RFA-2662

118 (57 cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Sarla Sharma

State of Haryana and anr.

CORAM:

Present:

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

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

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

acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For

the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from

2.

laid to the decision dated 24.12.2010 passed by the learned

Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra

2662-2011 (O&M) & 56 others [1

118 (57 cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

*****

Date of Decision: 05.12.2025

RFA No. 2662 of 2011 (O&M)

Sarla Sharma

Versus

State of Haryana and anr.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate

Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate

Mr. S.S. Momi, Advocate

Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate

Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate

for the landowners.

Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and

Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate

for respondent No.2-Market Committee.

---

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

Vide this common order, a bunch of 57 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 common

acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For

ake of brevity, facts are being taken from

By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been

laid to the decision dated 24.12.2010 passed by the learned

Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra

1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 05.12.2025

RFA No. 2662 of 2011 (O&M)

…….Appellant

Versus

..….Respondents

HARKESH MANUJA

Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate

Rohit Singh, Advocate

Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate

Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.

Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and

Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate

Market Committee.

Vide this common order, a bunch of 57 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 common

acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For

ake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.2662-2011.

way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been

laid to the decision dated 24.12.2010 passed by the learned

Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra-cum-Reference Court.

Vide this common order, a bunch of 57 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 common

acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For

.

way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been

laid to the decision dated 24.12.2010 passed by the learned

RFA-2662

3.

revenue estate of Village Jhansa, was acquired by the Government of

Haryana vide notifications dated 05.03.2008 and 06.11.2008, issued

under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short

‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for extension of Grain

Market in Sub Yard at Jhansa by the Market Committee, Ismailabad.

The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award

01.06.2009 assessed market value in respect of the acquired l

Rs.8,00,000/

amount @ 12% per annum from the date of publication under Section

4 of the Act, besides granting all other statutory benefits under the

Act.

4.

landowners filed

which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court while

determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,000/

sq. yard, besides all other statutory b

30% solatium with additional amount @ 12% per annum.

5.

Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of

landowners as well as State.

6.

the appellants / landowners submits that the learned Reference Court

while drawing

2662-2011 (O&M) & 56 others [2

Briefly stating, 138K-12M of land, situated within the

revenue estate of Village Jhansa, was acquired by the Government of

Haryana vide notifications dated 05.03.2008 and 06.11.2008, issued

under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short

t’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for extension of Grain

Market in Sub Yard at Jhansa by the Market Committee, Ismailabad.

The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award

01.06.2009 assessed market value in respect of the acquired l

Rs.8,00,000/- per acre along with solatium @ 30% with additional

amount @ 12% per annum from the date of publication under Section

4 of the Act, besides granting all other statutory benefits under the

Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, t

landowners filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act,

which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court while

determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,000/

sq. yard, besides all other statutory benefits under the Act along with

30% solatium with additional amount @ 12% per annum.

Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference

Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of

landowners as well as State.

Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for

the appellants / landowners submits that the learned Reference Court

drawing reliance upon the sale instances Exs.A2 to A4 and A10

2]

12M of land, situated within the

revenue estate of Village Jhansa, was acquired by the Government of

Haryana vide notifications dated 05.03.2008 and 06.11.2008, issued

under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short

t’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for extension of Grain

Market in Sub Yard at Jhansa by the Market Committee, Ismailabad.

The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award

01.06.2009 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @

per acre along with solatium @ 30% with additional

amount @ 12% per annum from the date of publication under Section

4 of the Act, besides granting all other statutory benefits under the

Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/

reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act,

which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court while

determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,000/- per

enefits under the Act along with

30% solatium with additional amount @ 12% per annum.

Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference

Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of

gning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for

the appellants / landowners submits that the learned Reference Court

upon the sale instances Exs.A2 to A4 and A10

12M of land, situated within the

revenue estate of Village Jhansa, was acquired by the Government of

Haryana vide notifications dated 05.03.2008 and 06.11.2008, issued

under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short

t’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for extension of Grain

Market in Sub Yard at Jhansa by the Market Committee, Ismailabad.

The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award

and @

per acre along with solatium @ 30% with additional

amount @ 12% per annum from the date of publication under Section

4 of the Act, besides granting all other statutory benefits under the

he appellants/

reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act,

which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court while

per

enefits under the Act along with

Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference

Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of

gning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for

the appellants / landowners submits that the learned Reference Court

upon the sale instances Exs.A2 to A4 and A10

RFA-2662

which were all relating to April 2006

consideration of Rs.48,40,000/

favour of the appellants/ landowners @ Rs.1,000/

(Rs.48,00,000/

learned Reference Court

the time gap between the date of such sale instance (April 2006) till

the date of notification under Section 4 in the present case

(05.03.2008)

emphasized

awarded by granting annual appreciation @ 15% per annum for the

time gap w.e.f. April 2006 till 05.03.2008.

6.1

points out that initially the land under acquisition was notified under

Section 4 of the A

proceedings were not concluded and thereafter on 05.03.2008 again

this very land came to be notified under Section 4 of the Act followed

by notification under

passing of

damages

landowners w.e.f. 27.11.2006 to 05.03.2008

submitted that the

needs to be modified

valuation done by the LAC for the construction existing over the

acquired land was also required to be enhanced based on the

2662-2011 (O&M) & 56 others [3

which were all relating to April 2006

ration of Rs.48,40,000/- per acre

favour of the appellants/ landowners @ Rs.1,000/

(Rs.48,00,000/- per acre). However, it has been

learned Reference Court failed to grant the benefit of appreciation f

the time gap between the date of such sale instance (April 2006) till

the date of notification under Section 4 in the present case

(05.03.2008) over the base price per acre

emphasized that the assessment of market value should have bee

awarded by granting annual appreciation @ 15% per annum for the

time gap w.e.f. April 2006 till 05.03.2008.

Learned counsel for the appellants/landowners also

points out that initially the land under acquisition was notified under

Section 4 of the Act on 27.11.2006, however, the acquisition

proceedings were not concluded and thereafter on 05.03.2008 again

this very land came to be notified under Section 4 of the Act followed

notification under Section 6 thereof issued on 06.11.2008 and

passing of the award dated 01.06.2009 and as such suitable

damages are required to be awarded in favour of the appellants/

landowners w.e.f. 27.11.2006 to 05.03.2008

submitted that the award passed by the learned Reference Court

to be modified accordingly. It has also been submitted that the

valuation done by the LAC for the construction existing over the

acquired land was also required to be enhanced based on the

3]

which were all relating to April 2006 and were for the sale

per acre, awarded market value in

favour of the appellants/ landowners @ Rs.1,000/- per marla

. However, it has been submitted that the

failed to grant the benefit of appreciation f

the time gap between the date of such sale instance (April 2006) till

the date of notification under Section 4 in the present case

over the base price per acre. It has thus been

that the assessment of market value should have bee

awarded by granting annual appreciation @ 15% per annum for the

time gap w.e.f. April 2006 till 05.03.2008.

