JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J. 

Vide this common order, a batch of 11 Regular First Appeals shall stand disposed of, details whereof are mentioned in the foot note of the judgment. For convenience, the facts are drawn from RFA-119-2015.

2. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 04.08.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as ‘Reference Court’), whereby the reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the appellants-landowners, seeking enhancement of compensation was partly allowed.

3. Briefly stating, land measuring 16.44 acres, situated within the revenue estate of Village Narnaul, Hadbast No.159, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendragarh was acquired for the public purpose, namely, “for laying sewerage pipe-line, sewerage dumping station and sewerage Treatment Plant at Narnaul” vide notifications dated 27.12.2006 and 28.12.2006 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) passed Award No.22 dated 26.12.2008 assessing the market value at the rate of Rs.20,00,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits.

4. The appellants-landowners, feeling dissatisfied with the award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act pleading that the price of acquired land was not less than Rs.10,000/- per square yard as the same was situated near the State Highway, being surrounded by residential houses and commercial area.

5. Upon notice, the same was contested by the respondents- State by filing written statement. It was pleaded that the market value of the acquired land was rightly assessed by the LAC as the same was in consonance with the rate fixed with by the Divisional Level Land Rates Fixation Committee.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Reference Court on 05.05.2012:-

“1. What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any enhanced compensation, if so, at what rate? OPP

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest, at what rate and from the date of possession? OPP”

7. After considering the evidence, the learned Reference Court, vide award dated 04.08.2014 enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.930/- per square yard for the land situated upto 200 feet from Mahendragarh-Narnaul road and Rs.750/- per square yard for the remaining land, beyond 200 feet from Mahendragarh-Narnaul road.

8. Aggrieved of the decision dated 04.08.2014 of the learned Reference Court, the appellants-landowners filed the present appeal(s).

9. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants-landowners submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having discarded the sale instances Exs. PW-12/B dated 18.08.2003, PW-12/C dated 30.10.2003 and P-37 dated 11.08.2003 which were all relating to the period prior to the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case(s) in hand. He also points out that in view of the site plan proved on record as Ex.P-6, the land parcels forming part of the aforementioned sale instances were in close geographical proximity to the acquired land.

9.1 Learned counsel further contends that the learned Reference Court went wrong having ignored the award (EX.PW-1/D) dated 22.03.2012 which pertained to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 26.08.1999 vide which the land was acquired for the development and utilization of HUDA Sector-1 (Part), Narnaul and the market value was determined @Rs.2450/- per square meter. He points out that from the perusal of site plan P-X, it is evident that the land parcels acquired for development of Sector-1 Narnaul as well as its extension were located just opposite the acquired land on the other side of Narnaul-Mahenderagarh Road and thus, both the la