JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. Vide this common order, both the aforementioned Regular First Appeals, are being decided as the same have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving identical facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.3868 of 2007.

2. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the Award dated 20.07.2007 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Panipat (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’).

3. Briefly stating, in the present case(s), total land measuring 13 Bighas 09 Biswas, situated within the revenue estate of village Didwari, Hadbast No.39 Tehsil Israna, District Panipat came to be acquired vide Notifications dated 04.05.2001 and 22.01.2002 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act’) respectively for the public purpose, namely “for the construction of New Balana Minor from RD.0 to 17200 tail off-taking at RD 15350-L, Israna Disty. by Irrigation Department’. Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on 15.01.2003, whereby market value of the acquired land was assessed @ Rs.2,20,000/- per acre for Chahi land along with all other statutory benefits and interests provided under the 1894 Act.

4. Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the LAC, the appellants/landowners invoked Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to be partly allowed by the learned Reference Court vide its award dated 20.07.2007, while granting them enhanced compensation @ Rs.2,50,000/- per acre besides awarding all other statutory benefits/interest in their favour under the 1894 Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of landowners as well as respondent/State.

5. Impugning the aforesaid Award, learned counsel for the appellants/landowners submits that the learned Reference Court erred while discarding the sale deed dated 18.01.1994 (Ex.PW-3/A) vide which 05 Biswas of land forming part of the revenue estate of village Didwari was sold @ Rs.37,500/- with base price of Rs.6,00,000/- per acre merely for the reason that the same pertained to a small parcel of land.

5.1. Learned counsel also points out that for the time gap between the date of sale i.e. 18.01.1994 till the date of Notification issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, in the present case i.e. 04.05.2001, an appreciation @ 12% per annum over the base price per acre derived from the aforementioned sale deed dated 18.01.1994 (Ex.PW-3/A) needs to the applied, and accordingly, the market value ought to be re-assessed in favour of the appellants/landowners.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that no reasons were recorded by the learned Reference Court while enhancing the market value to Rs.2,50,000/- per acre for Chahi land in favour of the appellants-landowners. He, thus submits that once the sale deed dated 18.01.1994 (Ex.PW-3/A) produced on record by the appellants-landowners was discarded being relating to small piece of land, no enhancement was required to be awarded in favour of the appellants/landowners and as such, the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and the Award passed by the LAC was to be restored.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as records of the case(s). I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants/landowners.

8. In the present case, following sale deeds have been produced by both the sides in support of their claim:-

Sale deed/document produced by the appellants/landowners

Sale deed/document produced by the respondents 

9. At the first instance, it may be relevant to take note of the two sale deeds produced on record by the appellants/landowners as Ex.R-2 and R-3 dated 26.05.2004 and 27.06.2003 respectively, the same pertain to the period post notification issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case(s) in hand, thus cannot be relied upon. F