad, Guftar Ahmed, Kala Khan, Mohd. Bashir, Mohd. Sadiq,

Mohd. Riaz, Javed Iqbal and Mohd. Azam patwaries and Mohd. Farooq Khan-

Tehsildar Thanamandi as their witnesses. PW-Hasan Mohd stated that he had sold

three marlas of land to one-Sagheer Ahmed against the sale consideration of

MA No. 269/2015 Page 8 of 15

Rs.90,000/- vide Sale Deed dated 28.11.2006 in the next year of the acquisition of

the land in question and stated that the petitioners’ land had a market value of not

less than Rs.10.00 lakhs per kanal. In his cross examination, he has stated that the

land that he had sold was in the vicinity of the petitioners’ land that was acquired,

situated across the road, where shops have been constructed. PW-Abdul Aziz

stated that the appellants’ land is situated within municipal limits surrounded by

various buildings/offices and have a potential commercial value; that he had sold

his land measuring six marlas to one-Maqbool Hussain and his brothers against

sale consideration of an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh as per the sale deed which he had

produced. In his cross examination, he has stated that near the land of the

appellants, there was no market. PWs-Ayaz Akhter, Mumtaz Ahmed, Guftar

Ahmed, Kala Khan, Mohd. Bashir, Mohd. Sadiq, Mohd. Riaz have stated that the

land of the appellants acquired by the respondents had potential market value

being situated within municipal limits of Thannamandi, land being plain and

producing different crops and is situated adjacent to Army Unit and an Academy

and that the land had a value of at least Rs.10.00 lacs per kanal.

12. PWs Javed Iqbal and Mohd. Azam who were patwaries of Halqa

Thanna and Hasplote stated that they had seen the acquired land situated at

Thannamandi-Shahdra Road near army brigade headquarters. The land had good

productive value and commercial viability; in their cross-examination, they stated

that the land was situated at a distance of more than 20 kms from Rajouri in the

foot of the hills of Thannamandi. PW- Mohd. Farooq Khan, Tehsildar

MA No. 269/2015 Page 9 of 15

Thannamandi while being examined stated that the appellants’ land acquired for

construction of Govt. Degree College was situated at Thannamandi-Shahdra Road

and that as per the report of then Tehsildar, the minimum rate of the land was

Rs.2,66,000/-; he on his cross-examination deposed that land was situated at

about half a kilometer from Thannamandi town.

13. The respondents did not lead any evidence in rebuttal before the

Reference Court.

14. Besides above-mentioned oral evidence, the appellants had also

produced copies of the sale deed before the Reference Court, which indicated that

a piece of land measuring 3 marlas was sold against a sale consideration of

Rs.90,000/- on 28.11.2006 and another piece of land measuring six marlas of land

was sold against a sale consideration of Rs.1.00 lakh on 06.06.2005. The

Reference Court, keeping in view, all the relevant factors applicable to the facts

of the case in its wisdom held the appellants entitled to compensation at the rate

of Rs.3.00 lakhs per kanal along with 15 per cent compulsive acquisition and, as

such, replied the reference enhancing the compensation to double.

15. The oral evidence that had been led by the appellants before the

Reference Court indicated that the land was situated at Thannamandi-Shahdra

Road near Army Brigade Headquarters and also an Educational Acemdemy of the

Muslims Educational Trust where other buildings /offices were also situated. The

road had an access by a link road and on that link, this three marlas of land had

MA No. 269/2015 Page 10 of 15

been sold against a consideration of Rs.90,000/- on 28.11.2006, which means that

the rate per kanal was Rs.6.00 lakhs. Similarly, the six marlas of land also sold in

the vicinity of the land acquired on 06.06.2005 against a consideration of Rs.1.00

lakh, as such, rate per kanal comes to Rs.3.33 lakhs.

16. The Reference Court, keeping in view, the evidence led by the

appellants, documentary as well as oral evidence, had come to decide market

value of the land @ Rs.3.00 lakhs per kanal, however, it appears that the

Reference Court has fallen in error not to consider the oral as well as

documentary evidence which indicated that land had a potential value. The

documents, in the shape of sale deeds, , which had been executed around or soon

after the acquisition with regard to the land situated in the vicinity of the acquired

land were also indicative that the land had a rate from Rs.3.33 lakhs to Rs.6.00

lakhs per kanal.

17. The Apex Court in a case titled “Viluben Jhalejar Contractor vs. State

of Gujarat”, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 789, has laid down the principles for

determination of market value of the acquired land. Paras 17, 18, 19 and 20 shall

be relevant and are reproduced as under:-

“17. Section 23 of the act specifies the matters required to be

considered in determining the compensation; the principal

among which is the determination of the market value of the

land on the date of the publication of the notification under

sub-section (1) of Section 4.

MA No. 269/2015 Page 11 of 15

18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of

compensation for acquisition of land would be the

willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor.

It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a

willing and informed buyer would offer would be different

in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment

of the property and in the cases where he is not.

19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may

fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller

unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase.

Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the

shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or

about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or

otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences

have to be considered.

20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with

mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be

indentified having regard to the proximity from time angle

as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining

the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable

adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive

and negative factors vis-à-vis the land under acquisition by

placing the two in juxtaposition.”