Learned counsel for the appellants/landowners also

points out that initially the land under acquisition was notified under

ct on 27.11.2006, however, the acquisition

proceedings were not concluded and thereafter on 05.03.2008 again

this very land came to be notified under Section 4 of the Act followed

Section 6 thereof issued on 06.11.2008 and

the award dated 01.06.2009 and as such suitable

required to be awarded in favour of the appellants/

landowners w.e.f. 27.11.2006 to 05.03.2008. It has thus been

award passed by the learned Reference Court

It has also been submitted that the

valuation done by the LAC for the construction existing over the

acquired land was also required to be enhanced based on the

the sale

market value in

per marla

that the

failed to grant the benefit of appreciation for

the time gap between the date of such sale instance (April 2006) till

the date of notification under Section 4 in the present case

. It has thus been

that the assessment of market value should have been

awarded by granting annual appreciation @ 15% per annum for the

Learned counsel for the appellants/landowners also

points out that initially the land under acquisition was notified under

ct on 27.11.2006, however, the acquisition

proceedings were not concluded and thereafter on 05.03.2008 again

this very land came to be notified under Section 4 of the Act followed

Section 6 thereof issued on 06.11.2008 and

the award dated 01.06.2009 and as such suitable

required to be awarded in favour of the appellants/

. It has thus been

award passed by the learned Reference Court

It has also been submitted that the

valuation done by the LAC for the construction existing over the

acquired land was also required to be enhanced based on the

RFA-2662

evidence produced on record.

7.

of respondent No.2

assessed by the learned Reference Court @ Rs.1,000/

was based on the sale instance pertaining to small parcel of land and

as such suitable deduction was required to be

price derived from the sale instance Exs.A2 to A4 & A10 and

accordingly, the market value as required to be re

towards development cost was also required to be applied

base price derived from the abovementioned sale instances as by

virtue of acquisition of the land in question for the public purpose,

namely,

Market Committee, Ismailabad

all necessary amenities for enjoyment of the allotment made in their

favour.

7.1.

instances produced by the landowners pertained to small area of land

as compared to the large

also required to be applied over the base price derived from the

above-mentioned sale instances on account of smallness of land

thereunder

impugned award passed by the l

to be set aside and that of the LAC was required to be restored.

2662-2011 (O&M) & 56 others [4

evidence produced on record.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on

of respondent No.2-Market Committee submits that the market value

assessed by the learned Reference Court @ Rs.1,000/

was based on the sale instance pertaining to small parcel of land and

as such suitable deduction was required to be

price derived from the sale instance Exs.A2 to A4 & A10 and

accordingly, the market value as required to be re

It has also been submitted that an appropriate deduction

towards development cost was also required to be applied

base price derived from the abovementioned sale instances as by

virtue of acquisition of the land in question for the public purpose,

namely, extension of Grain Market in Sub Yard at Jhansa by the

Market Committee, Ismailabad, the beneficiaries we

all necessary amenities for enjoyment of the allotment made in their

Further, it has also been submitted that since the sale

instances produced by the landowners pertained to small area of land

as compared to the large extent of acquired

also required to be applied over the base price derived from the

mentioned sale instances on account of smallness of land

thereunder. In view of the above, it has been prayed that the

impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was liable

to be set aside and that of the LAC was required to be restored.

4]

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf

Market Committee submits that the market value

assessed by the learned Reference Court @ Rs.1,000/- per sq. yards

was based on the sale instance pertaining to small parcel of land and

as such suitable deduction was required to be applied on the base

price derived from the sale instance Exs.A2 to A4 & A10 and

accordingly, the market value as required to be re-assessed.

It has also been submitted that an appropriate deduction

towards development cost was also required to be applied over the

base price derived from the abovementioned sale instances as by

virtue of acquisition of the land in question for the public purpose,

extension of Grain Market in Sub Yard at Jhansa by the

, the beneficiaries were to be granted

all necessary amenities for enjoyment of the allotment made in their

Further, it has also been submitted that since the sale

instances produced by the landowners pertained to small area of land

of acquired land, a cut of 25% was

also required to be applied over the base price derived from the

mentioned sale instances on account of smallness of land

In view of the above, it has been prayed that the

earned Reference Court was liable

to be set aside and that of the LAC was required to be restored.

behalf

Market Committee submits that the market value

per sq. yards

was based on the sale instance pertaining to small parcel of land and

the base

price derived from the sale instance Exs.A2 to A4 & A10 and

It has also been submitted that an appropriate deduction

over the

base price derived from the abovementioned sale instances as by

virtue of acquisition of the land in question for the public purpose,

extension of Grain Market in Sub Yard at Jhansa by the

re to be granted

all necessary amenities for enjoyment of the allotment made in their

Further, it has also been submitted that since the sale

instances produced by the landowners pertained to small area of land

land, a cut of 25% was

also required to be applied over the base price derived from the

mentioned sale instances on account of smallness of land

In view of the above, it has been prayed that the

earned Reference Court was liable

RFA-2662

8.

through the paper

9.

record, it has been established that the land under acquisition was

located abutting Jhansa

vicinity of

units.

9.1

positive finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Reference

Court with respect to the commercial as well as industrial potential

attached to the land under acquisition. Relevant paragraph No.20

from the Reference Court Awar

hereunder:

2662-2011 (O&M) & 56 others [5

I have heard learned counsel of the parties and gone

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

In the present case, from the evidence av

record, it has been established that the land under acquisition was

located abutting Jhansa-Kurukshetra road, besides being

vicinity of numerous shops as well as small commercial/ industrial

Further, based on the evidenc

positive finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Reference

Court with respect to the commercial as well as industrial potential

attached to the land under acquisition. Relevant paragraph No.20

from the Reference Court Award to the aforesaid extent is extracted

hereunder:-

“20. The acquired land was very valuable piece of land

and was having great potential to be used for

commercial as well as industrial purposes and in

order to determine the market value of the acquired

land, the following facts are to be noticed:

(a) That the land owned by the petitioners is surrounded

on the Eastern side, remaining acquired land, on the

Western side, Old grain Market, on the Northern

side, main Jhansa

Southern side, Abadi of Jhansa town. The entire

land owned by th

potential to be used for commercial as well as

industrial purposes. Ex.A8, site plan, which has not

been disputed by the other side, clearly depicts the

existing position of the land at the spot at the time of

its acquisition. In this site plan, it is specifically

shown that on the western side of the acquired land

5]

I have heard learned counsel of the parties and gone

book as well as records of the case.

