The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of land owners to enhancement of compensation based on the cumulative increase for the period between two notifications, and the influence of previous awards and notifications on the assessment of market value.

JUDGMENT

G.S.Sandhawalia, J —The present judgment shall dispose of 13 appeals i.e. RFA Nos. 2350 to 2356, 2462, 2521, 2742, 2743, 2910 and 2911 of 2005 and one X Objection i.e. X Objections No. 2-CI of 2008 in RFA No. 2911 of 2005, as common questions of facts and law are involved in all the appeals. Reference is being made to RFA No. 2350 of 2005, State of Haryana vs. Sucha Singh.

2. The present set of appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') preferred both by the land owners and the State are directed against the award of the Reference Court, Panchkula dated 25.05.2005 whereby, the market value of the land falling in village Devi Nagar, Hadbast No. 384 has been fixed at Rs.286/- per sq. yard (Rs.13,84,240/- per acre). The basis of the award is an earlier award (Ex.PD) (Ex.P-38) dated 16.09.2002 in case titled as Purujit Singh vs. State of Haryana whereby, the market value had been fixed at Rs.256/- per square yard for the said village for the notification dated 11.07.1995. Accordingly, 12% increase was given on the said market value fixed and the rate has been assessed at Rs.286/- per sq. yard.

3. The acquisition in question is of 52.01 acres of land for development and utilization of land for recreational and commercial area of Sector 3, Panchkula. The Section 4 notification was dated 02.05.1997 and vide Award No. 1 dated 01.10.1999, the Land Acquisition Collector fixed the value at Rs.3,30,000/- per acre. It is pertinent to notice that for the earlier notification dated 11.07.1995, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- had been assessed for the said village Devi Nagar which was for construction of roads between Sectors 3, 21, 24 and 25, Panchkula. The other villages have been given a lesser amount in as much as village Jhuriwala has been given Rs.1,05,000/- per acre whereas, Bana Madanpur has been given Rs.2,81,000/- per acre.

4. Aggrieved against the same, reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act were filed wherein, as much as 47 documents were brought on record in evidence apart from 4 awards passed of adjoining villages. The State had produced as many as 11 documents through Dhoop Singh, Kanungo. The Reference Court had declined to place reliance upon the allotment letters of HUDA as they could not be considered for assessing the market value of the acquired land. It was noticed that the land of Maheshpur was adjoining the land of village Devi Nagar and that the land was located at an advantageous location and had the potentiality for commercial and residential purpose. The adjoining sectors were developed and the national highway was abutting the land in question as the Mini Secretariat, Judicial Courts Complex, Youth Hostel, Majri Chowk were at a short distance. The sale deeds of village Maheshpur were accordingly ignored and also the award Ex.PA which pertained to the notification dated 21.12.1994. Similarly, the awards of village Judian and Fatehpur Ex.PB and PC were also not considered. Accordingly, while placing reliance upon Ex.PD and P38 in Purujit Singh's case , the benefit had been granted.

5. It is a matter of record that the said award had been set aside in RFA No. 825 of 2003 on 21.01.2010 and in RFA No. 65 of 2003 on 26.05.2011 by this Court and the matters were remanded for fresh decision. The Reference Court on 22.01.2013 enhanced the compensation to Rs.746/- per square yard (Rs.36,10,640/- per acre) while placing reliance upon the award dated 20.04.2009 (Ex.P-89 in that case). In the said cases in RFA No. 3788 of 2013, Purujit Singh vs. State of Haryana decided on 27.04.2018 this Court has now enhanced the compensation to Rs.895/- per square yard and Rs.820/- per square yard for land falling in Devi Nagar and Bana Madanpur by allowing the appeals filed by the land owners and after keeping in mind that no appeals have been filed by the State regarding the notification dated 11.07.1995.

6. It is pertinent to notice that the basis for enhancement also is on two accounts. First