18. The Apex Court in another case titled “Major General Kapil Mehra &

Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.”, in its judgment dated 17.10.2014 reported as

2014 AIR SC 6086 has laid down the following principles to determine the

market value of the land under acquisition. Para Nos.10 and 11 of the judgment

shall be relevant to be reproduced here under:

MA No. 269/2015 Page 12 of 15

“10. The first question that emerges is, what would be the

reasonable market value which the acquired lands are

capable of fetching. While fixing the market value of the

acquired land, the land acquisition officer is required to

keep in mind the following factors: (i) existing geographical

situation of the land; (ii) existing use of the land; (iii)

already advantages, like proximity to National or State

Highway or road and/or developed area; and (iv) market

value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area

or adjacent or very near to the acquired land.

11. The standard method of determination of the market

value of any acquired land is by the valuer evaluating the

land on the date of valuation publication of notification

under Section 4(1) of the Act, acting as a hypothetical

purchaser willing to purchase the land in open market at the

prevailing price on that day, from a seller willing to sell

such land at a reasonable price. Thus, the market value is

determined with reference to the open market sale of

comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to

a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminary

notification, as that would give a fair indication of the

market value.”

19. In a case titled “Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board

vs. K.S Gangadharappa” (2009) 11 SCC 164, factors which merit consideration

as comparable sales are, inter alia, laid down as under:

“It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is

reduced to minimum if the underlying principles of fixation

of market value with reference to comparable sales are made:

(i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date

of notification under Section 4(1);

MA No. 269/2015 Page 13 of 15

(ii) it should be a bona fide transaction;

(iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land

adjacent to the land acquired; and

(iv) it should possess similar advantages.”

20. Comparable sales method for valuation of land is adopted by the Courts

while fixing the market value of the acquired land rather than methods of

valuation of land such as capatilsation of net income method or expert opinion

method, comparable sales method is preferred because it furnishes the evidence

for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which the willing

purchaser would pay for acquired land, if it had been sold in the open market at

the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. There are factors

which are required to be satisfied and only on fulfillment of those factors the

market value of the acquired land is fixed while taking comparable sales method

of valuation of land, the compensation can be awarded according to the value of

the land stated in the sale deeds.

21. It is worth to be mentioned that where the land acquired are of different

type and different locations, averaging is not permissible. But where there are

several sales of similar lands, more or less, at the same time, whose prices have

marginal variation, averaging thereof is permissible. For the purpose of fixation

of fair and reasonable market value of any type of land, abnormally high value or

abnormally low value sales should be carefully discarded. If the number of sale

deeds of the same locality and the same period with short intervals are available,

the average price of the available number of sale deeds shall be considered as a

MA No. 269/2015 Page 14 of 15

fair and reasonable market price. Ultimately, it is in the interest of justice for the

land losers to be awarded fair compensation. All attempts should be taken to

award fair compensation to the extent possible on the basis of their accessibility

to different kinds of roads, locational advantages, etc.

22. In view of the guidelines for the determination of the market value of

the acquired land when sale deeds being comparable having in mind the point of

time of the execution of the sale deeds and the acquisition of the land and the

close vicinity of the location of both the lands, at least the view could have been

taken by the Reference Court to grant compensation as compared to the sale

deeds. The land was admittedly within the municipal limits of Municipal

Committee, Thannamandi has deposed by the local Tehsildar. Distance from a

district headquarters as has been highlighted during the cross-examination of the

witnesses by the govt. counsel does not make any difference as the distances from

one place to another is immaterial, particularly, in the face of the commercial

value of the place where it had been acquired. It appears that the Reference Court

had fallen in error to decide the issues with regard to the market value of the

acquired land for just and proper compensation, particularly, in view of

comparable sales method for valuation, which is adopted by the courts. In view of

two sale deeds executed before and after the acquisition of land in question

location thereof in vicinity and in Thanamandi town near market within municipal

limits, showing different rates and on a comparable basis, in the considered

opinion of this court, the mean of the two which shall be proper to assess the just

MA No. 269/2015 Page 15 of 15

and fair compensation at the rate of which is worked out as Rs.4,66,666/- rounded

off to Rs.4.67 lac per kanal.

23. Viewed thus, the findings recorded by the Reference Court in issues

No.1 and 2 are set aside, holding that the land owners are entitled to receive

compensation @ Rs.4.67 lak per kanal for their land acquired.

24. Having regard to the above discussion and the observations made

hereinabove, this court is of the considered opinion that the Reference Court has

not granted just and fair compensation to the appellants for the land acquired and

the rate of compensation is ordered to be enhanced to Rs.4,67,000/- per kanal.

The amount of compensation, to each of the land owners, shall be computed at

this rate, so as to make payment, after adjustment of the compensation that they

had already received and that the enhanced compensation shall be recoverable

along with statutory compulsive acquisition (Jabrana) @ 15% and simple interest

@ 6 per cent from the date possession of the land was taken over by the

respondents.

25. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, along with connected

application(s).

(M.A. CHOWDHARY)

Judge

JAMMU

19.02.2026

Surinder/Raj kumar

Whether order is speaking: Yes/No

Whether order is reportable: Yes/No