JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Jain,J. (Oral):-This judgment shall dispose of 39 Regular First Appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1600, 1142,962, 1144 to 1161,1222,1223, 1247,1249, 1596 to 1599, 2640, 748, 749,757, 796,810, 868 to 870 and 1143 of 2000 preferred by the landowners as well as the State of Haryana, against the award of the learned Reference Court dated 27.1.2000, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals. The facts are however, taken from RFA No.1600 of 2000 (Gian Chand v. State of Haryana and another). 2. In order to acquire 1738 kanals 13 marlas of land situated in the revenue estate of village Tajewala, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar for public purpose, namely for the construction of ‘Western Yamuna Canal Hydro Electric Project Stage-II’, the Power Department of Government of Haryana got issued a notification dated 02.12.1996 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,’the Act’). Notification of declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act on 08.4.1997, and was published in the official Gazette on the same day, whereby the Government had decided to acquire 701 kanals 7 marlas of land out of the land notified under Section 4 of the Act. 3. The Land Acquisition Collector, Public works Department (Power) Haryana,Ambala City (in short the Collector) announced his award No. 3 dated 14.10.1997 for the year 1997-98 in respect of land measuring 688 kanals 13 marlas and assessed the compensation @ Rs.96,000/- per acre for Nehri, Rs.48,000/- per acre for Barani and Rs. 36,000/- per acre for Banjar Qadim/Gair Mumkin. 4. The landowners/claimants remained unsatisfied with the award of the Collector thus they filed objections 18 of the Act in which it was, inter-alia, averred that the value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.5 lacs per acre at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In some cases, compensation awarded in respect of trees was also disputed. 5. The State of Haryana contested the reference petitions. In reply, it was, inter-alia, alleged that the compensation awarded by the Collector is in accordance with the market value prevalent in the locality and is justified. Replication was filed in some of the reference petitions in which the averments made in the written statement were denied and those of the claim petitions were reiterated. 6. Both the parties led their respective evidence. Replication was filed in some of the reference petitions in which the averments made in the written statement were denied and those of the claim petitions were reiterated. 6. Both the parties led their respective evidence. The landowners/claimants examined PW-1 Bal Krishan, who proved sale deed Ex.P-1 whereby he sold 3 kanals of land for Rs.33,000/-; PW-2 Jaswant Singh one of the claimants proved sale deeds Exs. P-2 and P-3 and notice under Section 9 of the Act received by him and some other members of his family i.e. Ex. P-4; PW-3 Virender Kumar prepared the site plan Ex.P-5; PW-4 Sanjiv Khera, official of the office of Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar produced letter dated 4.4.1997 written by Tehsildar Chhachhrauli to the D.C. Ex.P-6 showing the valuation of different kinds of land; PW-5 Braham Dutt, Patwari Halqa Tajewala, prepared the site plan Ex. P-7; PW-6 Surinder Singh proved sale consideration of land measuring 3 kanals 5 marlas in village Tajewala purchased by him for Rs. one lac vide sale deed Ex.P-8; PW7 Sudesh Kumar proved two receipts copies Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10 whereby he received Rs.1,34,000/- and Rs. 1,58,000/- respectively; PW-8 Lakhbir Singh proved receipts copies Ex.P-11 to Ex.P- 13 for having received Rs.1,15,000/- Rs.92,000/- and Rs.1,52,000/- as charges for leveling part of the acquired land in village Tajewala; PW-9 Mohan Lal proved receipts Exs. P-14 to P-16 for having received Rs.109200/- as charges for levelling part of the acquired land in village Tajewala; PW-10 Lal Singh proved sale consideration of sale deed Ex.P- 17 dated 04.9.1991 whereby he had purchased land measuring 73 kanals 5 marlas; PW-11 Hoshyari Ram stated that out of their 20 marlas of land, 10 marlas has been acquired and their land on which house has been constructed is adjoining the main road but in the cross examination, he stated that the land in between road and their land has not been acquired and PW-12 Tej Bhan one of the claimants stated that plantation of trees and installation of one pump-set had been done on their land before it was acquired and it was chahi land. Besides, the landowners also relied upon khasra girdawaris Exs. P-17 to P-19 and Akshizra Mark-A and B and photo copy of jamabandi Mark -C. 7. As against this, the respondents examined RW-1 Jagmal Singh Patwari of Land Acquisition Collector, who also tendered certified copies of sale deeds Ex. Besides, the landowners also relied upon khasra girdawaris Exs. P-17 to P-19 and Akshizra Mark-A and B and photo copy of jamabandi Mark -C. 7. As against this, the respondents examined RW-1 Jagmal Singh Patwari of Land Acquisition Collector, who also tendered certified copies of sale deeds Ex. R1 to Ex.R-3 and site plan Ex. R-4. RW-2 Paramjit Singh, proved sale deed Ex. R-1 whereby he purchased land measuring 21 kanals 7 marla which is adjoining Tajewala Rest House. Details of sale deeds produced by the claimants as well as the respondents are as under:- Sr. No. Ex. Area Amount of Average rate Kind of land - sale price per acre 1. P-1 3-0 Rs.33,000/- Rs.88,000/- Banjar Kadim 2. P-2 21-7 Rs.1,96,000/- Rs.73,442/- -do- 3. P-3 11-13 Rs.1,02,000/- Rs.70,042/- -do- 4. P-8 3-5 Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.2,46,151/- GairMumkin Malkan. 