JUDGMENT : 

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

Vide this common order, a bunch of 4 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 common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.1146-1997.

2. By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 13.02.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I Panipat-cum-Reference Court (for short ‘the Reference Court’).

3. Briefly stating, some land, situated within the revenue estate of Village Pasina Khurd, the then District Karnal was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated 04.09.1975 (published on 16.9.1975) and 22.12.1976 (published on 04.01.1977), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose, namely, “for the construction of link road from national Highway No.1 (G.T. Road) to Village Nurpur Gujran”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award dated 24.10.1985 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.5,000/- per acre, besides all other statutory benefits including solatium @ 30% as well as compulsory acquisition charges @ 12% per annum.

4. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which were partly allowed by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 13.02.1997 while determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.5264/- per acre besides all other statutory benefits including solatium @ 30% under the Act.

5. Aggrieved of the decision of the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellant(s)/landowner(s).

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.

7. A perusal of the record shows that two sale deeds Ex.PA dated 31.05.1983 and Ex.PB (in urdu) dated 03/06.01.1968 have been produced on record by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s). The sale deed Ex.PA relates to the period post-notification and thus need not be relied upon, however, the sale deed Ex.PB is in Urdu and no translation of the said document has been produced or proved on record and as such the same also cannot be relied upon for assessing the market value in the present case.

8. Further, the learned Reference Court having placed reliance upon sale instance Ex.R3 dated 30.05.1975 has awarded marginal enhancement in favour of landowner(s) from Rs.5000/- per acre to Rs.5264/- per acre along with all other statutory benefits under the Act. Vide sale deed dated 30.05.1975 (Ex.R3), 22 kanals 16 marlas of land forming part of the same revenue estate of Village Pasina Khurd was sold for Rs.15,000/- with base price @ Rs.5263.15 per acre. A perusal of record further shows that as per site plan (Ex.P1), the land parcel forming part of Ex.R3 was located at around 3 ½ acre away from the acquired land and the same was thus rightly relied upon being most suitable sale exemplar.

9. However, taking into account the evidence available on record that the acquired land was in the close vicinity of Village Siwah, which was abutting the National Highway (Panipat to Delhi); it was apparent that the same had got locational advantage. Besides, the acquisition being for widening of the already existing ‘gair mumkin rasta’, in such circumstances, the same was having even better locational and potential value as compared to the land forming part of Ex.R3. Moreover, it must further be taken into consideration that the regular sale instances are ordinarily executed at rates lower than market price just to save stamp duty. In such circumstances, keeping in mind the objectives of the Act to grant just and fair compensation to the appellant/ landowner, this Court is of the view that the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) are entitled for market value @ Rs.6000/- per acre besides a