In the present case, from the evidence available on

record, it has been established that the land under acquisition was

Kurukshetra road, besides being in the close

numerous shops as well as small commercial/ industrial

on the evidence available on record, a

positive finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Reference

Court with respect to the commercial as well as industrial potential

attached to the land under acquisition. Relevant paragraph No.20

d to the aforesaid extent is extracted

The acquired land was very valuable piece of land

and was having great potential to be used for

commercial as well as industrial purposes and in

order to determine the market value of the acquired

land, the following facts are to be noticed:-

land owned by the petitioners is surrounded

on the Eastern side, remaining acquired land, on the

Western side, Old grain Market, on the Northern

side, main Jhansa-Kurukshetra Road and on the

Southern side, Abadi of Jhansa town. The entire

land owned by the petitioners was having great

potential to be used for commercial as well as

industrial purposes. Ex.A8, site plan, which has not

been disputed by the other side, clearly depicts the

existing position of the land at the spot at the time of

. In this site plan, it is specifically

shown that on the western side of the acquired land

I have heard learned counsel of the parties and gone

ailable on

record, it has been established that the land under acquisition was

in the close

numerous shops as well as small commercial/ industrial

e available on record, a

positive finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Reference

Court with respect to the commercial as well as industrial potential

attached to the land under acquisition. Relevant paragraph No.20

d to the aforesaid extent is extracted

The acquired land was very valuable piece of land

and was having great potential to be used for

commercial as well as industrial purposes and in

order to determine the market value of the acquired

land owned by the petitioners is surrounded

on the Eastern side, remaining acquired land, on the

Western side, Old grain Market, on the Northern

Kurukshetra Road and on the

Southern side, Abadi of Jhansa town. The entire

e petitioners was having great

potential to be used for commercial as well as

industrial purposes. Ex.A8, site plan, which has not

been disputed by the other side, clearly depicts the

existing position of the land at the spot at the time of

. In this site plan, it is specifically

shown that on the western side of the acquired land

RFA-2662

9.2

2662-2011 (O&M) & 56 others [6

owned by the petitioners, there is old Grain Market,

on the Western side, there is Cold Storage, Petrol

Pump, Godowns and the houses of Jhansa Town,

on the Northern side, there is main road leading from

Jhansa to Kurukshetra and across the road, just in

front of the acquired land, there are many Show

Rooms, Shops, Hotels, Poultry Farm and Public

School. On the Southern side, Abadi of

Town is there. This side p

contradicted or challenged by the respondents. On

the other hand, the respondents have not produced

any site plan showing the existing state of affairs at

the time of acquisition of the land. In the acquired

land also, many shops were alre

the time of its notification. One factory and many

shops were also in existence at the time of

acquisition. From the site plan and from the other

evidence adduced on the file, it is clearly established

that the acquired land is surround

Kurukshetra-Jhansa Road on one side and on the

other side also, there is road and across the road,

there is Abadi of Jhansa Town. The acquired land

being situated adjoining the Jhansa Town and the

Old Anaj Mandi was having great potential an

value be assessed considering as is well as only can

potential to be used for commercial industrial

purposes and not on the basis of its being

agricultural land. The LAC has totally ignored the

potential which the acquired land was having and

which is clearly depicted in the site plan Ex.A8 and

has assessed the market value of the land simply on

the basis of notification of the Haryana Government,

vide which lowest price has been mentioned as Rs.8

Lakhs per acre.”

No material worth taking contra

6]

owned by the petitioners, there is old Grain Market,

on the Western side, there is Cold Storage, Petrol

Pump, Godowns and the houses of Jhansa Town,

side, there is main road leading from

Jhansa to Kurukshetra and across the road, just in

front of the acquired land, there are many Show

Rooms, Shops, Hotels, Poultry Farm and Public

School. On the Southern side, Abadi of Jhansa

Town is there. This side plan has not been

contradicted or challenged by the respondents. On

the other hand, the respondents have not produced

any site plan showing the existing state of affairs at

the time of acquisition of the land. In the acquired

land also, many shops were already in existence at

the time of its notification. One factory and many

shops were also in existence at the time of

acquisition. From the site plan and from the other

evidence adduced on the file, it is clearly established

that the acquired land is surrounded by the main

Jhansa Road on one side and on the

other side also, there is road and across the road,

there is Abadi of Jhansa Town. The acquired land

being situated adjoining the Jhansa Town and the

Old Anaj Mandi was having great potential and its

value be assessed considering as is well as only can

potential to be used for commercial industrial

purposes and not on the basis of its being

agricultural land. The LAC has totally ignored the

potential which the acquired land was having and

s clearly depicted in the site plan Ex.A8 and

has assessed the market value of the land simply on

the basis of notification of the Haryana Government,

vide which lowest price has been mentioned as Rs.8

No material worth taking contrary value has been pointed

owned by the petitioners, there is old Grain Market,

on the Western side, there is Cold Storage, Petrol

Pump, Godowns and the houses of Jhansa Town,

side, there is main road leading from

Jhansa to Kurukshetra and across the road, just in

front of the acquired land, there are many Show-

Rooms, Shops, Hotels, Poultry Farm and Public

Jhansa

lan has not been

contradicted or challenged by the respondents. On

the other hand, the respondents have not produced

any site plan showing the existing state of affairs at

the time of acquisition of the land. In the acquired

ady in existence at

the time of its notification. One factory and many

shops were also in existence at the time of

acquisition. From the site plan and from the other

evidence adduced on the file, it is clearly established

ed by the main

Jhansa Road on one side and on the

other side also, there is road and across the road,

there is Abadi of Jhansa Town. The acquired land

being situated adjoining the Jhansa Town and the

d its

value be assessed considering as is well as only can

potential to be used for commercial industrial

purposes and not on the basis of its being

agricultural land. The LAC has totally ignored the

potential which the acquired land was having and

s clearly depicted in the site plan Ex.A8 and

has assessed the market value of the land simply on

the basis of notification of the Haryana Government,

vide which lowest price has been mentioned as Rs.8

ry value has been pointed

RFA-2662

out by the

the factum of acquired land

even formed

own witness of respondents

Ismailabad. Relevant part of his cross

extracted hereunder:

2662-2011 (O&M) & 56 others [7

the learned counsel representing the respondents.

the factum of acquired land been surrounded by various shops which

even formed part of the present acquisition has been admitted by

own witness of respondents i.e. RW1 Diler Singh, Secretary, MC,

Ismailabad. Relevant part of his cross

extracted hereunder:-

“Shop No. 1 belongs to Aggarwal Trading Company, Shop No. 2

belongs to M/s Sadhu Ram Som Parkash, Shops no. 3 and 4

belongs to Shri Subhash Chand s/o Thakur Dass, Sanjiv Kumar

S/o Thakur Dass, Ankit Kumar S/o Sh. Pardeep Kumar. Shop No.