5. P-17 73-5 Rs.4,12,032/- Rs. 45,000/- Banjar Quadim 1. R-1 21-07 Rs.1,96,000/- Rs.72,442/- Banjar Quadim 2. R-2 3-05 Rs.1,02,000/- Rs.70,042/- -do- 3. R-3 134.16 Rs.4,00,000/- Rs.26,113/- GairMumkin BanjarQuadim - and Barani 8. After taking into consideration the evidence on record, the learned Reference Court arrived at a conclusion that the market price of Chahi/Nehri land is Rs.2,00,000/- per acre and the market value was assessed @ Rs.1,69,000/- per acre for other kind of land. So far as the trees are concerned, the learned Reference Court had awarded Rs.18,000/- in respect of 1200 trees and had also awarded statutory benefits in terms of provisions of the amended Act. 9. Both the landowners and the State of Haryana are assailing the award of the learned Reference Court in the aforesaid appeals. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants have vehemently contended that the learned Reference Court has committed a palpable error in determining the compensation because in paras 28 and 30 of the impugned judgment, the learned Reference Court had discussed the award Ex.P-20 of the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act pertaining to same date i.e. 2.12.1996 issued for the same purpose of acquisition but for the adjoining village ‘Arayianwala’. In the said case, the Collector had awarded compensation @ Rs. 48,000/- and Rs.36,000/- per acre for Nehri and Banjar Quadim lands respectively, but vide award Ex.P-.20, market value was re-determined @ Rs.1,69,000/- per acre for both the categories including Barani. In the said case, the Collector had awarded compensation @ Rs. 48,000/- and Rs.36,000/- per acre for Nehri and Banjar Quadim lands respectively, but vide award Ex.P-.20, market value was re-determined @ Rs.1,69,000/- per acre for both the categories including Barani. Therefore, it was observed by the learned Reference Court that in view of the pattern of rise in price indicated in the award of the Collector dated 14.10.1997, the market price of Chahi land on the basis award Ex.P-20 would come to Rs. 3,38,000/- per acre. In para 30 of the impugned judgment, the learned Reference Court has held that the trend of rise in prices of Barani land etc. in village Tajewala to be higher than those in village Arayianwala, yet the Court observed that it would be proper to keep same rates for the land of both the adjoining villages and in this manner, the market price of the acquired land should be Rs.3,38,000/- per acre. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants have then submitted that since the value of the Banjar Quadim and Barani land has been determined @ Rs. 1,69,000/- per acre then the value of Nehri and Chahi land should have been double and determined @ Rs.3,38,000/- per acre but the learned Reference Court had erred in assessing the compensation @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre without any cogent reason. 12. Mr.Mahavir Sandhu, learned counsel appearing for some of the appellants also submitted that the learned Reference Court has committed an error in awarding Rs.18,000/- for 1200 trees, although the compensation claimed was to the tune of Rs. 7,20,000/- @ Rs.600 per tree. 13. Mr.H.S.Hooda, learned Advocate General, Haryana, assisted by Mrs. Mamta Singhal Talwar, learned A.A.G.Haryana, has contended while replying the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the landowners and pursuing the appeals filed by the State of Haryana for rededuction of the compensation, that the learned Reference Court has committed an error of law while assessing the market value @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for Nehri and Chahi land and Rs. 1,69,000/- per acre for Barani and Banjar Quadim land. Learned counsel has submitted that both the landowners as well as the State of Haryana have relied upon the sale deed Ex.P-2, P-3 and Ex.R-1 and R-2. The sale deeds Exs. P-2 and P-3 are part of the acquired land as it is evident from the site plan Ex.P-7. 1,69,000/- per acre for Barani and Banjar Quadim land. Learned counsel has submitted that both the landowners as well as the State of Haryana have relied upon the sale deed Ex.P-2, P-3 and Ex.R-1 and R-2. The sale deeds Exs. P-2 and P-3 are part of the acquired land as it is evident from the site plan Ex.P-7. Learned counsel further submitted that the question involved in these appeals would be as to “whether the Reference Court should have relied upon the sale instances of close proximity, prior in time and out of the acquired land or should have relied upon the award of the Reference Court in respect of the land of the adjoining village which has been acquired on the same date and for the same purpose ?”. 14. In this context, Mr. Hooda, learned counsel for the State has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Spl.Tehsildar, Land Acqn.,Vishakapatnam v. Smt. A.Mangala Gowri AIR 1992 Supreme Court 666. It is also submitted that the compensation awarded in respect of trees is just and reasonable because a Local Commissioner was appointed by the landowners themselves and vide his report Ex.P-21, it has been found that the trees were two small in the shape of saplings, therefore, Rs18,000/- was found to be just and adequate. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. 