JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J. 

1. Vide this common judgment, a batch of total 28 connected Regular First Appeals are being decided as all have arisen out of the same award. The details of the connected cases are mentioned in the footnote of this judgment.

1.2 For convenience, the facts are being taken from RFA-3085-2003 (O&M).

2. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an Award dated 02.04.2003 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rewari (for short, “the Reference Court”), whereby, reference petition preferred at the instance of landowner(s) invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “1894 Act”), was partly allowed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that some land owned by the landowner(s), situated in the revenue estate of Village Naya Gaon, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari, was acquired vide notifications dated 08.07.1998 and 05.03.1999, issued under Sections 4 & 6 respectively of the 1894 Act, for the public purpose, namely, “for construction of Naya Gaon Minor for Irrigation Department”. The total land under acquisition was 3.16 acre. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the LAC”) vide its Award dated 08.05.2000, besides granting statutory benefits under the 1894 Act, assessed the market value of the acquired land in the following manner:-

4. Feeling dissatisfied with the award passed by the LAC, the landowner(s) preferred reference petition under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, seeking enhancement of compensation. Upon consideration of the material available on record, the learned Reference Court vide its award dated 02.04.2003, partly allowed the reference petition while re-assessing the market value @ Rs.5,00,000/- per acre along with granting other statutory benefits under the 1894 Act.

5. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid award passed by the learned Reference Court, the landowners as well as State of Haryana preferred the appeals/cross appeals, details whereof are mentioned in the footnote of this judgment.

CONTENTION(S):

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

6. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the landowner(s) submits that the learned Reference Court erred while placing reliance upon award dated 24.09.2002 (Ex.P-4) pertaining to the revenue estate of Village Kanharwas for the purpose of determination of market value of the case(s) in hand instead of taking into account the sale deeds dated 26.06.1997 and 04.09.2001 produced on record by the appellant(s)-landowner(s) in the form of Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2, respectively. He points out that from the evidence available on record, it was established that the land parcel forming part of sale instance dated 26.06.1997 (Ex.P-1) though pertained to a different revenue estate of village Bahala, however, the same was located in close geographical proximity to the acquired land and thus, the said sale transaction was required to be relied upon for assessing the market value in the present case(s).

6.1. Learned Senior counsel further contends that the landowner(s) were entitled for award of suitable appreciation for the time gap between the date of sale instance (Ex.P-1) (i.e. 26.06.1997) and the date of notification (i.e. 08.07.1998) issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case(s) in hand. He thus, submits that on the basis of evidence on record, the market value was required to be re-assessed and the appeal(s) preferred at the instance of landowner(s) were to be allowed.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT(S)-STATE

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent(s)-State submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having relied upon award dated 24.09.2002 (Ex.P-4) which pertained to a different revenue estate of village Kanharwas and thus, the impugned award was liable to be set aside. He also points out that the reasoning recorded by the learned Reference Court for d