JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

[1]. Vide this common order, a bunch of 155 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 identical facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.1172 of 2017.

[2]. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the Award dated 29.10.2016 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’).

[3]. Briefly stating, in the present case(s), land measuring 133.4248 acres situated within the revenue estates of villages Boothgarh, Kartarpur, Kansala, Rani Majra, Saini Majra, Ghandauli, Bansepur, Togan and Teera, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) came to be acquired vide Notifications dated 17.05.2013 and 10.09.2013 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act’) respectively for the public purpose, namely, “for the construction of PR-4 60 mtrs. wide road as per Master Plan from village Boothgarh to Togan”. Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on 30.12.2013, thereby determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,36,00,000/- per acre besides award of all other statutory benefits and interests provided under the 1894 Act.

[4]. Dis-satisfied with the Award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector, respondent(s)-landowner(s) invoked Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to be partly allowed by the learned Reference Court vide its decision dated 29.10.2006, while granting enhanced compensation @ Rs.3,50,32,000/- per acre besides awarding all other statutory benefits/interest in their favour under the 1894 Act. Aggrieved thereof, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellant(s)/GMADA as well as respondent(s)/landowner(s).

CONTENTION(S):

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S)-GMADA:-

[5]. Impugning the aforesaid Award, learned Senior counsel representing the appellant(s)/GMADA submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having placed reliance upon the previous Award dated 22.07.2013 (Ex.P-6) which pertained to the determination of market price qua the acquisition carried out in terms of Notification dated 20.02.2009 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, wherein the land forming part of the five revenue estates of villages namely Mullanpur Garibdass, Ferozepur, Parol, Hoshiarpur and Majra were involved. Learned Senior counsel specifically points out that no part of the revenue estates of any of the above mentioned villages, was acquired/involved in the case(s) in hand for the public purpose, namely, “for the construction of PR-4 60 mtrs. wide road as per Master Plan from village Bhootgarh to Togan” vide notification dated17.05.2013 issued under Section 4 of the 1894.

[5.1]. Learned Senior counsel thus submits that in the present case(s), acquisition was carried out for the revenue estates of 09 different villages namely, Boothgarh, Kartarpur, Kansala, Rani Majra, Saini Majra, Ghadoli, Bansepur, Teera and Togan therefore, the determination made by the learned Reference Court in terms of Award dated 22.07.2013 (Ex.P-6) which related to five different revenue estates was liable to be ignored especially when the independent evidence in the form of sale instances forming part of the revenue estates involved in the present acquisition were available on record.

[5.2]. Learned Senior counsel further submits that from the record, it was traceable that revenue estates of five villages which were involved in the previous acquisition commenced vide notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act issued on 20.02.2009 were not abutting or adjoining the revenue estate of 09 villages involved in the present acquisition and, thus the determination made by the learned Reference Court was required to be re-assessed/set aside in the wake of eviden