JUDGMENT : 

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

This order shall decide the present eighteen (18) appeals bearing RFA Nos. 4422, 4556 & 5409 (lead case) of 2015; 561 of 2017; 1040, 1041, 1042, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1307, 1308, 2308, 2309 & 2934 of 2016; and 2897 of 2019; as the same arise out of common acquisition / award.

[2] In the appeals filed by the landowners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State of Haryana, the prayer is for reduction thereof. Since the common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, facts are being culled out from RFA No. 5409 of 2015.

[3] The appellant(s)-landowner(s), having instituted the aforesaid appeal bearing RFA No. 5409 of 2015, preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “1894 Act”) sought modification of the award dated 21.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”), for enhancement of compensation amount.

FACTS

[4] The relevant date(s) / particulars of the acquisitions are as under:-

[5] Dissatisfied with the award dated 21.04.2015 passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeal(s) have been preferred at the instance of landowner(s) as well as the State of Haryana.

CONTENTION(S):

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S)-LANDOWNER(S)

[6] Impugning the aforesaid award dated 21.04.2015, learned counsel for the landowner(s) submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having ignored the sale instance dated 11.07.2007 (Exhibit PW-5/C), which pertained to 19 kanals of land with the base price per acre of Rs. 3,41,22,000/-. Learned counsel further submits that once a positive finding of fact was recorded by the learned Reference Court that the acquired land was having potential for being used as commercial, the sale exemplar-Exhibit PW-5/C could not have been discarded merely for the reason that the same pertains to the commercial land.

[6.1] Further, while relying upon the two site plans Exhibit P-A & Exhibit P-B, learned counsel submits that the land parcel forming part of the sale instance dated 11.07.2007 (Exhibit PW-5/C) as well as the acquired land, were located on the Kaithal-Jind road and thus possessed similar locational and potential advantage; as such, the sale deed dated 11.07.2007 (Exhibit PW-5/C) was required to be relied upon.

[6.2] Learned counsel also submits that taking into account the fact that the acquired land parcel was a compact block and was located on the Kaithal-Jind road, as such uniform market value was required to be awarded in favour of all the landowners instead of adopting the belting system.

[6.3] In view of the submissions made hereinabove, learned counsel(s) for the appellant(s)-landowner(s) submit(s) that the award passed by the learned Reference Court was required to be modified.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT(S)

[7]