JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. Vide this common judgment, the aforementioned 07 Regular First Appeals along with three cross-objections are being decided as all have arisen out of the same award and involve common question of facts and law. 1.2 For convenience, the facts are being taken from RFA-2219-2009 (O&M).

2. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 19.01.2009 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jhjjar, whereby, reference petition(s) filed at the instance of respondents- landowners invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein-after to be called as “the 1894 Act”), stand partly allowed.

2.1 Brief facts of the case are that land measuring 3.27 acres owned by the respondent(s)-landowner(s), situated in the revenue estate of Village Patauda, Hadbast No. 249, Tehsil and District Jhajjar, was acquired vide notification dated 12.07.2000 (published on 14.07.2000) and notification dated 20.03.2001 (published on 21.03.2001), under Sections 4 & 6 respectively of the 1894 Act, for the public purpose, namely, constructing Khera Sub Minor. The Land Acquisition Collector passed the Award on 21.02.2002 granting the market price of the acquired land @ Rs.1,15,000/- per acre for nehri/chahi land and Rs.90,000/- per acre for barani/bhood land.

3. Aggrieved of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the respondents-landowners invoked seperate reference petition (s) under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, seeking enhancement of compensation. Upon consideration of the material available on record, the Reference Court vide its award dated 19.01.2009, partly accepted the reference petition(s) by applying thumb rule and re-assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.2,50,000/- per acre for nehri/chahi land and Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for barani/bhood land along with other statutory benefits.

4. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, appellant-State as well as respondents filed the aforementioned appeals and cross-objections.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State.

6. A perusal of record shows that vide notification dated 12.07.2000 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, 3.27 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Patauda, Tehsil and District Jhajjar was acquired for public purpose namely, for constructing Khera Sub Minor and award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 21.02.2002 while assessing the market value @ Rs.1,15,000/- per acre for nehri/chahi land and Rs.90,000/- for barani/bhood land. Upon re-assessment, the learned Reference Court granted the market value vide its award dated 19.01.2009 @ Rs.2,50,000/- per acre for nehri/chahi land and Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for barani/bhood land. It has been established on record from the available evidence that the acquired land formed part of national capital region and was having potential for being used for residential and industrial purposes. This fact was even admitted by own witness of appellant-State namely Surender Singh Dahiya, Sub-Divisional Officer Patodi, Water Services, Sub-Division Patodi, who appeared as RW-2 before the learned Reference Court. The cross-examination of the aforesaid witness is extracted hereunder:-

“It is incorrect to suggest that usual leave vendees in order to save stamp duty mentions less price in the sale deed. It is correct that in the year 2005 government as fixed land price as per notification exhibit PX. It is incorrect to suggest that low price has been assessed and paid of the acquired land to the petitioners. It is correct that the acquired land fall in the national capital region and in Jhajjar District and the land can use for industrial and residential purpose. I do not know whether the underground water of the acquired land is sweet or not. The current of land is nehri as well as chahi. It is iincorrect to suggest that market value of the land was not less