SWATANTER KUMAR, J. - (1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.
(2.) BY this judgment, I propose to dispose of Regular first Appeal No. 450 of 1982 and Cross Objection No. 54-CI of 1991, as they arise from the same judgment. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued by the State of Haryana on 23rd May, 1972, intending to acquire 6.76 acres of land in village Bhairi Akbarpur, Tehsil Hisar. Thereafter, notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 19th December, 1972. The claimants were heard by the Collector, who, vide his Award dated 8.3.1980 granted compensation to be claimants at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per acre. The claimants had prayed compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square yard. Thus, being dis-satisfied by the award of the Collector, reference under section 18 of the Act was preferred to the learned District Judge, Hisar, which was disposed of by the learned District Judge, Hisar, vide judgment dated 4.1.1982. He enhanced the compensation to Rs. 8000/- per acre as against Rs. 4,000/- awarded by the Collector.
(3.) AT the very outset, we may notice that the learned counsel appearing for the parties have fairly conceded that the mutation placed on record by the respective parties could lawfully be ignored by the learned reference court. The claimants-objector submits that the judgment of the reference court is erroneous inasmuch as it has ignored and rejected exhibit P.13 judgment of the court, wherein for the land acquired in the year 1967 in relation to the adjacent village compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square yard. Thus, on this basis, it was contended that the learned reference court has ignored the relevant piece of evidence and as such has fallen in error in recording the finding to the contrary.;