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 (1.54 acres) owned by the appellant(s)-landowner(s), situated in the revenue estate of Village Dharamgarh, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind, was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 13.11.1992 published on 01.12.1992, under Section 4 of the 1894 Act and the notification dated 25.11.1993 published on 26.11.1993, issued under Section 6 thereof, for the public purpose, namely, construction of the road from Dharamgarh to Malakpur. The total land acquired was 1.37 acres. The Land Acquisition Collector vide its Award, assessed the market value of the acquired land and awarded Rs.50,000/- per acre for chahi and nehri land and Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for gairmumkin (G.M.) land.

4. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant(s)-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 Reference Court vide its Award dated 14.01.2000, dismissed the reference petition(s).

5. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award passed by the ld. Reference Court, the appellant(s)-landowner(s) preferred the aforementioned appeals.

6. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellant(s) submits that the ld. Reference Court went wrong while not placing reliance upon the sale instance Ex.P-1 dated 13.06.1991, vide which, 2 acres of land forming part of the same revenue estate of village Dharamgarh, was sold for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- and the market value per acre was Rs.95,000/- per acre. He further submits that the sale instance Ex. P1 dated 13.06.1991 being the highest sale exemplar was required to be taken into account by the ld. Reference Court. He contends that the appellant(s) were also entitled for grant of appreciation @ 12% over the sale price per acre derived from sale instance Ex.P-1 for the time gap between the date of sale instance (dated 13.06.1991) till the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act (dated 01.12.1992).

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that taking into account the sale deeds produced on record by the respondent-State in the form of Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3, the sale price was Rs.35,000/- per acre to Rs.40,000/- per acre, whereas, the appellant(s)-landowner(s) were already awarded excessively by the Land Acquisition Collector and as such, no interference is called for with the impugned award and the appeals are thus, liable to be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book.

9. A perusal of the record shows that vide sale deed Ex.P-1 dated 13.06.1991, 2 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of village Dharamgarh was sold for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- and as such, the sale price per acre was approximately Rs.95,000/- per acre.

9.1 The acquisition in the present case also forms part of the revenue estate of village Dharamgarh. In such circumstances, the ld. Reference Court went wrong while discarding the sale instance Ex.P-1 dated 13.06.1991. In fact, the sale instance Ex.P-1 dated 13.06.1991 being the sale exemplar having the highest price and pertaining to the same revenue estate was in fact required to be relied upon by the ld. Reference Court for the determination of market value pertaining to the acquired land in the absence of there being any evidence led by the respondent contra the bonafide or genuineness of the said sale transaction. Moreover, there being a time gap of almost 1½ year between the sale deed Ex.P-1 dated 13.06.1991 and the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act i.e. 01.12.1992 in the case in hand, the appellant(s)-landowner(s) also need to be awarded an appreciation @ 8% per annum for the said period. Additionally, the sale instances Ex.R1