JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

This order shall dispose off the present 22 appeals and two cross objections bearing RFA Nos. 2942, 2943, 2944, 2945, 3737, 3738, 3739, 3740, 3851 of 2016; 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 486, 487, 530 (lead case), 555, 1528, 2498 of 2017; 8439 of 2018; Cross Objection No. 18-CI of 2018 in RFA No. 1528 of 2017; and Cross Objection No. 22 of 2019 in RFA No. 8439 of 2018, as the same arise out of common acquisition / award.

[2] In the appeals/cross-objections filed by the landowners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals/cross-objections filed by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (for short “HSIIDC”), the prayer is for reduction thereof. Since the common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, facts are being culled out from RFA No. 530 of 2017, the appeal filed by the HSIIDC.

[3] The appellant-HSIIDC, by instituting the aforesaid appeal, preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “1894 Act”), sought modification of the award dated 05.03.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”), for reduction of compensation amount.

FACTS

[4] Briefly stating, certain land owned by the respondent(s)-landowner(s) situated within the revenue estate of Village Bhangrola, Tehsil & District Gurgaon, came to be acquired vide notifications dated 20.10.2010 and 27.01.2011 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act respectively, for the public purpose namely “for the smooth movement of traffic on National Highway No. 8, near the entry point to industrial model township, Manesar for construction of road link from IMT Manesar to Gurgaon Pataudi road”. Vide Award No. 2, dated 09.01.2012, the Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon (for short “LAC’) determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.75 lakhs per acre for all types of land alongwith other statutory benefits.

[5] Aggrieved of the aforesaid Award dated 09.01.2012, landowners / interested persons filed reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which were partly allowed vide decision dated 05.03.2016 by the learned Reference Court, whereby the market value of the entire land was assessed/enhanced at the rate of Rs.93,77,500/- per acre alongwith other statutory benefits. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision, the present appeal(s) was preferred at the instance of appellant(s)-HSIIDC whereas cross-objections were filed by the respondent(s)-landowner(s).

CONTENTION(S):

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT(S)-HSIIDC

[6] Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s)-HSIIDC submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having discarded the sale deeds produced by the appellant(s), as per which the sale price between June 2007 to October 2010 for the land forming part of revenue estate of Village Bhangrola was ranging between Rs.12,80,000/- per acre to Rs. 67,00,000/- per acre. Learned counsel thus submits that once, the market value @ Rs. 75,00,000/- per acre was awarded in favour of the landowners by the LAC, there was no further scope for enhancement by the learned Reference Court and, therefore, the impugned award was liable to be set aside.

[6.1] Learned counsel for HSIIDC also points out that since, there was no material available on record indicating the appreciation of price between the date of sale deed dated 30.05.2008 (Exhibit P-11) and the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case at hand; as such, no increase was required to be awarded in favour of the respondent(s)-landowners for the time gap between the date of sale exemplar (Exhibit P-11) upto the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the present case.

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

[7] Impugning the aforesaid Reference Court’s award dated 05.03.2016, learned counsel(s) for the landowner(s)