JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

Vide this common order, a bunch of 59 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 common facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.1550-2005.

2. By way of filing the present appeal(s) challenge has been laid to the decision dated 14.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar-cum-Reference Court (for short ‘the Reference Court’).

3. Briefly stating, some land situated within the revenue estate of Village Siswal, Tehsil Adampur, District Hisar, was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notifications dated 07.11.1997 (published on 20.11.1997) and 31.08.1998 (published on 04.09.1998), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘the Act’ respectively, for public purpose i.e. for “construction of Sidhmukh Nohar Feeder”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) vide award 14.05.1999 assessed market value in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for Nehri and Gair Mumkin land; Rs.95,000/- per acre for Chahi and Rs.80,000/- per acre for Tal land along with all other statutory benefits under the Act.

4. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants/ landowners filed reference petitions invoking Section 18 of the Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 14.12.2004 while determining the market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for all kinds of land besides all other statutory benefits under the Act.

5. Aggrieved of the Award passed by the learned Reference Court, the present appeals were preferred at the instance of appellants/ landowners as well as respondent State.

6. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellants/landowners submits that the learned Reference Court failed to take into account the sale deeds produced by the appellants in the form of Exs.PW10, PW11 and PW12. He further submits that though the aforementioned sale deeds were post-notification, yet the market value was required to be re-assessed while applying the principles of doctrine of de-escalation. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having failed to award any compensation on account of construction existing over the acquired land in the form of Kotha and also for tubewells installed therein. Ld. counsel further submits that suitable compensation was required to be awarded towards severance of the land left out from acquisition. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was required to be modified.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having interfered with the award passed by the LAC while granting uniform market value @ Rs.1 lakh per acre in favour of the appellants/ landowners for different categories of land especially when there was no evidence available on record to support the same. He thus submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be set aside and that passed by LAC was to be restored.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.

9. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to take note of the sale deeds produced as evidence by the appellants/landowners, which are extracted hereunder in the tabulated form:-

A perusal of the record shows that the notification in the present case under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 20.11.1997; whereas the sale deeds which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants/ landowners during the course of his arguments are Exs.PW10, PW11 and PW12. As per the records and also from the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court, it can be discerned th