- (1.) This judgment of mine would dispose of seven Regular First Appeal Nos. 1923 to 1929 of 1985 all filed by the appellant-landowners as they arise out of the two Awards of the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon dated 17.7.1985.
(2.) Land measuring 47.36 acres and 165.04 acres situated in Shahpur and Sarhaul was acquired for the development and utilisation of the land for industrial purpose at Gurgaon by he Haryana, Urban, Development Authority vide notification dated 6.7.1981 published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act). The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land at the following rates : For Chahi and Alabrani Rs. 45,000/- per acre For Banjar Qadim Rs. 25,000/- per acre For Gair Mumkin Rs. 15,000/- per acre On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Additional District Judge determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 20-50 per square are yard. He ruled out of consideration Exhibits P. 1 and P 2 on the ground that these sale deeds were post dated notifications. Not only that even the agreement mentioned in the sale deed also took place after the notification in question was issued. Similarly Exhibit P. 4 the Award given by the Court evaluating the site of a running factory located within the revenue estate of Sukhrali was rightly discarded by holding that the acquired land could not be said to possess the some advantages similar to that figuring in judgment Exhibit P. 3. Ultimately the learned additional District Judge relied upon Exhibit P. 3 an Award given by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon pertaining to the acquisition of land of village Sarhol itself. The learned Additional District Judge vide Exhibit P. 3 was determining the market value of the acquired land in that case pertaining to the notification dated 10. 12.1976 evaluating the land at Rs. 19/- per square yard. After making Exhibit P. 3 as the basis, the learned Additional District Judge in the present case gave an enhancement of Re. 1/- per square yard per year by way of price rise for the intervening period, that is, for the notification dated 10.12.1976 and the notification of the acquired land dated 6.7.1981 in the present case. there is nothing wrong with the Award of the learned Additional District Judge in the present case, so far as the placing of reliance on Exhibit P. 3 is concerned. It has been observed in the impugned Award that admittedly the lands of Shahpur and Sarhol possessed. The same, advantages. However, the enhancement of Re. 1/- per square yard per year is on the lower side. The enhancement should have been rather 12 per cent per year in view of the law laid down by M.S. Liberhan, J. in Inder Singh v. State of Punjab,1989 2 PunLR 190. It was held therein that price are increasing and judicial notice of the increase has to be taken. It was further held that by reading the amended provisions, the intention of the Legislature to recognise the increase of 12 percent every year can be interred Following the ratio of law laid down in Inder Singh's case I give an increase of 55 percent for the time lag of 4 years and 7 months between the two dates of notifications in Exhibit P. 3 and the percent notification by which land in dispute has been acquired. This increase of 55 percent is being given at Re. 19/- per square yard fit other words, instead of giving an increase of Rs. 1/- per square year for each yard, as has been done by the Additional District Judge, I give an increase of 55 per cent thus determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 29.45 paise per square yard.
(3.) In the light of the observations made above, the appeals filed by the appellant-landowners are allowed to the extent indicated above. They shall also have proportionate costs. Besides this, they shall also be entitled to the statuory benefits of Sections 23 (1-A). 23(2) and 28 of the Act. Two months time to make good the deficiency in Court fee is also granted to the appellants.;