IMPORTANT POINT
Remand of case--The part of the judgment whereby State’s appeals were dismissed, cannot be said to be set aside and thus remand order cannot be revive the State’s appeals.
Market Value--In absence of sufficient material of comparable rates, the market price can be determined by periodical increase formula.

Permod Kohli .J.- These appeals arising out of various awards passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal i.e. the reference court deciding various references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), have been placed before me pursuant to remand order dated 16.12.2004 passed by a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.441 of 1985.

2. Earlier these appeals were decided by a Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 28.11.1984 passed in RFA No.890 of 1983 and other connected matters. An LPA being LPA No.441 of 1985 came to be preferred by the claimants/land owners challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge claiming higher rate of compensation than allowed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of this Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

3. The circumstances that persuaded the Hon’ble Division Bench to remand the matter and relevant observations in the order of remand are being noticed here under:­

“……We have given serious thought to the respective arguments. A careful reading of judgment dated 28.11.1984 passed by the learned Single Judge in relation to the land acquired for Sector 6 shows that while fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.33/- per square yard, he had taken into consideration the market rate fixed for the land of Sectors 13 and 14. He noted that the market price of the land acquired for Sector 14 had been fixed at a flat rate of Rs.30/- per square yard in RFA No.991 of 1984- Daliv Singh v. State of Haryana and others and held that the claimants are entitled to the benefit of rise of prices of the land between 1973 when the land was acquired for Sector 13 and 1977 when the land was acquired for Sector 14 and the notifications issued in 1980 for acquisition of land for Sector 6. The respondents did not challenge that judgment of the learned Single Judge in RFA No.876 of 1983 and connected appeals. Therefore, they will be deemed to have accepted the principle that the claimants are entitled to some increase in the price of the land keeping in view the time-gap between different acquisitions.

In respect of the land acquired for Sector 3 the learned Single Judge, vide his judgment dated 21.10.1993 rendered in RFA No.1197 of 1988 fixed the market price of the land at Rs.42/ - per square yard. That judgment has also not been challenged by the respondents. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that their clients are entitled to benefit of some increase in the market price keeping in view the fact that the market price of the land acquired for Sector 14 vide notification dated 24.3.1977 was determined by the learned Single Judge at the rate of Rs.30/- per square yard and in respect of the acquisition made for Sector 6, the learned Single Judge fixed the market price at a flat rate of Rs.33/ - by taking into consideration the market price fixed for the land of Sectors 13 and 14 and that for the land of Sector 3, the learned Single Judge fixed the market price at the rate of Rs.42/- per square yard. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan v. Bipin Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court approved the judgment of the Allahabad High Court to the extent of granting 15 % increase in the price of the land keeping in view the time gap between different notifications.

However, as the point pressed before us was not projected before the learned Single Judges in a correct perspective, we feel that it will be proper to remand the cases to the learned Single Bench for re-determination of the market value of the acquired land by granting reasonable increase in the context of the awards passed in relation to the acquisitions made in 1973 and 1977 for Sectors 13 and 14 and the fact that in respect of Sector 3, the learned Single Judge himself fixed the market price at the rate of Rs.42/- per square yard. The claim of the appellants for grant of higher compensation