The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 23 of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990, and the interpretation of legal precedents to determine the market value of acquired land.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal by the appellants is directed against the judgment/award dated 27th August, 2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Jammu [“the Reference Court”] in file No.18/LA Act titled Paras Ram and others v. Collector Land Acquisition (ACR, Jammu) and another, whereby the market rate of the acquired land in village Satwari has been enhanced from Rs.1,45,000/-per kanal to Rs.2,07,500/- per kanal.

2. The impugned award is assailed by the appellant primarily on the ground that that the Reference Court has not appreciated the factors to be taken into account in terms of Section 23 of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990 [“the Act”] for working out the true market value of the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act. It is submitted that in the absence of any rebuttal to the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the appellants, the Reference Court should have given due weightage to the evidence of the appellants in respect of market value of the land. It is stated that the Reference Court ignored the ample evidence brought on record, oral as well as documentary, to demonstrate that the market value of the land of the appellants acquired by respondent No.2 was not less than Rs.5.00 lakh per kanal. The Reference Court did not take into consideration the commercial potential of the land acquired and fixed the market value on mere conjectures and guesswork.

3. Per contra, Mr. Inderjeet Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for respondent No.1 support the award passed by the Reference Court. It is submitted that the oral evidence brought on record by the appellants was self contradictory and in any case was not good enough to prove the market value of the acquired land as claimed by the appellants. The documentary evidence in the shape of sale deeds placed on record was not in reference to the date of Section 6 notification issued by the Collector and, therefore, was rightly not given much importance by the Reference Court. Learned counsel support the view taken by the Reference Court that in the absence of comparable sale deeds executed during the relevant period, the best way to arrive at market value of the acquired land was to give it 10% annual increase having regard to the market value of the similar land last determined in the year 1986.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, the facts are not in dispute. With a view to expanding its airport at Jammu, the Airport Authority of India placed indent for acquisition of land measuring 115 kanals 2 marlas 7 sarsai in twin villages of Satwari and Gadigarh. Accordingly, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued by respondent No.1, which was followed by a declaration made by the government and issuance of formal notification under Section 6 of the Act on 09.01.1996. The process of acquisition undertaken by respondent No.1 ultimately concluded in passing of an award dated 31.01.1999 wherein the Collector awarded a payment of Rs.1,45,000/-per kanal as compensation insofar as the land situated in village Satwari was concerned.

5. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved, the appellants moved an application before the Collector Land Acquisition for making reference under Section 18 of the Act. The application was accepted and, accordingly, the matter for determination of true market value of the acquired land was referred to the Reference Court. The only issue that was framed by the Reference Court was with respect to the correct market value of the acquired land. Since Section 6 notification was issued on 09.01.1996, as such, in terms of Section 23 of the Act, market value of the land was to be determined in reference to the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act i.e. 09.01.1996 in the instant case.

6. The appellants with a view to substantiate their claim that the market value of the acquired land was no