- (1.) Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions. All these appeals can be disposed of by this common order as all these appeals challenge judgments passed by the High Court in land acquisition proceedings arising out of the same Notification.
(2.) The facts are identical facts as taken from C. A. Nos. 8657-8680/2001 are as follows : The State of Haryana has been acquiring large areas for development of Gurgaon. A number of acquisition proceedings have been initiated since 1983. We are concerned with acquisition proceedings arising out of a Section 4 Notification issued on 20th April 1990. The lands proposed to be acquired were as follows : Village - Area (in acres) Jharsa - 475.51 Kanhai - 579.81 Binderpur - 43.81 Shamashpur - 49.78 Section 6 Notification was issued on 18th April 1991. The Award was passed on 23rd March 1993. A number of claimants were dissatisfied with the amounts awarded and preferred References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In all 152 Reference were filed. In all the references more or less, common evidence was led and common questions of law were argued. All these References were answered by the District Judge/Additional District Judge, Gurgaon by 31 Judgments. In the judgments with which we are concerned, irrespective of the nature of the land, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 265 per square yard i.e. at the rate of Rs. 12,82,600 per acre.
(3.) Against those judgments 281 First Appeals were filed. The State of Haryana challenged the judgments on the ground that the compensation awarded was excessive. The claimants prayed for further enhancements. These Appeals were disposed of by various judgments. In these Appeals the High Court noted that the Reference Court had relied upon earlier judgments in respect of earlier acquisitions for the same purpose. The High Court noted that in arriving at the compensation payable the Reference Court had relied upon judgments in the cases of M/s. Standard Rubbers v. State of Haryana and Smt. Gunga Devi v. State of Haryana. The High Court noted that the compensation awarded in these cases had been reduced in Appeals and by adopting a belting system, (in relation to lands located in Jharsa) compensation, at the rate of Rs. 213, Rs. 160 and Rs. 106 was awarded. The High Court noted that in the present acquisition the lands were not abutting any National or main State highway. The High Court thus rightly concluded that the belting system could not be applied in this case. The High Court then took a mean of the above-mentioned three figures to arrive at a figure of Rs. 160. The High Court noted that these figures were in respect of an acquisition of the year 1987 whereas the present acquisition related to the year 1990. The High Court held that the claimants would therefore be entitled to increase. The High Court held that there had to be some deductions because acquisition was of a huge area and there would be development costs. The High Court held that the deductions should be a minimum deductions and applied a deduction of 20 per cent, as against the usual deduction of 33 1/3 per cent. On the above basis the High Court held, in Suraj Bhan's case, that the claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 212 per square yard i.e. Rs. 10,26,080 per acre.;