JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

This order shall dispose off the present eight (08) appeals bearing RFA Nos. 3799, 3800, 3801, 3802 & 3803 of 1998; RFA Nos. 3, 1173 & 2255 of 1999, as the same arise out of common acquisition/award.

[2] All these appeals have been filed by the landowners, whereby they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. 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. 3799 of 1998.

[3] The appellants-landowners, by instituting the appeal bearing RFA-3799-1998, preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “1894 Act”), seek modification of the award dated 22.08.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (1), Bhiwani (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”), whereby their prayer with regard to enhancement of compensation was declined.

FACTS

[4] Briefly stating, certain land owned by the appellants situated within the revenue estate of Village Bhiwani Lohar, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, came to be acquired vide notifications dated 25.05.1992 and 12.02.1993 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act respectively, for the public purpose namely “for the construction of Palwas minor”. Vide Award No. 1, dated 25.01.1995, the Land Acquisition Collector, Narnaul (for short “LAC’) determined the value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- & Rs.55,000/- per acre for Nahri land and Tal land respectively.

[5] Aggrieved of the aforesaid Award dated 25.01.1995, landowners / interested persons filed reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which were declined vide decision dated 22.08.1998 by the learned Reference Court. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision of the learned Reference Court, the present appeal(s) have been preferred at the instance of appellant(s)-landowner(s).

CONTENTION(S):

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

[6] Impugning the aforesaid Reference Court’s award dated 22.08.1998, learned counsel(s) for the appellant(s)-landowners submit(s) that the learned Reference Court went wrong while discarding the sale-deeds produced by the appellants-landowners. It has been submitted that the sale-deeds Exhibits P-7 to P-12 were also pertaining to the same revenue estate of Village Bhiwani Lohar and thus, were required to be taken into account for the purpose of re-assessment of market value, especially by applying suitable appreciation upon the base price for the time gap between the sale instances upto the date of notification dated 25.05.1992 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act and, therefore, the market value was required to be re-assessed.

Learned counsel for the appellant(s) further points out that since the acquisition in the present case was for the public purpose for construction of Palwas Minor, as such the appellant(s)- landowner(s) should have been awarded damages towards severance as well.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT(S)-STATE OF HARYANA

[7] On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent-State of Haryana submits that no interference is called for in the impugned award as the appellants-landowners were already granted suitable market price under the award passed by the LAC. He further points out that in the absence of any evidence available on record with respect to any loss caused to the appellant(s)- landowner(s), no damages towards severance were payable to them and thus, the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

[8] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the paper-book / records, I find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant(s)-landowner(s).

[9] Before proceeding in the matter, the relevant chart of the sale deeds produced by the appellants-landowners as well as by the respondent-State of Haryana in the tabulated form are extracted hereunder:-

(i) Sale deeds produced by the appellants-landowners:-