JUDGMENT : 

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

Vide this common order of mine, a batch of 15 Regular First Appeal(s) shall stand disposed of, details whereof are provided in the footnote of the judgment. For convenience, the facts are being culled out from RFA-450-2008.

2. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 25.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon (for short ’Reference Court’) whereby, the reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the appellants-landowners, seeking enhancement of compensation was partly allowed.

3. Briefly stating, certain land, situated within the revenue estate of Village Noorgarh, Tehsil, District Gurgaon was acquired for the public purpose, namely, for “construction of Khera Sub Minor” vide notifications dated 12.07.2000 and 20.03.2001 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award No.18-G dated 04.06.2002 assessing the market value at the rate of Rs.2,20,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs.2,70,000/- for Gair Mumkin land along with other statutory benefits.

4. The appellants-landowners, feeling dissatisfied with the Award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act pleading that the price of acquired land was not less than Rs.20,00,000/- per acre as the same was situated between industrial area of Gurgaon, Manesar, Dharuhera and Pataudi. It was further pleaded that the LAC did not take into consideration various sale deeds pertaining to the land parcels located in the close vicinity while determining the amount of compensation to be awarded.

5. Upon notice, the same was contested by the respondents- State having filed written statement wherein it was pleaded that the appellants-landowners were adequately compensated by the LAC as the award was based on actual market value prevalent at that time. It was also pleaded that the acquired land was agricultural in nature and no other commercial establishment existed in its vicinity. Thus, it was prayed that the well-reasoned Award of the LAC warranted no further interference.

6. Pursuant to framing of issues and upon consideration of the evidence, the learned Reference Court, vide award dated 25.08.2007 re- assessed the market value @ Rs.9,00,000/- per acre besides granting all other statutory benefits under the Act.

7. Aggrieved of the aforesaid decision dated 25.08.2007 of the learned Reference Court, the appellants-landowners filed the present appeal(s).

8. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellants-landowners submits that the learned Reference Court erred in placing reliance upon the sale instance Ex.P-2 dated 19.10.1981 vide which 1 marla of land forming part of the same revenue estate of village Noorgarh was sold for a sum of Rs.7,200/- with the base price of Rs.11,52,000/- per acre. He further submits that the said sale instance fetching the highest sale price was to be relied upon and accordingly, the market value was to be re-assessed @ Rs.11,52,000/- per acre. He also points out that the appellants-landowners were entitled for award of suitable appreciation upon the base price per acre derived from the sale instance Ex.P-2 for the time gap between the said sale instance up to the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in the case(s) in hand i.e. 19.10.1981 to 12.07.2000. Therefore, the market value was to be assessed accordingly.

9. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that though the respondents were not in appeal, however, the award passed by the learned Reference Court was wholly perverse as the sale instance Ex.R- 2 dated 15.05.2000 with the base price of Rs.2,20,000 per acre pertaining to the same revenue estate of village Noorgarh was discarded by the learned Reference Court citing no valid reasons. He thus, submits that the Award passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be modified by assessing t