JUDGMENT : 

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

Vide this common order, a bunch of 22 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 identical facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.1358 of 2023.

2. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the Award dated 16.12.2022 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’).

3. Briefly stating, in the present case(s), land measuring 50 acres 2 Kanals 18 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of Jaroda, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar was acquired vide Notifications dated 14.05.2002 and 21.02.2003 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 District Jail, Yamuna Nagar”. Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on 26.10.2004, thereby determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.10,00,000/- per acre for the land categorised as ‘Prime’ and @ Rs. 6,00,000/- per acre for the rest of the land besides award of all other statutory benefits and interests provided under the 1894 Act.

4. Dis-satisfied with the Award passed by the LAC, respondent(s)-landowner(s) invoked Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to be partly allowed by the learned Reference Court vide its decision dated 16.12.2022, while granting enhanced compensation @ Rs.1560/- per square meter 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 appellant(s)-State as well as respondent(s)-landowner(s).

CONTENTION(S):

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S)-STATE:-

5. Impugning the aforesaid Award, learned State counsel representing the appellant(s)-State submits that the learned Reference Court erred having placed reliance upon the judgment dated 04.10.2012 (Ex.A2) passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA-1955-2005, titled as ‘Swaran Singh Vs. State of Haryana and other connected matters” vide which the market value of acquired land pertaining to the revenue estates of Villages Bhatauli and Khera was assessed @ Rs.1560/- per sq. meters, in terms of notification dated 28.04.1999 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The State counsel points out that the aforementioned acquisition pertained to Villages Bhatauli and Khera whereas the acquisition in hand pertained to different revenue estate of Village Jaroda and thus there was similarity about nature and potential of two land parcels.

5.1. He further contends that the learned Reference Court rightly discarded the sale instances produced by the respondents- landowners as the same pertained to the period post notification under Section 4 in the case(s) in hand. He points out that the learned Reference Court ought to have relied upon the sale instances produced by the appellant(s)-State in the form of Exs.R1 to R4 which all pertained to the same revenue estate of Village Jaroda as the acquired land.

5.2. Learned State counsel thus submits that in absence of any sale transaction pertaining to the period prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case(s) in hand produced by the respondents- landowners, for the revenue estate of Village Jaroda, the claim made by the landowners qua enhancement of compensation was liable to be dismissed and the award of the LAC was to be restored.

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S)-LANDOWNER(S):-

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents- landowners submits that the learned Reference Court rightly placed reliance upon the judgment dated 04.10.2012 (Ex.A2) in Swaran Singh’s case (supra), however, failed to award appreciation for the time gap between the previous notification i.e. dated 28.04.199