The main legal point established in the judgment is that the value of acquired land appreciates over time due to various factors, and claimants may be entitled to an annual increase in compensation based on the cumulative impact of these factors.

ARUN PALLI, J.

1. Vide this order and judgment, I shall decide a batch of six appeals, of which three have been filed by the claimant/landowners and the rest three by the State of Haryana. For, all these appeals arise out of the same acquisition, these are being disposed of by a common judgment. However by consensus, the facts are being culled out from RFA No. 2416 of 2000.

2. Vide notification, dated 01.08.1996, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), a land situated in village Qasba Karnal (H.B. No.1), Tehsil and District Karnal, was sought to be acquired for construction of Sewerage Treatment Plant in Karnal. The final declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 12.02.1997. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide Award No. 1, dated 04.11.1997, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre i.e. Rs.82.64 per square yard. Being dis-satisfied by the assessment as also the compensation awarded by the Collector, the claimants/landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act. Resultantly, the dispute was referred to the Civil Court for determination of the true value of the acquired land. And, on a consideration of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.145/- per square yard. That is how, as indicated above, the claimants/landowners as also the State are in appeal. Of course, the claimants/landowners seek further enhancement. And, the State has appealed to set aside the impugned award.

3. Learned counsel for the claimants/landowners submits that the Reference Court while assessing the true value of the acquired land had relied upon a decision of this Court, dated 10.02.1999 (Ex. P1), rendered in RFA No. 1678 of 1994, titled “State of Haryana and another v. Smt. Bina Devi”, vide which this Court had assessed the value of a land adjacent to the acquired land, acquired for Sectors 4-5, Urban Estate, Karnal at Rs.145/- per square yard. But, he submits that as the notification under Section 4 in the case of Smt. Bina Devi (supra) was issued on 08.02.1989 and in the present proceedings on 1.8.1996 i.e. after over seven years, the Reference Court ought to have awarded an appropriate increase. He submits that the reasons assigned by the Reference Court to deny the increase over and above Rs.145/- per square yard, are erroneous. Thus, the claimants/landowners be awarded an appropriate/suitable increase @ 12% per annum for a period of seven years.

4. As opposed to this, learned State counsel submits that no doubt the acquired land adjoined and was situated right behind the land that was acquired for Sectors 4-5, Urban Estate, Karnal, but the land under acquisition in the case of Smt. Bina Devi (supra) was located adjacent to the G.T. Road, Karnal and was surrounded by various hotels, dhabas and commercial establishment and was thus, more valuable than the acquired land. He submits that on a comparative analysis of the location of the acquired land vis-a-vis the land under acquisition in the case of Smt. Bina Devi (supra), the Reference Court had reached a just conclusion that value of the acquired land in the year 1996 would have been the same as was of the land in the case of Smt. Bina Devi (supra) in the year 1989. Thus, he submits there was hardly any occasion to still award any increase upon the assessed value of the land that was acquired for Sectors 4-5, Urban Estate, Karnal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. Ex facie, the Reference Court discarded the sale instances that were brought on record by the claimants/landowners as also the State, for, those were said to have no relevance for assessing the value of the acquired land. The only document that was found to be germane to the acquisition in question, was the judgment (Ex. P1), rendered by