5 belongs to Jai Kumar, Pawan Kumar ana Ravinder Kumar son

s/o Shri Shadi Ram, Shop No. 6 belong to Shri Ram Nath, Pawan

Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Suresh

of Sai Dass. Shop No. 7 belongs to Shri Des Raj S/o Sh. Kundan

Lal under the name and style of Bansal Trading Company. Shop

No.8 belongs to Shri Pawan Kumar and Naresh Kumar Sons of

Shri Hem Raj under the name and style In

Shop No. 9 belongs to Smt. Veena Rani Wife of shri Pawan

Kumar, Sh. Naresh Kumar son of Sh. Hem Raj under the name

and style of M/S Gautam Trading Company. Shop No. 10 belongs

to Pankaj Kumar S/o Sh. Purshautam Dass under the name and

style M/S Jai Trading Company, Shop No. 11 belongs to Shri

Dinesh Kumar Son of Sh. Khem Chand. Shop No. 1 was under

occupation of Aggarwal Trading Company, Shop No. 2 was under

occupation of M/S Sadhu Ram Som Parkash trading Company,

Shop No 5 was under occupation of R.K.Trading Company. In

shop No. 1,2,5,7,8,9,10 out of above named 11 shops which have

been acquired alongwith land and building, were under the

business of commission agency, Anaj Mandi Jhansa. In Shop No.

8 M/S Pooja Trading Company, in shop

Trading Company, in shop no. 10 M/S Jai Trading Company, all

commission agency shops were doing business prior to taking of

possession from them under the present acquisition proceedings

7]

learned counsel representing the respondents. Moreover,

surrounded by various shops which

part of the present acquisition has been admitted by the

i.e. RW1 Diler Singh, Secretary, MC,

Ismailabad. Relevant part of his cross-examination in this regard is

Shop No. 1 belongs to Aggarwal Trading Company, Shop No. 2

belongs to M/s Sadhu Ram Som Parkash, Shops no. 3 and 4

hri Subhash Chand s/o Thakur Dass, Sanjiv Kumar

S/o Thakur Dass, Ankit Kumar S/o Sh. Pardeep Kumar. Shop No.

5 belongs to Jai Kumar, Pawan Kumar ana Ravinder Kumar son

s/o Shri Shadi Ram, Shop No. 6 belong to Shri Ram Nath, Pawan

Kumar: and Naresh Kumar all Sons

of Sai Dass. Shop No. 7 belongs to Shri Des Raj S/o Sh. Kundan

Lal under the name and style of Bansal Trading Company. Shop

No.8 belongs to Shri Pawan Kumar and Naresh Kumar Sons of

Shri Hem Raj under the name and style India Trading Company.

Shop No. 9 belongs to Smt. Veena Rani Wife of shri Pawan

Kumar, Sh. Naresh Kumar son of Sh. Hem Raj under the name

and style of M/S Gautam Trading Company. Shop No. 10 belongs

to Pankaj Kumar S/o Sh. Purshautam Dass under the name and

style M/S Jai Trading Company, Shop No. 11 belongs to Shri

Dinesh Kumar Son of Sh. Khem Chand. Shop No. 1 was under

occupation of Aggarwal Trading Company, Shop No. 2 was under

occupation of M/S Sadhu Ram Som Parkash trading Company,

cupation of R.K.Trading Company. In

shop No. 1,2,5,7,8,9,10 out of above named 11 shops which have

been acquired alongwith land and building, were under the

business of commission agency, Anaj Mandi Jhansa. In Shop No.

8 M/S Pooja Trading Company, in shop no. 9 M/S Gautam

Trading Company, in shop no. 10 M/S Jai Trading Company, all

commission agency shops were doing business prior to taking of

possession from them under the present acquisition proceedings

Moreover,

surrounded by various shops which

the

i.e. RW1 Diler Singh, Secretary, MC,

examination in this regard is

Shop No. 1 belongs to Aggarwal Trading Company, Shop No. 2

belongs to M/s Sadhu Ram Som Parkash, Shops no. 3 and 4

hri Subhash Chand s/o Thakur Dass, Sanjiv Kumar

S/o Thakur Dass, Ankit Kumar S/o Sh. Pardeep Kumar. Shop No.

5 belongs to Jai Kumar, Pawan Kumar ana Ravinder Kumar son

s/o Shri Shadi Ram, Shop No. 6 belong to Shri Ram Nath, Pawan

Kumar: and Naresh Kumar all Sons

of Sai Dass. Shop No. 7 belongs to Shri Des Raj S/o Sh. Kundan

Lal under the name and style of Bansal Trading Company. Shop

No.8 belongs to Shri Pawan Kumar and Naresh Kumar Sons of

dia Trading Company.

Shop No. 9 belongs to Smt. Veena Rani Wife of shri Pawan

Kumar, Sh. Naresh Kumar son of Sh. Hem Raj under the name

and style of M/S Gautam Trading Company. Shop No. 10 belongs

to Pankaj Kumar S/o Sh. Purshautam Dass under the name and

style M/S Jai Trading Company, Shop No. 11 belongs to Shri

Dinesh Kumar Son of Sh. Khem Chand. Shop No. 1 was under

occupation of Aggarwal Trading Company, Shop No. 2 was under

occupation of M/S Sadhu Ram Som Parkash trading Company,

cupation of R.K.Trading Company. In

shop No. 1,2,5,7,8,9,10 out of above named 11 shops which have

been acquired alongwith land and building, were under the

business of commission agency, Anaj Mandi Jhansa. In Shop No.

no. 9 M/S Gautam

Trading Company, in shop no. 10 M/S Jai Trading Company, all

commission agency shops were doing business prior to taking of

possession from them under the present acquisition proceedings.”

RFA-2662

The aforesaid witness even admitted that the

shops,

business in those shops. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, it was more

than established that the land under acquisition being situated on the

Jhansa-Kurukshetra road abutting the

Market and also surrounded by shops as well as commercial

establishments was having great locational and potential advantage

attached to it.

