ORDER

Permission to file SLPs is granted. Delay condoned in filing substitution applications. Applications for substitution are allowed. Delay condoned in filing the special leave petitions. Leave granted. Vide Notification dated 17th May, 1990 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter called `The Act') 162.5 acres of land situated in village Patti Musalmanan was notified for setting up of a housing project in Sector 12, Sonepat. This Notification was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 16th May 1991. The Collector rendered his Award on 12th May 1993 awarding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) per acre as compensation for the entire land. On a reference under Sec. 18 of the Act to the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.125/- per sq. yard for the land behind the E.C.E. factory situated away and on the left side of the Sonepat Bahalgarh road and Rs.150/- per square yard on the right side abutting the aforesaid road. In arriving at these different figures the Reference Court held that the land on the left side did not abut the road and it had therefore less potential value vis-a-vis. the land on the right side which touched the road.

The High Court in first appeal further enhanced the compensation from Rs.125/- to Rs.135/- for land on the left side and to Rs.160/- from Rs.150/- on the right side on the principle applied by the Reference Court. The present set of appeals at the instance of the landowners have been filed impugning the judgments of the courts below.

We have gone through the record and have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

It has been submitted by Mr. A.K. Srivastava, the learned senior counsel in most of the appeals, that the appellants were entitled to take the Award for the acquisition in village Jamalpur Kalan which pertained to an acquisition of the year 1992, and which had led to a compensation of Rs.250/- per square yard, as the basis for the determination of the compensation in the present case as well as the land of Jamalpur Kalan had a common boundary with the land acquired behind the E.C.E. factory with a small deduction in the price as the present acquisition was of the year 1990. In the alternative he has submitted that the compensation ought to have been settled on the basis of the sale instances exhibits P.2 to P.14 which showed a substantial increase yearwise from Rs.300/- per sq. yd in 1984 (Ext. P.2) to Rs. 600/- in 1989 (Ext. P.14). He has also submitted that as the land had been notified for the purpose of a housing project no distinction could be made between the land abutting the main road and that which was slightly away and the belting principle applied by the District Judge as well as the High Court was not called for. For this argument the learned counsel has placed reliance on P. Rama Reddi and Others vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and others (1995) 2 SCC 305. It has also been submitted that though the potentiality of the land had admittedly been noted by the District Judge and the High Court but the full potential of land had not been appreciated or recognized and as such it was open to this Court to reappraise the evidence and to arrive at a fair assessment on this aspect, as the compensation proceedings started in the year 1990, were still continuing. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, the learned senior counsel for some of the other claimants has supplemented the arguments made by Mr. Srivastava and has also placed reliance on the award in the case of village Jamalpur Kalan. Some of the other counsel have also raised certain issues but as they are substantially covered by the submissions noted above we need not refer to them.

Mr. Shakil Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing in SLP(C) No. 18312/2008 has further pointed out that the proper compensation for the building and trees had not been correctly awarded and the compensation under these heads neede