dated 03.02.1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Faridabad (for short, “Reference Court”), whereby, reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of appellant(s)-landowner(s) invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “1894 Act”), were dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that some land owned by the appellant(s)-landowner(s), situated in the revenue estate of Village Ghori, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad, came to be acquired vide notification dated 17.12.1981 (published on 02.02.1982) and notification dated 21.12.1984 (published on 15.01.1985) under Sections 4 and 6, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the 1894 Act”), for the public purpose namely, construction of Palwal-Ghori Road. The Land Acquisition Collector vide its Award dated 19.09.1986, assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.16,000/-per acre for chahi land besides grant of other statutory benefits.

4. Feeling dissatisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, appellant(s)-landowner(s) preferred 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 award dated 03.02.1994, dismissed the same.

5. Aggrieved of the aforesaid decision of the learned Reference Court, the appellant(s)-landowner(s) preferred the aforementioned appeals.

6. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellant(s)-landowner(s) submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having discarded the sale deed Ex.P-1 dated 27.05.1982 solely on the ground that the same was post notification. He submits that once the sale instance Ex.P-1 related to the same revenue estate of Village Ghori and was in close proximity in terms of time period from the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the case in hand, the same should have been relied upon after application of some suitable deduction over the base price per acre derived therefrom. He thus, submits that the market value in the case in hand was required to be enhanced while relying upon the sale instance Ex.P-1 and as such, the impugned award was liable to be set aside/modified.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per sale instance Ex.R-1 dated 03.06.1982 which also pertained to the same revenue estate of Village Ghori, the sale price per acre was around Rs.8000/- whereas, the Land Acquisition Collector while passing its award on 19.09.1996 had already granted market value @ Rs.16,000/- per acre. He thus, submits that the award passed by the learned Reference Court was based on proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence available on record and as such, calls for no interference.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant(s)landowner(s).

9. A perusal of record shows that the sale deed Ex.P-1 dated 27.05.1982 pertains to the same revenue estate of Village Ghori, vide which, 8 kanals (1 acre) of land forming part of khasra No.24, rectangle No.82 was sold for a sum of Rs.49,000/-. From the records, it can also be discerned that the acquisition in the present case includes land forming part of rectangle No.83 and 84 of the revenue estate of Village Ghori. Thus, apparently the location and potential value of the land forming part of sale deed Ex.P-1 dated 27.05.1982 was identically placed as compared to the land under acquisition. In such circumstances, the sale deed Ex.P-1 which pertains to 8 kanals of land needs to be taken into account as the best available sale exemplar for the purpose of determination of market value. Mere fact that the sale deed Ex.P-1 dated 27.05.1982 was post notification by less than 4 months, the same could not have been discarded. Instead, the learned Reference Court was required to apply the doctrine of de-escalation f