10.

market value, the appellants/ l

following sale instances:

Exhibit

Number

A-1

A-2

A-3

A-4

A-5

A-10

A-12

A-13

A-16

A-19

A-20

A-22

2662-2011 (O&M) & 56 others [8

The aforesaid witness even admitted that the

acquired under present proceedings were even doing their

business in those shops. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, it was more

than established that the land under acquisition being situated on the

Kurukshetra road abutting the

Market and also surrounded by shops as well as commercial

establishments was having great locational and potential advantage

attached to it.

As per the records, for the purposes of assessment of

market value, the appellants/ landowners produced on record the

following sale instances:-

Total Land Sale

Consideration

66 K 9 M Rs.1,49,12,50/

3 M 3 Sarsai

(100 Sq Yard)

Rs.1,00,000/

3 M 3 Sarsai

(100 Sq Yard)

Rs.1,00,000/

8 M Rs.2,40,000/

2 M 2 Sarsai

(66.66 Sq Yard )

Rs.70,000/

3 M 3 Sarsai

(100 Sq Yard)

Rs.1,00,000/

3 M Rs.15000/

3 M Rs.15000/

3M Rs.1,00,000/

100 Sq Yard Rs.26000/

3 M 3 Sarsai

(100 Sq Yard)

Rs.30,000/

3 M 6 Sarsai

(110 Sq Yard)

Rs.68,000/

8]

The aforesaid witness even admitted that the owners of the

acquired under present proceedings were even doing their

business in those shops. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, it was more

than established that the land under acquisition being situated on the

Kurukshetra road abutting the already developed Grain

Market and also surrounded by shops as well as commercial

establishments was having great locational and potential advantage

As per the records, for the purposes of assessment of

andowners produced on record the

Consideration

Date of Sale Value in

Acres

Rs.1,49,12,50/- 30.05.2008 Rs.1,79,669/

Rs.1,00,000/- 21.04.2006 Rs.48,40,000/

Rs.1,00,000/- 04.04.2006 Rs.48,40,000/

Rs.2,40,000/- 04.04.2006 Rs.48,40,000/

Rs.70,000/- 21.04.2006 Rs.50,82,508/

Rs.1,00,000/- 04.04.2006 Rs.48,40,000/

Rs.15000/- 08.03.1990 Rs. 8,00,000/

Rs.15000/- 08.03.1990 Rs. 8,00,000/

Rs.1,00,000/- 18.04.2006 Rs.40,00,000/

Rs.26000/- 27.05.1994 Rs.12,58,400/

Rs.30,000/- 13.01.1999 Rs. 14,52,000/

Rs.68,000/- 10.05.1999 Rs. 29,92,000/

owners of the

acquired under present proceedings were even doing their

business in those shops. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, it was more

than established that the land under acquisition being situated on the

already developed Grain

Market and also surrounded by shops as well as commercial

establishments was having great locational and potential advantage

As per the records, for the purposes of assessment of

andowners produced on record the

Value in

Acres

Rs.1,79,669/-

Rs.48,40,000/-

Rs.48,40,000/-

Rs.48,40,000/-

Rs.50,82,508/-

Rs.48,40,000/-

Rs. 8,00,000/-

Rs. 8,00,000/-

Rs.40,00,000/-

Rs.12,58,400/-

Rs. 14,52,000/-

Rs. 29,92,000/-

RFA-2662

location of the land forming part of the aforementioned

comparison to the land under acquisition and also the land parcels

pertaining to the sale deeds

shajra has been produced by the respondents

which has been prepared by the revenue

Committee, Ismailabad

respondent No.2

perusal of the aforesaid site plan (Mark ‘X’) shows that the land

forming part of the sale deed E

rect. No.128, Qilla No. 5/1 and 52 shown in pink colour is just abutting

to the land under acquisition which has been depicted in green

colour.

11.

respondents which ha

away distance from the acquired land

considered as comparable sale exemplars

the sale deed Ex. A4 dated 04.04.2006

yards of land with base

same nature

needs to be relied upon for the purpose of determination of market

value in the present case

the respondents need to be discarded being of small parcel located at

far away distance from the acquired land.

2662-2011 (O&M) & 56 others [9

For the purpose of assessment,

location of the land forming part of the aforementioned

comparison to the land under acquisition and also the land parcels

pertaining to the sale deeds produced by respondents,

has been produced by the respondents

which has been prepared by the revenue

Committee, Ismailabad; duly signed by learned counsel representing

respondent No.2 and the same is thus

perusal of the aforesaid site plan (Mark ‘X’) shows that the land

forming part of the sale deed Ex.A4 dated 04.04.2006, pertaining to

rect. No.128, Qilla No. 5/1 and 52 shown in pink colour is just abutting

to the land under acquisition which has been depicted in green

On the other hand, the sale instances produced by

respondents which have been shown in Orange

away distance from the acquired land

considered as comparable sale exemplars

the sale deed Ex. A4 dated 04.04.2006

yards of land with base price of Rs.48.40 lakhs per acre

same nature, potential and location as that

needs to be relied upon for the purpose of determination of market

value in the present case whereas the sale instance

the respondents need to be discarded being of small parcel located at

far away distance from the acquired land.

9]

For the purpose of assessment, in order to compare the

location of the land forming part of the aforementioned sale deeds

comparison to the land under acquisition and also the land parcels

produced by respondents, a plan/ aks

has been produced by the respondents before this Court,

which has been prepared by the revenue officials of the Market

duly signed by learned counsel representing

and the same is thus taken on record as Mark ‘X’. A

perusal of the aforesaid site plan (Mark ‘X’) shows that the land

x.A4 dated 04.04.2006, pertaining to

rect. No.128, Qilla No. 5/1 and 52 shown in pink colour is just abutting

to the land under acquisition which has been depicted in green

On the other hand, the sale instances produced by

ve been shown in Orange colour are at far

away distance from the acquired land and therefore, cannot be

considered as comparable sale exemplars. In such circumstances,

the sale deed Ex. A4 dated 04.04.2006 which pertains to 240 sq.

price of Rs.48.40 lakhs per acre and is of

and location as that of the acquisition thus,

needs to be relied upon for the purpose of determination of market

the sale instances produced by

the respondents need to be discarded being of small parcel located at

far away distance from the acquired land.

to compare the

s in

comparison to the land under acquisition and also the land parcels

aks

before this Court,

officials of the Market

duly signed by learned counsel representing

taken on record as Mark ‘X’. A

perusal of the aforesaid site plan (Mark ‘X’) shows that the land

x.A4 dated 04.04.2006, pertaining to

rect. No.128, Qilla No. 5/1 and 52 shown in pink colour is just abutting

to the land under acquisition which has been depicted in green

On the other hand, the sale instances produced by

olour are at far

and therefore, cannot be

. In such circumstances,

to 240 sq.

