landowner(s), situated in the revenue estate of Village Nahar, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari, was acquired vide notifications dated 10.03.2010 (published on 23.03.2010) and 21.05.2010 (published on 08.06.2010), issued under Sections 4 & 6 respectively of the 1894 Act. The total land under acquisition was 74 kanals 7 marlas. The acquisition was for the public purpose, namely, “for construction of Nahar Minor”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the LAC”) vide its Award No.4 dated 25.04.2011, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.20 lakhs per acre with all other statutory benefits.

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 27.08.2015, enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs.22 lakhs per acre alongwith all other statutory benefits under the 1894 Act.

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

6. Impugning aforementioned award, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s)-State submits that the sale deed dated 01.09.2011 (Ex.PW1/B) being post notification was rightly discarded by the learned Reference Court and as such, need not to be relied upon. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant(s)-State placed on record six sale deeds in the form of Ex.R-1 to R-6, all pertaining to the same revenue estate of village Nahar and the market value reflected therein was around Rs.11-12 lakhs per acre, whereas, the landowner(s) were already granted significantly higher market value @ Rs.20 lakh per acre. Learned counsel thus, submits that the landowner(s) were adequately compensated by the LAC and no further enhancement was required and as such, the award passed by the learned Reference Court granting the market value @ Rs.22 lakhs per acre was required to be set aside and that of the LAC was to be restored. In support of his arguments, learned State counsel placed reliance upon akshajra (Ex.R-7) depicting the comparative location of the sale deeds produced by both the parties vis-a-vis the acquired land.

6.1 Learned State counsel also submits that no evidence with respect to the severance of land holdings by the respondents(s)-landowner(s) was produced before the learned Reference Court, as such, at this stage no such claim ought to be entertained.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent(s)- landowner(s) submits that the learned Reference Court erred having discarded the sale deed dated 01.09.2011 (Ex.PW1/B), vide which, 800 square yard (1 kanal 6 marla) of land situated in the same revenue estate of village Nahar was sold for a sum of Rs.7,05,000/- with base price per acre of Rs.43,38,461/-. Learned counsel submits that in the wake of sale deed dated 01.09.2011 (Ex.PW1/B) being post notification, the learned Reference Court ought to have applied the principles of doctrine of de-escalation in view of law laid by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Ram Kishan (since deceased) through his LRs etc. Versus State of Haryana & Ors., reported as 2025 INSC 441. He, thus submits that the market value of the acquired land was required to be reassessed while taking into consideration the sale deed dated 01.09.2011 (Ex.PW1/B) after application of suitable deduction thereupon, besides applying cut towards smallness of area involved therein and thus, the claim made by the respondent(s)-landowner(s) was required to be re-assessed accordingly.

7.1 Learned counsel further submits that as an effect of acquisition in hand, the land holdings of the respondent(s)-landowner(s) have been bifurcated and as such, they are also entitled for award of damages against severance of their land.

8. I have heard learne