- (1.) The Haryana Government in pursuance of a notification issued on July 12, 1985, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), acquired land measuring 31 acres 3 Kanals 4 Marlas. The land was situated within the revenue estate of village Bir Pipli, Hadbast No. 359, Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra. The aforementioned land was acquired for the construction of New Grain Market, Carts Sheds, Staff Quarters and office building of the Market Committee, Pipli. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired Chahi land at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per acre, whereas Gair Mumkin land was evaluated at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, by his award dated 31.5.1989 has determined the market value of the acquired Chahi land at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- per acre, whereas Gair Mumkin land was evaluated at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per acre.
(2.) The landowners in their appeals bearing R.F.A. Nos. 894, 1016/90 and 2340, 2370, 2390, 2391, 2395, 2396, 2397 to 2491, 2403 to 2407, 2409 to 2411 and 2632 to 2634 of 1989 have sought enhancement of the amount of compensation, whereas the State of Haryana filed R.F.A. Nos. 2864 to 2888 of 1989 for the reduction of the compensation amount. Since all the appeals arise out of a common award and a common notification, the same are being disposed of by this judgment.
(3.) The Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, while evaluating the acquired land has relied upon an award Ex.A-10, given by a Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 747 of 1985, Khushi Ram and another v. State of Haryana, decided on 19.5.1988. In Ex.A-10, this Court determined the compensation amount of the land which was acquired on November 3, 1980. This Court in Khushi Ram's case was evaluating the land situated in village Devidaspura. It has not been disputed before me during the course of arguments that the land in Devidaspura was located at the back of Parakeet Motel situated on G.T. Road. The Additional District Judge in these cases rejected the sale deeds produced by the landowners on the following ground :- ''I would also like to make it clear that no doubt the sale instances Ex.A-2 to Ex.A-5, which pertained to the sale of land which was abutting on Ladwa-Pipli road could not become basis to determine the market value of the acquired land, but these instances could be relevant to determine that if the land abutting on Ladwa-Pipli road had a particular rate, then what could be the possible rate of the land preceding from Ladwa-Pipli road.'';