Compensation for acquired land must be determined based on comparable market values and the advantages associated with location, without undue deductions for development costs.

JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

Vide this common order, a bunch of 07 Regular First Appeals, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.105-2017.

2. By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 31.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani-cum-Reference Court, seeking further enhancement of compensation.

3. Briefly stating, total 18K-11M of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Mitathal, Tehsil and District Bhiwani was sought to be acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated 04.12.2012 and 19.03.2013, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for construction of Mitathal Ghushkani link Drain in Village Mitathal, Tehsil and District Bhiwani. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 21.10.2013 assessed and granted market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,20,000/- per acre, besides granting all other statutory benefits under the Act.

4. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ landowners filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court while determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.20,00,000/- per acre and Rs.50,000/- per acre for bifurcation, besides all other statutory benefits including 30% solatium, under the Act.

5. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners.

6. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellants / landowners submits that the learned Reference Court failed to take into consideration the evidence available on record in the form of sale deeds as well as the previous award dated 25.01.2016 (Ex.P19) passed by the learned Reference Court. He also points out that as per the sale deed Ex.P16 dated 28.09.2012, 18 marlas of land was sold for Rs.4,05,000/- and the base price per acre was Rs.36 lakhs per acre. He also points out that the land forming part of sale deed Ex.P16 related to the same revenue estate of Village Mitathal and thus applying some reasonable cut towards smallness of area involved in the sale instance Ex.P16, the market value in the case in hand was required to be enhanced especially when a positive finding of fact was recorded by the learned Reference Court with respect to the potentiality attached with the land under acquisition.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was based upon the proper appreciation of pleadings and the evidence available on records and thus, the same calls for no interference. He also points out that the sale instances Exs.P15 and P16 dated 27.01.2011 and 28.09.2012, were relating to small parcels of land measuring 1 kanal and 18 marlas, respectively, and thus were rightly discarded by the learned Reference Court and as such there was no merit in the present appeals.

8. I have heard learned counsel of the parties and gone through the paper-book as well as records of the case. I find substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellants/landowners.

9. In the present case, 18K-11M of land forming part of the revenue estate of Village Mitathal Hadbast No.6, Tehsil and District Bhiwani was acquired for the public purpose, namely, for construction of Mitathal Ghushkani link drain in Village Mitathal. Based on appreciation