JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J. 

1. Vide this common judgment, batch of total 34 connected Regular First Appeals are being decided as all have arisen out of the same award. The details of the connected cases are given in the footnote of the judgment.

1.2 For convenience, the facts are being taken from RFA-4493-2009 (O&M).

2. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an Award dated 01.04.2009 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hisar (for short, “the Reference Court”), whereby, reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of landowner(s) invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “1894 Act”), were partly accepted.

3. Brief facts of the case are that some land owned by the landowner(s), situated in the revenue estate of villages Dhani Gujran and Dhani Thakria, Tehsil Hansi, the then District Hisar, was acquired vide notifications dated 23.04.2002 and 21.06.2002, issued under Sections 4 & 6 respectively of the 1894 Act. The total land under acquisition was 14.05 acre. The acquisition was for the public purpose, namely, “for construction of Depal Sub Minor”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the LAC”) vide its Award No.LA/3H dated 29.08.2002, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.2,25,000/- per acre for nehri land and Rs.6,70,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land alongwith all other statutory benefits under the 1894 Act.

4. Aggrieved of the same, the landowner(s) invoked separate reference petition(s) 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 decision dated 01.04.2009, enhanced the market value of the acquired land classified as Nehri, to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs per acre alongwith all other statutory benefits under the 1894 Act. However, the learned Reference Court upheld the market value @ Rs.6,70,000/- per acre for the acquired land classified as gair mumkin, as assessed by the LAC.

5. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision of the learned Reference Court, the State as well as landowner(s) preferred the present appeals/cross appeals, details of which are mentioned in the footnote of the judgment.

6. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counselappearing on behalf of the appellant-State of Haryana submits that though it was established that the land parcel forming part of sale deed dated 19.04.1999 (Ex.P-1) was part of the acquired land, however, no uniform market value could be awarded by relying upon the same for the entire chunk which measures 14.05 acres, especially, when the land parcel forming part of sale deed Ex.P-1 was located in close geographical proximity to the main road from Puthi to Rohnat. He further submits that sale deed dated 19.04.1999 (Ex.P-1) pertained to small parcel of land measuring 1 kanal and thus, a suitable deduction was to be made towards smallness of area involved therein.

6.1 Learned counsel also points out that the present was not a case where the acquisition resulted into bifurcation of the land holdings and as such, the landowners were not entitled for award of damages towards severance. He submits that the learned Reference Court erred having relied upon sale instance dated 19.04.1999 (Ex.P-1) and applying 10% appreciation thereupon for determination of market value. He thus, submits that the award passed by the learned Reference Court was liable to be set aside and that by the LAC was to be restored by allowing the appeals preferred at the instance of State.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landowners submits that though the learned Reference Court rightly relied upon the sale instance dated 19.04.1994 (Ex.P-1) pertaining to the revenue estate of Village Dhani Gujran, however, erred in applying deduction of 25-30 % to the base price per acre thereof, for determining the market value of the acquired land located beyond the road. Learned counsel points out that in fact, the landp