JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

Vide this common order, two Regular First Appeals, details of which are given in the head note of this judgment, are being decided as both 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.3810-1998.

2. By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 27.03.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’).

3. Briefly stating, 20.82 acres of land, situated within the revenue estate of Village Chandhat, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad, was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated 22.05.1979 (published on 29.05.1979) and 18.09.1979 (published on 19.09.1979), 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 Delhi Mathura Road to High Level Bridge over River Yamuna near Village Rahipur’. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award 27.02.1980 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.12,000/- per acre for Chahi land and @ Rs.11,200/- per acre Barani land, along with 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 were dismissed vide decision dated 27.03.1998.

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

6. Learned counsel for the appellant(s)/ landowner(s) submits that the learned Reference Court erred having discarded the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 12.02.1981 vide which 2K-1M of land within the same revenue estate of Village Chandhat, the then Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad was sold for Rs.28,000/- with base price of Rs.1,09,260/- per acre; only for the reason that the same pertained to period post-notification under Section 4 of the Act. He submits that by applying the principle of de-escalation for the time gap between the date of aforementioned sale instance and the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the market value of the acquired land was required to be enhanced in favour of appellants/ landowners and the award passed by the learned Reference Court was thus liable to be modified.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-State submits that there is no illegality or perversity with the reasoning recorded by the learned Reference Court while discarding the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 12.02.1981 which pertained to the period post-notification under Section 4 of the Act and even the comparative location of the land parcel therein viz- a-viz the acquired land was not established on record by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s). He thus submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court being based upon proper appreciation of evidence and material available on record, calls for no interference and as such the appeal(s) in hand are liable to be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s)/ landowner(s).

9. A perusal of the record shows that the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case(s) in hand was issued on 29.05.1979 with respect to acquisition of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Chandhat, the then Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad, for public purpose, namely, ‘for the construction of Delhi Mathura Road to High Level Bridge over River Yamuna near Village Rahipur’. It has not been disputed by the respondents-State that the acquired land parcel was located in the close vicinity of Delhi-Mathura road. As per the post-notification sale deed dated 12.02.1981 (Ex.P1) produced by the appellant(s)/ landowner(s), 2K-1M of land fall