and is of

thus,

needs to be relied upon for the purpose of determination of market

produced by

the respondents need to be discarded being of small parcel located at

RFA-2662

12.

gap of around 23 months between the sale deed Ex.A4 dated

04.04.2006 and the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case

in hand

acquired land

number of shops and commercial establishments already existi

thereupon prior to its acquisition and the same being located on the

Jhansa-Kurukshetra road, abutting the already developed Grain

Market, Jhansa

rate, needs to be

the sale deed Ex.P4. In support, a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

in case “Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan Distt. Badaun

through its

2004 (1) SCC 283

15% per annum was approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Relevant

para-8 of the said decision is extracted hereunder:

2662-2011 (O&M) & 56 others [10

In addition, it may also be noticed here that there is a time

gap of around 23 months between the sale deed Ex.A4 dated

2006 and the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case

in hand being 05.03.2008, as such

acquired land was already being utilized for commercial purposes;

number of shops and commercial establishments already existi

thereupon prior to its acquisition and the same being located on the

Kurukshetra road, abutting the already developed Grain

Market, Jhansa; an appreciation @ 15% per annum at compound

rate, needs to be granted over the base price

the sale deed Ex.P4. In support, a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

“Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan Distt. Badaun

through its Secretary Versus Bipin Kumar & Anr.”,

2004 (1) SCC 283, needs to be relied upon,

15% per annum was approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Relevant

8 of the said decision is extracted hereunder:

“8. However there is evidence of high potentiality. The

increase of 15% given by the High Court cannot

therefore be said to be u

15% increase has to be on Rs. 15.40 which is the

figure shown in the sale deed. It cannot be on Rs.

120 as wrongly taken by the High Court. The High

Court also erred in considering only three years

increase whereas in fact there

difference between the respondent's sale deed and

the acquisition proceedings. Thus taking an increase

of 60% over the price of Rs. 15.40 per sq. yard the

value comes to Rs. 24.64 per sq. yard. We

10]

In addition, it may also be noticed here that there is a time

gap of around 23 months between the sale deed Ex.A4 dated

2006 and the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case

as such, considering the fact that the

utilized for commercial purposes;

number of shops and commercial establishments already existi

thereupon prior to its acquisition and the same being located on the

Kurukshetra road, abutting the already developed Grain

an appreciation @ 15% per annum at compound

over the base price per acre, derived from

the sale deed Ex.P4. In support, a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

“Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan Distt. Badaun

Secretary Versus Bipin Kumar & Anr.”, reported as

needs to be relied upon, whereby an increase of

15% per annum was approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Relevant

8 of the said decision is extracted hereunder:-

However there is evidence of high potentiality. The

increase of 15% given by the High Court cannot

therefore be said to be unreasonable. Of course, the

15% increase has to be on Rs. 15.40 which is the

figure shown in the sale deed. It cannot be on Rs.

120 as wrongly taken by the High Court. The High

Court also erred in considering only three years

increase whereas in fact there is four years

difference between the respondent's sale deed and

the acquisition proceedings. Thus taking an increase

of 60% over the price of Rs. 15.40 per sq. yard the

value comes to Rs. 24.64 per sq. yard. We

In addition, it may also be noticed here that there is a time

gap of around 23 months between the sale deed Ex.A4 dated

2006 and the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case

considering the fact that the

utilized for commercial purposes;

number of shops and commercial establishments already existing

thereupon prior to its acquisition and the same being located on the

Kurukshetra road, abutting the already developed Grain

an appreciation @ 15% per annum at compound

ed from

the sale deed Ex.P4. In support, a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

“Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan Distt. Badaun

reported as

increase of

15% per annum was approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Relevant

However there is evidence of high potentiality. The

increase of 15% given by the High Court cannot

nreasonable. Of course, the

15% increase has to be on Rs. 15.40 which is the

figure shown in the sale deed. It cannot be on Rs.

120 as wrongly taken by the High Court. The High

Court also erred in considering only three years

is four years

difference between the respondent's sale deed and

the acquisition proceedings. Thus taking an increase

of 60% over the price of Rs. 15.40 per sq. yard the

value comes to Rs. 24.64 per sq. yard. We

RFA-2662

13.

commercial establishments were admittedly existing over the

acquired land; wherein the owners were running their business and

earning livelihood being located near the already developed Grain

Market, Jhansa

already existing in the vicinity.

on record, it is established that all the sale transactions which have

been produced on record

to an irresistible conclusion that the ar

its close vicinity,

purposes. In such exceptional circumstances,

would not be justified to apply any deduction either on account of

smallness of area

or even against any development cost.

13.1.

present case has been made for public purpose, namely, extension of

Grain Market at Jhansa, and as such neither the respondent

Committee, Jhansa suffered any loss towards optimum utilization of

acquired land; nor even they were to incur much infrastructural

for providing

2662-2011 (O&M) & 56 others [11

accordingly set aside the order of the Refer

Court and the High Court and fix value at the rate of

Rs. 24.64 per sq. yard. The respondent will also to

be entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.”

Considering the fact that number of shops and

ommercial establishments were admittedly existing over the

acquired land; wherein the owners were running their business and

earning livelihood being located near the already developed Grain

Market, Jhansa; all basic necessary infrastructural amenities wer

already existing in the vicinity. Moreover, from the evidence available

on record, it is established that all the sale transactions which have

been produced on record pertained to small parcels which

to an irresistible conclusion that the ar

its close vicinity, was having potential

purposes. In such exceptional circumstances,

would not be justified to apply any deduction either on account of

smallness of area involved in the sale deed Ex.A4 dated 04.04.2006

or even against any development cost.

It may also be noticed here that the acquisition in the

present case has been made for public purpose, namely, extension of

Grain Market at Jhansa, and as such neither the respondent

Committee, Jhansa suffered any loss towards optimum utilization of

acquired land; nor even they were to incur much infrastructural

for providing amenities to its beneficiar

11]

accordingly set aside the order of the Reference

Court and the High Court and fix value at the rate of

Rs. 24.64 per sq. yard. The respondent will also to

be entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.”

