In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No. 855 of 1989 Decided on August 25,2008. Zile Singh and others ---Appellants. vs. State of Haryana --- Respondent Present: Mr.V.K. Jain, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Prashant Vashisht,Advocate, for the appellants Mr. H.S.Hooda,Advocate General,Haryana, with Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.DAG,Haryana, for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: This judgment shall dispose of RFA Nos.855,849,850 to 854 of 1989 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. Land measuring 357 kanals- 17 marlas situated in village Kaul was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,'the Act'), dated 06.10.1983, for public purpose,namely for the upgradation of agricultural college Kaul and for providing water course to the college land by Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar at Kaul. Vide his award dated 08.5.1984, the Collector assessed the compensation of the acquired land @ Rs. 36,000/- per acre. Objections under Section 18 of the Act, were filed by the landowners for enhancement of compensation which were stoutly contested by the respondents. The reference Court awarded compensation @ Rs.38,000/- per acre over and RFA No.855 of 1989 (7cases) -2- above the compensation awarded by the Collector on the basis of an award passed by this court in RFA No.997 of 1985 Chamela etc v. State of Haryana, decided on 21.10.1986 which is produced on record as Ex. R-3, because the land pertaining to this award is closer to the acquired land as remarked by the Collector in his award dated 08.5.1984. Admittedly the notification under Section 4 of the Act, was issued on 03.4.1981 in the case of Chemela etc. and in the present case on 6.10.1983. Mr.V.K.Jain,learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently argued that even if no other evidence on record is taken into consideration and only award Ex.R-3 is relied upon, still the appellants are entitled to an enhancement of 2-1/2 years @ 10% in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer,BYDA,Bagalkot v.Mohd.Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1558, in which it was held as under:- “In these appeals, the land was acquired by issuing a notification under S.4 dated 22nd August, 1991, for a public purpose, namely, the formation of link road to the new town,Bagalkot Township. It is not disputed that the land under acquisition is adjacent to the land in Civil appeal No. 12515 of 1996 and other connected cases. The potential value of the land under acquisition in these appeals is the same as in the earlier cases. The reference Court granted an appreciation of 10% for every subsequent year. Taking the base price at Rs.5.50 per sq.ft. fixed for acquisition of the land in the year 1985 as in the earlier cases, at the rate of 10% in the value of the land for every subsequent year. As the earlier acquisition was of 1985 and this acquisition is of the year 1991, appreciation for six years was RFA No.855 of 1989 (7cases) -3- granted. The reference Court determined the payable market value at Rs.7/- per.sq.ft which was later confirmed by the High Court. In addition statutory benefits of solatium and interest etc. were also granted. In the earlier Notification for the year 1985 we have fixed the market value of the land for the year 1985 at Rs. 5/- per.sq.ft. On giving an appreciation of 10% in the value of the land for every subsequent year for a period of six years the value of the land would come to Rs.8/- per sq.ft. The claimants have not filed either cross appeals or cross objections. The overall value of Rs.7/- per sq.ft. fixed by the reference Court and confirmed by the High Court is thus reasonable and does snot call for any interference”. As against this, counsel for the respondent Mr. H.S.Hooda,Advocate General, Haryana, with Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr. D.A.G, submitted that the compensation assessed by the reference Court is just and adequate, but they could not effectively reply to the arguments raised by counsel for the appellants that keeping in view the rising trend of price in the real estate, the Court should take a judicial notice of at least 10% increase in the price from 1981 to 1983. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that these appeals deserve to succeed and are allowed. The appellants are entitled to an increase of 10% per annum for a period of 2-1/2 years for a gap of two notifications i.e. 03.4.1981 and 06.10.983 and on that account, the compensation is hereby enhanced from Rs. 38,000/-per acre to Rs. 47,500/- per acre . The appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits in accordance with law with costs of the appeals. August 25,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge