The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the market value of acquired land should be assessed in line with relevant precedents and should consider the rising trend in prices and general developmental activities in the area.

Viney Mittal, J.

1. This order shall dispose of three regular first appeals being RFA Nos. 1081 of 1990, 2329 of 1990 and 2403 of 1990.

2. Vide notification dated March 4, 1980 the land belonging to the claimant land owner situated within the municipal limits of Gurgaon was acquired for a public purpose. The learned Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 53,240/- per acre. The claimant-land owner remained dis-satistied and claimed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act). The matter was duly referred.

3. During the course of reference proceedings, both the parties led their evidence.

4. The learned Additional District Judge relied upon an earlier award dated May 24, 1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon with regard to some land acquired situated within the municipal limits and accordingly as such the market value of the acquired land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 25/- per square yard. Additionally the land owner was also held entitled to all the statutory benefits of the amended provisions of the Act.

5. The claimant-land owners have still felt dis-satisfied and has approached this Court through the present regular first appeals.

6. I have heard Shri C.B. Goel, the lea ned counsel for the appellant and Shri C.R. Dahiya, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case.

7. Shri C.B.Goel, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance upon a judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 367 of 1987 decided on May 20, 1988. Chandgi Ram and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr.. In fact, the said judgment was also placed before the learned Additional District Judge as Ex.P4 on the record. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, Shri Goel has maintained that the assessment made by the learned Additional District Judge was highly inadequate inasmuch as there was absolutely no warrant for ignoring this judgment and giving a precedence to the judgment dated May 24, 1985 Ex.P1 passed by the learned Additional District Judge. According to Shri Goel, the claimant-land owners were not only entitled to the assessment at the rate of Rs. 48/- per square yard on the basis of Chandgi Rams case (supra) but were also additionally entitled to an increase for two years inasmuch as the notification in Chandgi Rams case (supra) was issued on March 20, 1978 whereas notification in the present case was issued on March 4, 1980.

8. On the other hand, Shri C.R,Dahiya, the learned Deputy Advocate Genera), Hary-ana has with equal vehemence argued that reliance placed on the judgment of Additional District Judge Ex.P1 was wholly proper and there was no scope for further enhancement. According to Shri Dahiya, the judgment Ex.P1 was well reasoned and as such had been rightly followed by the learned Additional District Judge.

9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival pleas of the learned counsel for the parties.

10. At the outset, it may be relevant to notice here that the judgment Ex.Pl dated May 24, 1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon pertained to acquisition of land through a notification dated November 23, 1979. In this view of the matter, the observations made by the learned Additional District Judge in her award that Ex.Pl pertained to the same notification are factually incorrect and as such cannot be sustained.

11. From the perusal of the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, it is apparent that the claimant-land owner has also relied upon Chandgi Rams case (supra) and had made the claim on the basis of the aforesaid judgment. However, no reasoning has been given by the learned Additional District Judge to ignore the assessment made in Chandgi Rams case (supra).

12. It is not in dispute that the acquired land in Chandgi Rams case (supra) was also situated within the municipal limits of Gurgaon.