IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 1226 of 2007. Date of Decision : 8.3.2010. State of Haryana & others ......Appellants Versus Subhash Chander & others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Lekh Raj Nandal, AAG Haryana, for the State. Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate for the Indian Oil Corporation. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the claimants-land owners. NAWAB SINGH J. This judgment would dispose of above mentioned 38 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. 2. RFA Nos. 2250-52 of 2007, 2851, 1132-33, 1167, 1607-09, 1612 of 2007 and cross-objections No. 67-CI of 2009 have been filed by the land-owners seeking enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land. RFA Nos. 1187, 12217-28 of 2007 and RFA Nos. 3373-3385 of 2007 have been filed by the State and Indian Oil Corporation seeking reduction of the compensation awarded to the land owners. 3. By notification dated June 17th, 2002 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') Haryana Government acquired 101 kanals 4 marlas of land situated in village Sithana district Panipat for the construction of approach road for the site of I.O.C.L.(J.V.) power and Petrol Chemical Project at Panipat. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation vide award dated November 5th, 2003 at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre. Dis- satisfied therewith, the land owners sought for enhancement and reference was made under Section 18 of the Act. The learned RFA No. 1226 of 2007. (2) Additional District Judge by his Award dated December 14th, 2006 enhanced the compensation to Rs.186.23 ps per square yard. The said order has been impugned by filing these appeals before this Court. 4. Counsel heard. Record perused. 5. Learned Additional District Judge did not rely upon the sale instances (Exhibit P-1 to P-4 and P-8 and Exhibit R-2 to R-4) produced by the land owners and the State respectively. Sale instances relied upon by the land owners were ignored because those were of small pieces of land, that is, 1 marla, 2 kanals and 3 kanals. The sale instance of the State were not taken into consideration because those were of less sale consideration than the market value assessed by the Land acquisition Collector. The Referral Court relied upon two other Awards of the Referral Court (Exhibit P-9 and P-10) relating to village Biholi and Sithana, wherein, the land was acquired by notification dated December 12th, 1994. The market value was assessed by the Referral Court at the rate of Rs.97.94 ps per square yard. Both these villages are adjacent to each other. The present notification is of village Sithana. The Referral Court assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.186.23 per square yard by applying 12% increase per annum on the price fixed earlier by the Referral Court at the rate of Rs.97.94 ps per square yard. The question arises as to whether the assessment of the compensation made by the Referral Court is vitiated by any error of principle of law warranting interference. There has been time gap of 8 years between the two notifications. Obviously, the market value had increased since the date of first notification, that is, December 12th, 1994 till the date of present notification, that is, June 17th, 2002. It is settled principle of law that the Award of the Referral Court relating to the same village of the similar land possessed of same quality of land and potential offers comparable base for determination of the compensation. The Referral Court has noted in paragraph No. 28 and 32 the similarities of the land under acquisition as that they were covered by Awards RFA No. 1226 of 2007. (3) (Exhibits P-9 and P-10). The proposition of law which has been applied by the Referral Court could not be refuted by the counsel appearing for the parties, rather, they agreed to the principle of law adopted by the Referral Court. In this view of the matter, increase of 12% per annum while assessing the market value of the land on the basis of the earlier notification was justifiable by the Referral Court. Under these circumstances, there is no scope for interference in the well reasoned judgment passed by the Referral Court. The Appeals and the cross-objections are accordingly dismissed. 6. No costs. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 8.3.2010. SN