Considering the fact that number of shops and

ommercial establishments were admittedly existing over the

acquired land; wherein the owners were running their business and

earning livelihood being located near the already developed Grain

all basic necessary infrastructural amenities wer

Moreover, from the evidence available

on record, it is established that all the sale transactions which have

to small parcels which itself leads

to an irresistible conclusion that the area under acquisition and also

was having potential for residential and commercial

purposes. In such exceptional circumstances, in the case in hand, it

would not be justified to apply any deduction either on account of

involved in the sale deed Ex.A4 dated 04.04.2006

or even against any development cost.

It may also be noticed here that the acquisition in the

present case has been made for public purpose, namely, extension of

Grain Market at Jhansa, and as such neither the respondent-Market

Committee, Jhansa suffered any loss towards optimum utilization of

acquired land; nor even they were to incur much infrastructural cost

amenities to its beneficiaries in the shape of green belts

ence

Court and the High Court and fix value at the rate of

Rs. 24.64 per sq. yard. The respondent will also to

be entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits

Considering the fact that number of shops and

ommercial establishments were admittedly existing over the

acquired land; wherein the owners were running their business and

earning livelihood being located near the already developed Grain

all basic necessary infrastructural amenities were

Moreover, from the evidence available

on record, it is established that all the sale transactions which have

leads

ea under acquisition and also

commercial

case in hand, it

would not be justified to apply any deduction either on account of

involved in the sale deed Ex.A4 dated 04.04.2006

It may also be noticed here that the acquisition in the

present case has been made for public purpose, namely, extension of

Market

Committee, Jhansa suffered any loss towards optimum utilization of

cost

in the shape of green belts

RFA-2662

or community buildings etc.

acquisition is situated on the Jhansa

already developed Grain Market and also surrounded by shops as

well as commercial establishments, this Court is not inclined to apply

deduction on account of development

in the latest case by the Hon’ble

State of Haryana

portion thereof is extracted hereunder:

2662-2011 (O&M) & 56 others [12

or community buildings etc. Further, the fact

acquisition is situated on the Jhansa

already developed Grain Market and also surrounded by shops as

well as commercial establishments, this Court is not inclined to apply

deduction on account of development

in the latest case by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

State of Haryana reported as 2025(3) RCR(Civil) 139

portion thereof is extracted hereunder:

“39. Lastly, we ought to also analyse the deductions

made on the determined compensation, for the

purposes of develop

'development cut'. It goes without saying that to

determine the market value of a large tract of

undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for

development) from a sale exemplar of a smaller plot

of land, deductions usually

75%.Sajan v. State Of Maharashtra and ors., 2020

INSC 302; Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15

SCC 769 That is not to say, however, that such cuts

are mandatory in all factual scenarios

for applying such deductions is tha

developed plots typically command higher prices,

whereas a larger tract of undeveloped land

necessitates significant allocation for roads, parks,

and essential services. These sale exemplars can

thus be relied upon only after making appropriate

deductions. Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Spl. LAO,

Poona & anr., (1988) 3 SCC 751………

54. Finally, the HSIIDC has also pressed in aid the

application of a development cut/deduction on the

inner belt, which the High Court refused to apply.

However, we are unable to concur with these

12]

Further, the fact that the land under

acquisition is situated on the Jhansa-Kurukshetra road, abutting the

already developed Grain Market and also surrounded by shops as

well as commercial establishments, this Court is not inclined to apply

deduction on account of development cost, in wake of law laid down

Apex Court in Krishan Kumar v.

2025(3) RCR(Civil) 139. The relevant

portion thereof is extracted hereunder:-

Lastly, we ought to also analyse the deductions

determined compensation, for the

purposes of development-colloquially known as a

'development cut'. It goes without saying that to

determine the market value of a large tract of

undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for

development) from a sale exemplar of a smaller plot

of land, deductions usually range from 20 to

75%.Sajan v. State Of Maharashtra and ors., 2020

INSC 302; Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15

That is not to say, however, that such cuts

are mandatory in all factual scenarios. The rationale

for applying such deductions is that smaller,

developed plots typically command higher prices,

whereas a larger tract of undeveloped land

necessitates significant allocation for roads, parks,

and essential services. These sale exemplars can

thus be relied upon only after making appropriate

deductions. Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Spl. LAO,

Poona & anr., (1988) 3 SCC 751………

Finally, the HSIIDC has also pressed in aid the

application of a development cut/deduction on the

inner belt, which the High Court refused to apply.

However, we are unable to concur with these

that the land under

abutting the

already developed Grain Market and also surrounded by shops as

well as commercial establishments, this Court is not inclined to apply

in wake of law laid down

Krishan Kumar v.

. The relevant

Lastly, we ought to also analyse the deductions

determined compensation, for the

colloquially known as a

'development cut'. It goes without saying that to

determine the market value of a large tract of

undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for

development) from a sale exemplar of a smaller plot

range from 20 to

75%.Sajan v. State Of Maharashtra and ors., 2020

INSC 302; Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15

That is not to say, however, that such cuts

. The rationale

t smaller,

developed plots typically command higher prices,

whereas a larger tract of undeveloped land

necessitates significant allocation for roads, parks,

and essential services. These sale exemplars can

thus be relied upon only after making appropriate

deductions. Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Spl. LAO,

Finally, the HSIIDC has also pressed in aid the

application of a development cut/deduction on the

inner belt, which the High Court refused to apply.

However, we are unable to concur with these

RFA-2662

14.

respondent Market Committee to such effect is rejected for applying

deduction towards smallness of area involved

and also towards development cost. However, since no material

evidence has been pointed out from the side of the appellants/

landowners towards providing any enhancement of compensation on

account of construction existing over the a

this regard is rejected.

15.

hereinabove, while placing reliance upon

derived from the sale exemplar Ex.A4 dated 04.04.2006 i.e.

2662-2011 (O&M) & 56 others [13

submissions, and instead see eye

view taken by the High Court in the case of Kukrola.

The inner belt-comprising lands abutting NH

a depth of 5 acres

due to its superior locational advantage and inherent

development potential. The sale exemplars for this

category reflect a market value that fully

incorporates these advantages. Typically, a

development cut is applied to account for the

deficiencies or the cost of further development in

undeveloped land. However, in this instance, the

inner belt lands are broadly developm

to their proximity to major infrastructure, which

naturally elevates their market value. As such,

applying a development cut would unjustifiably

reduce the compensation, failing to reflect the true,

enhanced value of these lands. Consequently

find no justification for imposing any development

cut on the inner belt.”

In such circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of

respondent Market Committee to such effect is rejected for applying

deduction towards smallness of area involved

and also towards development cost. However, since no material

evidence has been pointed out from the side of the appellants/

landowners towards providing any enhancement of compensation on

account of construction existing over the a

this regard is rejected.

Accordingly, in the wake of discussion made

hereinabove, while placing reliance upon

derived from the sale exemplar Ex.A4 dated 04.04.2006 i.e.

13]

submissions, and instead see eye-to-eye with the

the High Court in the case of Kukrola.

comprising lands abutting NH-8 up to

a depth of 5 acres-already commands a premium

due to its superior locational advantage and inherent

development potential. The sale exemplars for this

ct a market value that fully

incorporates these advantages. Typically, a

development cut is applied to account for the

deficiencies or the cost of further development in

undeveloped land. However, in this instance, the

inner belt lands are broadly development-ready due

to their proximity to major infrastructure, which

naturally elevates their market value. As such,

applying a development cut would unjustifiably

reduce the compensation, failing to reflect the true,

enhanced value of these lands. Consequently, we

find no justification for imposing any development

cut on the inner belt.”

In such circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of

respondent Market Committee to such effect is rejected for applying

deduction towards smallness of area involved in the sale deed Ex.A4

and also towards development cost. However, since no material

evidence has been pointed out from the side of the appellants/

landowners towards providing any enhancement of compensation on

account of construction existing over the acquired land, the claim in

Accordingly, in the wake of discussion made

hereinabove, while placing reliance upon the sale price per acre,

derived from the sale exemplar Ex.A4 dated 04.04.2006 i.e.

eye with the

the High Court in the case of Kukrola.

8 up to

already commands a premium

due to its superior locational advantage and inherent

development potential. The sale exemplars for this

ct a market value that fully

incorporates these advantages. Typically, a

development cut is applied to account for the

deficiencies or the cost of further development in

undeveloped land. However, in this instance, the

ready due

to their proximity to major infrastructure, which

naturally elevates their market value. As such,

applying a development cut would unjustifiably

reduce the compensation, failing to reflect the true,

, we

find no justification for imposing any development

In such circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of

respondent Market Committee to such effect is rejected for applying

in the sale deed Ex.A4

and also towards development cost. However, since no material

evidence has been pointed out from the side of the appellants/

landowners towards providing any enhancement of compensation on

cquired land, the claim in

Accordingly, in the wake of discussion made

per acre,

derived from the sale exemplar Ex.A4 dated 04.04.2006 i.e.

RFA-2662

Rs.48,40,000/

15% per annum (compounded), the market value of the acquired

land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act is

assessed @ Rs.48,40,000/

per acre along with all statutory be

including 30% solatium including interest on solatium with all other

benefits as provided under the Act (Upto

16.

17.

unfortunately expired

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.

18.

disposed of.

05.12.2025

sanjay

Sr. No.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

2662-2011 (O&M) & 56 others [14

Rs.48,40,000/- per acre and upon application of appreciation @

15% per annum (compounded), the market value of the acquired

land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act is

assessed @ Rs.48,40,000/-+15% (for 23 months) = Rs.63,31,325/

per acre along with all statutory be

including 30% solatium including interest on solatium with all other

benefits as provided under the Act (Upto

Disposed of on the above terms.

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

unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross

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

disposed of.

05.12.2025 (HARKESH MANUJA)

Whether speaking/reasoned?

Whether Reportable?

Sr. No. Case No.

RFA-2663-2011 (O&M)

RFA-2664-2011 (O&M)

RFA-2665-2011 (O&M)

RFA-2666-2011 (O&M)

RFA-2667-2011 (O&M)

RFA-2668-2011 (O&M)

RFA-2669-2011 (O&M)

RFA-2690-2011 (O&M)

14]

on application of appreciation @

15% per annum (compounded), the market value of the acquired

land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act is

+15% (for 23 months) = Rs.63,31,325/

per acre along with all statutory benefits and interest thereupon,

including 30% solatium including interest on solatium with all other

benefits as provided under the Act (Upto-date).

Disposed of on the above terms.

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

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.

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

(HARKESH MANUJA)

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

Yes/No

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

on application of appreciation @

15% per annum (compounded), the market value of the acquired

land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act is

+15% (for 23 months) = Rs.63,31,325/-

nefits and interest thereupon,

including 30% solatium including interest on solatium with all other

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

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

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

RFA-2662

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.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

2662-2011 (O&M) & 56 others [15

RFA-2691-2011 (O&M)

10. RFA-2692-2011 (O&M)

11. RFA-2965-2011 (O&M)

12. RFA-2971-2011 (O&M)

13. RFA-2972-2011 (O&M)

14. RFA-2973-2011 (O&M)

15. RFA-2974-2011 (O&M)

16. RFA-2975-2011 (O&M)

17. RFA-2976-2011 (O&M)

18. RFA-2977-2011 (O&M)

19. RFA-2978-2011 (O&M)

20. RFA-2979-2011 (O&M)

21. RFA-2980-2011 (O&M)

22. RFA-2981-2011 (O&M)

23. RFA-2982-2011 (O&M)

24. RFA-2983-2011 (O&M)

25. RFA-2984-2011 (O&M)

26. RFA-2985-2011 (O&M)

27. RFA-2986-2011 (O&M)

28. RFA-2987-2011 (O&M)

29. RFA-2988-2011 (O&M)

30. RFA-2989-2011 (O&M)

31. RFA-2990-2011 (O&M)

32. RFA-2991-2011 (O&M)

33. RFA-2992-2011 (O&M)

34. RFA-2993-2011 (O&M)

35. RFA-2994-2011 (O&M)

36. RFA-2995-2011 (O&M)

37. RFA-2996-2011 (O&M)

38. RFA-2997-2011 (O&M)

39. RFA-2998-2011 (O&M)

40. RFA-2999-2011 (O&M)

41. RFA-3904-2011 (O&M)

42. RFA-3905-2011 (O&M)

43. RFA-3906-2011 (O&M)

44. RFA-3907-2011 (O&M)

45. RFA-3908-2011 (O&M)

46. RFA-3909-2011 (O&M)

47. RFA-3910-2011 (O&M)

48. RFA-3911-2011 (O&M)

15]

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

(O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

RFA-2662

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

05.12.2025

sanjay

2662-2011 (O&M) & 56 others [16

49. RFA-3912-2011 (O&M)

50. RFA-3913-2011 (O&M)

51. RFA-3914-2011 (O&M)

52. RFA-4358-2011 (O&M)

53. RFA-6908-2011 (O&M)

54. RFA-7663-2011 (O&M)

55. RFA-3560-2015 (O&M)

56. RFA-655-2018 (O&M)

05.12.2025 (HARKESH MANUJA)

16]

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

2011 (O&M)

(O&M)

(O&M)

(HARKESH MANUJA)

JUDGE