The court's assessment of market value should be based on direct evidence, such as sale deeds, and should consider the comparability of the evidence presented. The court should not rely on judgments assessing market value in different locations without evidence of comparability.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - 1. Background and Introduction:-

1.1 This judgment shall dispose of a batch of 35 appeals (details whereof is at the foot of the judgment) filed by the landowners as well as the State of Haryana, challenging a common award passed by the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the RC') on 29.07.2019. The notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 1894 Act') and the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'LAC') as well as the RC are common.

1.2 Learned counsel representing the parties are ad idem that this batch of appeals can conveniently be disposed of by a common order.

1.3 The relevant particulars of the case are as under:-

1.4 While filing the present appeals, 18 landowners claim that the amount offered by the LAC is significantly on the lower side. They claim that the acquired land is located on the National Highway no.10 and is surrounded by Multi National Companies (MNC's) like Honda, Sehgal Papers, Cool Beverage, Lumax, Kay Jay Auto Parts and various Real Estate developers namely M2K and Dwarkadish etc. have purchased the area in the vicinity. The acquired land is adjacent to the already developed area by the Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure and Development Corporation. The landowners claim that the market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.2 crores per acre on the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act i.e on 12.12.2008. While denying the aforesaid assertions, the State has filed its reply. The RC culled out the following issues:-

'i) What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification No.LAC (G) NTLA-2008/1480 dated 12.12.2008 under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894? OPP.

ii) Whether the petitions are barred by limitation? OPR

iii) Relief.

2. Oral and Documentary Evidence:-

2.1 In oral evidence, the landowners examined the following witnesses:-

2.2 On the other hand, State has examined Sh.Moti Ram, Patwari from the office of LAC, Gurugram.

2.3. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, a layout plan produced by the State of Haryana identifying the locations of the acquired land as well as the various sale deeds based upon Aks-sijra of the village is taken on record as Ex.HCI.

3. Analysis of the RC's award

3.1 The RC has refused to take into consideration the sale deeds Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-8 on the ground that these sale deeds reflect the price lower than the amount offered by the LAC. The court examined the various sale deeds produced by the landowners but refused to rely upon the same, on the ground that the vendees in the aforesaid sale deeds are between corporate entities. Thereafter, the court while relying upon the assessment of the market value at the rate of Rs.67,12,050/- in the Sultan Singh vs State of Haryana and others LAC case no.208/2016 decided on 21.11.2018 proceeded to assess the market value of the acquired land in this batch of appeals. In Sultan Singh's case, the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued on