NIRMAL YADAV, J. - (1.) THESE appeals having arisen out of the same judgment and award dated 29.1.1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Hisar, and involving identical questions of fact and law, are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE State of Haryana issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 20.8.1992 seeking to acquire 227.44 acres of land in the revenue estate of Hisar for a public purpose, namely, development and utilization of the land for residential sectors by Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'HUDA'). In furtherance thereto, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued and published on 17.8.1993. The Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Hisar, vide award dated 19.1.1995 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre (Rs. 30.99 per square yard) for chahi and Rs. 42,000/- per acre (Rs. 8.67 per square yard) for Gair Mumkin land. On references made by the land owners, the Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation and determined the market value of the acquired land as under :- (a) Chahi land = Rs. 6,50,000/- per acre (Rs. 134.30 per square yard) (b) Gair Mumkin land = Rs. 1,68,000/- per acre (Rs. 34.71 per square yard) Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Additional District Judge, both the State as well as claimants have filed the present appeals. The claimants have challenged the order of the Reference Court mainly on the ground that learned Additional District Judge has ignored the oral as well as documentary evidence including the report of the Local Commissioner and the site plan prepared by him. It is argued that learned Additional District Judge had inspected the site on 18.1.1999 and found that the land was included in the municipal limit as far back as in the year 1974. Since then, several residential colonies as well as industrial units have come up in the close vicinity of the acquired land. The acquired land, on three sides, is surrounded by residential colonies and on the fourth side it is bounded by Hisar-Raipur Government sanctioned Kacha path. All the civic amenities, viz., electricity, roads, telecom, sewerage and medical facilities, etc. are available around the land. It was further found that there is increasing demand of residential plots in the town of Hisar, therefore, there was great pressure of building activities in the area. It is further pleaded that learned Additional District Judge has ignored the value fetched by the plots in the auction held in the year 1990 and 1992 by HUDA in the nearby Mela Ground, as is apparent from the documents Exhibit P-58 to P-64. It is further pleaded that the sale-deeds Exhibits P/2, PW3/A and PW3/B show that the land in the close vicinity was sold at the rate of Rs. 247.93, Rs. 215.63 and Rs. 206.61 per square yard, respectively, on 7.2.1991 and by adding enhancement at the rate of 12% per annum to the average market value of the land, the value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, would come to Rs. 260/- per square yard. It is further pleaded that this Court in the case of Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana, reported as 2000(1) (sic) 295 has relied upon the sale instance, Exhibit P-2 and assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 235/- per square yard. In that case, the land was acquired by the State Government for development of industrial sectors 9 and 11 by HUDA. Accordingly, it is pleaded that even though the market value of the land is not less than Rs. 500/- per square yard.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Advocate General, Haryana pleaded that the enhancement made by the Additional District Judge is unreasonable, whereas, the award given by the Land Acquisition Collector is quite reasonable as per the criteria laid down for assessment of market value of the land. It is further pleaded that the learned Additional District Judge has fallen into error while distinguishing the present case from the earlier references relating to similar land, titled as Lalit Pal etc. v. State, which were decided by Shri R.S. Virk, Additional District Judge on 2.1.1998.;