JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award dated 28.02.1996 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’).

[2]. Briefly stating, in the present case, land measuring 58 Kanals 19 Marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Bir Pipli, Hadbast No.359, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, came to be acquired vide Notifications dated 22.01.1992 and 31.07.1992 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act’) respectively for the public purpose namely for construction of 132 K.V. Sub Station, Pipli of the Haryana State Electricity Board. An Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on 31.03.1994, thereby determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.5,00,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits/interest payable under the 1894 Act.

[3]. Dis-satisfied with the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants-landowners invoked Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to be dismissed by the learned Reference Court vide its award dated 28.02.1996. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeal was preferred.

[4]. Impugning the aforesaid Award, learned counsel for the appellants/landowners submits that the Reference Court went wrong while taking into account the sale instances Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 which were for lesser consideration than the market value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Learned counsel submits that the sale transactions Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 were not to be taken into account being not the genuine or bona fide sale transactions and the assessment of market value was required to be made solely by placing reliance upon the sale instance dated 22.02.1991 (Ex.P-7), vide which 2 Marlas of land was sold for Rs.30,000/- and the base price per acre was Rs.24,00,000/-. He further, submits that land forming part of sale instance Ex.P-7 was even identically located on the main G.T. Road leading from Ambala to Karnal toward left side being similar to the location of the acquired land, thus prays for enhancement of compensation in favour of the appellants/landowners

[5]. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 placed reliance upon sale instances Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 to submit that the land parcels forming part of the said sale transactions were in the close vicinity of acquired land as was depicted from the site plan produced by the learned counsel for the parties. He points out that the average sale price per acre derived from the aforementioned sale transactions was approximately Rs.4,00,000/- per acre, whereas the Land Acquisition Collector had already awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre in favour of the appellants/landowners which was even upheld by the learned Reference Court and therefore, no further enhancement was required to be granted in their favour. Learned counsel, thus prays that the appeal in hand is liable to be dismissed.

[6]. 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.

[7]. It may be noted here that in terms of order dated 08.12.2025 passed by this Court, learned counsel for both the parties have placed on record one site plan duly signed by them depicting the exact location of the land parcels forming part of the sale deeds produced by the respective parties. The said site plan is taken on record for the convenience of the Court and marked as Mark ‘X’.

[8]. Before proceeding further, it may also be noticed here that the learned Reference Court after having gone through the entire material on record has recorded a positive finding of fact with respect to the locational and potential advantage attached to the acquired land, the same being located exactly on the G.T. Road about 1 km. from Pipli tow