The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of genuine and bona fide transactions as valid evidence for determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

1. Vide this order and judgment, I shall decide a batch of 141 appeals, of which 80 appeals including one cross-objection have been preferred by the claimant/landowners and the rest 61 appeals have been filed by the beneficiary of the acquisition, i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC). For, the questions that arise for determination in all these appeals are common, these are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, by consensus, the facts are being culled out from RFA No. 1130 of 2012 (Veena Rani and others v. State of Haryana and others).

2. Vide three separate notifications, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), though published on an even date i.e. 3.5.2005, the land situated in three different villages i.e. Baholi, Baljattan and Dadlana, in Tehsil Matlouda, District Panipat, was sought to be acquired for setting up a ‘World Class Petrochemical Hub’, and a Township for the employees of the IOC, respectively. The final declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 18.4.2006. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide award dated 15.1.2007, assessed the market value of the land in all the villages @ Rs.12,50,000/- per acre (Rs.258.26p. per Sq.Yd.). Being aggrieved of the assessment and the compensation awarded by the Collector, the landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, and the dispute was referred to the Civil Court for determination of compensation. And, on an analysis of the material and evidence on record, the Reference Court found that the sale deeds brought on record by the claimant/landowners not only pertained to different villages, but were also executed post issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Although, the sale deed dated 23.06.1993 (Ex.P-18) was of the same village i.e. Baholi, but the prices of the properties since 1993 have been going through different highs and lows, and thus it could not be relied upon. Likewise, even the sale deeds (Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-16) that were produced by the IOC were also ruled out of consideration, for, these were executed for a price far less than the amount assessed and awarded by the Collector itself. That being so, the Reference Court relied upon an award, dated 28.6.2007 (Ex. PX), vide which the Collector had assessed the value of another chunk of land, which too was situated in village Baholi @ Rs.16,00,000/- per acre. Particularly for, there was hardly any time difference between the two notifications issued under Section 4 in both the cases; the notification under Section 4 in the said proceedings was issued on 30.06.2005, and on 03.05.2005 in the present acquisition. Resultantly, the market value of the acquired land was also determined @ Rs.16,00,000/- per acre (Rs.330.57p. per Sq.Yd.). The landowners were also awarded all the statutory benefits admissible in law. That is how, as indicated above, both the parties are in appeal before this Court. Of course, the IOC has appealed to set aside the award rendered by the Reference Court, whereas the claimant/landowners seek further enhancement.

3. Learned counsel for the claimant/landowners submit in unison that all what form basis of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is an award dated 28.6.2007 (Ex. PX), rendered by the Collector, but in the appeals arising out of the said award or acquisition, this Court vide order and judgment dated 3.3.2016, rendered in RFA No. 4694 of 2014 (Tara Chand and others v. State of Haryana and others) and other connected matters, had further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 904/- per Sq.Yd. Thus, it is submitted that, as a necessary consequence, even the claimant/landowners in these appeals shall be entitled to the same compensation.

4. As opposed to this, Mr. Pawan Mutneja, learned counsel for the IOC, submits that as many as sixteen sale deeds, each of which pertained to th