T.A. No. 270 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. T.A. No. 270 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 7, 2009 Narender and others …..Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioners seek the transfer of 12 land reference cases pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, on the ground that the District Judge has already expressed her opinion in three bunch of reference petitions filed by land owners of Shahbad Markanda in which land was acquired vide notification dated May 19, 2004 for setting up Distillery and Ethanol Plant for Sugarcane Seed Research and Production Farm and refused to award compensation beyond Rs.5 lacs per acre vide T.A. No. 270 of 2009 [2] award passed by the said Court on March 31, 2009. No enhancement was made on the ground that Government of Haryana vide policy dated December 7, 2007 effective from March 5, 2005 has already given annuity for 33 years over and above the amount of compensation of Rs.5 lacs per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. It has also been contended that in 36 reference petitions decided pertaining to Village Sunderpur, Darra Kalan and Palwal acquired vide notification dated July 24, 2003, no enhancement has been permitted by the said Court, despite the fact that the High Court had assessed compensation of Rs.7.20 lacs per acre for the land which was acquired in the year 1992. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the grant of incentive by the Government has to be over and above the market value assessed by the Collector or the Court and that the future incentive will not affect the determination of the market value on the date of notification. It has also been argued that the petitioners have got prima facie a strong case of enhancement, as the acquisition in the present case was made in the year 2003 and the Collector price had been fixed as Rs.6 lacs per acre whereas regarding other land adjacent to the acquired land vide notification of 1992, the Collector had determined Rs.5 lacs per acre. The market value assessed in the year 1992 cannot be same as the market value assessed in the year 2003. Besides this, counsel for the petitioner has referred to a large number of circumstances to contend that the market price of the land acquired is much more than what has been granted by the Land Acquisition Collector. T.A. No. 270 of 2009 [3] All the pleas put-forth by counsel for the petitioners before this Court cannot be minutely looked into as it would tentamount to pre- determining the issue regarding market value, lest it should prejudice the rights of the parties before the reference Court. I have carefully considered the contentions of counsel for the petitioners and I am of the opinion that it is not expected from the Judicial Officer with a long judicial experience and intellect to her credit that the pleas and evidence available to the petitioners are casually rejected. It will be open to the counsel for the petitioners appearing before the Reference Court to clarify the effect and relevance of the Government incentive for the purpose of determination of market value as the said incentive has to be over and above the market value. In case some judicial precedents are available with the petitioners, it will be open to them to bring it to the notice of the Reference Court. It is expected that all pleas raised before the Reference Court will be judiciously considered. In view of the above, it is not deemed appropriate to transfer the land references pending before the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra which are already ripe for arguments. Disposed of. August 7, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE