Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants-landowners (in RFA-485-1999 and RFA-2163-2015).

Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

1. This common judgment shall dispose of the aforementioned five connected Regular First Appeals, as they all involve common question of law and facts.

1.1 For convenience, the facts are being taken from RFA-508-1998 (O&M).

2. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an Award dated 27.11.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana (for short, “Reference Court”), whereby, reference petition(s) preferred at the instance of appellants-landowners 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 appellants-landowners, situated in the revenue estate of village Sidhwan Bet, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, came to be acquired vide notifications dated 27.04.1988 and 10.08.1989, issued under Sections 4 and 6, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the 1894 Act”), for the public purpose namely, for development of New Mandi at Sidhwan Bet. The compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector vide its Award dated 04.08.1990.

4. Aggrieved of 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 27.11.1997, partly allowed references thereby granting the enhanced compensation @ Rs.22,500/- per acre along with all other statutory benefits under the 1894 Act.

5. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision of the learned Reference Court, the appellants-landowners preferred the aforementioned appeals.

6. Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having discarded the sale instances produced by the appellants-landowners merely on the ground that the vendors and vendees thereof were not examined. He further submits that in terms of Section 51-A of the 1894 Act, certified copies of the sale deeds produced on record by the appellants-landowners were required to be relied upon. Learned counsel also points that the land parcels of sale deeds Ex.A-3 and A-5 even formed part of the acquired land situated in the revenue estate of Village Sidhwan Bet. It has thus been submitted that while taking into account the evidence available on record coupled with the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court with respect to the commercial potential attached to the acquired land, the market value was required to be re-assessed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Reference Court was based on proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence available on record and thus, no interference was called for.

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

9. A perusal of record shows that based on the evidence produced on record by the parties, a positive finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Reference Court to the effect that the land under acquisition falls within the revenue estate of Village Sidhwan Bet being connected with the metalled roads and was having potential value for being used for commercial purposes and even the acquired land was located near Abadi. The relevant portion of para 24 of the impugned Award is extracted hereunder:- “24. However, it is admitted fact that Sidhwan Bet is a growing town having Banks, Schools, Police Station, B.D.O. Office, Hospital, and a Canal Rest House. It is also admitted fact that Sidhwan Bet is connected with metalled roads and the acquired land is near the village abadi and was acquired for setting up Anaj Mandi. Thus, considering the potential va