JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J. 

Vide this common order, a bunch of 04 Regular First Appeals and well as one cross-objection, 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.254-2007.

2. By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 26.08.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Jind, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’).

3. Briefly stating, 4.71 acres of land, situated within the revenue estate of Village Kalsola, Teshil Julana, District Jind, was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated 26.03.2000 (published on 09.05.2000) and 31.08.2000, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’, for public purpose, namely, for construction of ‘Shadipur Minor’. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.85,000/- per acre for Barani land along with Rs.16,000/- for both tubewells, besides all other statutory benefits under the Act.

4. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be dismissed by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 26.08.2006.

5. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellant(s)/ landowner(s), whereas, XOBJR-6-CI-2012 was filed by other landowners.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I do not find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s).

7. The only sale instance relied upon by the landowner(s) is dated 09.12.2003 (Ex.P1) vide which 12 kanals of land in the same revenue estate of Village Karsola was sold for a sum of Rs.7 lakhs with base price per acre of Rs.4,66,666/-, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case(s) in hand was issued on 26.03.2000. In such circumstances, the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 09.12.2003 which was executed after more than 3 years and 9 months of the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case(s), was not be relied upon, even by applying the doctrine of de-escalation especially when the location of the acquired land viz-a-viz the land parcel forming part of the sale instance Ex.P1 was not proved on record. No evidence has been adduced on record either to establish that the acquired land was in close proximity to the land parcel forming part of sale instance Ex.P1.

8. Moreover, a perusal of the sale instance Ex.P1 shows that the land alienated therein was part of rect. No. 67; whereas the acquired land was located far away in rect. Nos. 147 to 150; 168 and 169 of Village Karsola. In such circumstances, in absence of any material evidence available on record so as to substantiate the claim made by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) towards similarity of nature and potential, no illegality or perversity can be found with the well-reasoned award passed by the learned Reference Court.

9. Consequently, all the appeals as well as XOBJR filed at the instance of appellants/ landowners are hereby dismissed.

10. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.