16. It is an admitted fact that vide Ex.P-20, learned Reference Court had decided five reference in respect of land measuring 120 kanals 17 marlas situated in village Arayianwala where the land was acquired for construction of Western Yamuna Hydel Stage-II with the issuance of notification dated 02.12.1996 under Section 4 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded Rs. 48,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs.36,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land (Jhund) vide his award dated 14.10.1997. The landowners have claimed the compensation @ Rs. 3 lacs per acre in their objections filed under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Reference Court in the said case, relied upon sale instance dated 2.7.1992 (Ex.P-2) vide which land measuring 2 kanals was sold for Rs.28,500/- which comes to Rs. 1,14,000/- per acre. The landowners have claimed the compensation @ Rs. 3 lacs per acre in their objections filed under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Reference Court in the said case, relied upon sale instance dated 2.7.1992 (Ex.P-2) vide which land measuring 2 kanals was sold for Rs.28,500/- which comes to Rs. 1,14,000/- per acre. It was observed that if the sale instances of the relevant time are not available, then the sale instance of the nearby period can be taken into consideration and then increase or decrease @ 12% can be applied. On this formula, 48% increase on Rs.1,14,000/-per acre was given for four years w.e.f. 2.7.1992 to the acquisition in the said cases on 02.12.1996 and @ Rs.1,69,000/- per acre was redetermined for all types of lands. From the examination of the facts given in respect of Ex.P-20 which has been heavily relied upon by the claimants/landowners, one thing has come out that only sale deed Ex.P-2 dated 02.7.1992 was taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the compensation of the acquired land as on 2.12.1996, meaning thereby that there was no sale deed available at the time when the compensation of village Arayianwala was determined by the learned Reference Court of a period closer to the date of notification. 17. In the present case, the sale deed Ex.P-2 dated 18.11.1996 pertains to an area measuring 21 kanals 7marlas and sale deed Ex.P-3 dated 22.11.1996 relates to 11 kanals 13 marlas respectively. Admittedly, both the sale deeds pertain to a big chunk of land and are from the acquired land itself which is shown in site plan Ex. R-4. Once this fact is not in controversy, then the question arises whether these sale deeds Exs. P2 and P-3 should have been relied upon or the award Ex.P-20. 18. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts of this case and have found that Ex. P-20 is not at all applicable for the purpose of determination of compensation because in the award Ex.P-20, the sale deed relied upon is of 1992 and after giving 48% increase for four years, the compensation was arrived at Rs. 18. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts of this case and have found that Ex. P-20 is not at all applicable for the purpose of determination of compensation because in the award Ex.P-20, the sale deed relied upon is of 1992 and after giving 48% increase for four years, the compensation was arrived at Rs. 1,69,000/- per acre after observing categorically that if no sale deed is available of the period near to the date of acquisition, then the last available sale deed should be taken into consideration and compensation be determined by giving an increase or decrease of 12% . However, in the present case, two sale deeds Exs. P-2 and P-3are of the month of November,1996, whereas the acquisition is of December, 1996. Both the sale deeds are from the acquired land itself, therefore, in my considered view, they are the best pieces of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation. 19. In Smt.A.Mangala’s Case (Supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:- “This Court repeatedly laid the acid test that in determining the market value of the land, the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser would form the basis to fix the market value. For ascertaining the market rate, the Court can rely upon such transactions which would offer a reasonable basis to fix the price. The price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the acquisition of the land in question would be the best piece of evidence”. “Perhaps had there been no bonafide or genuine sale transaction relating to the self-same land, the reliance placed on that judgment may be justified but exclusion of bonafide and genuine sale transactions in respect of the same land under acquisition and to place reliance on the award of some other land is obviously illegal”. 20. In my considered view, the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court squarely covers the present controversy much-less the question posed in the beginning. 21. Now taking up the best sale deed Ex.P-2, compensation of land for Banjar Quadim is Rs. 73,442/-per acre on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and keeping in view the fact that value of Nehri/Chahi is double the value of the Banjar Quadim land, then it comes to Rs. 1,46,884/- per acre. 21. Now taking up the best sale deed Ex.P-2, compensation of land for Banjar Quadim is Rs. 73,442/-per acre on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and keeping in view the fact that value of Nehri/Chahi is double the value of the Banjar Quadim land, then it comes to Rs. 1,46,884/- per acre. So far as the value of the trees are concerned, it has already come in evidence that a Local Commissioner appointed on the request of the landowners has tendered his report Ex.P- 21 in which he has submitted that trees on the land in question were found to be too small, therefore, award of Rs. 18,000/- is not, in any way, inadequate and is justified. Thus, in view of my aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed by the landowners/claimants are dismissed and the appeals filed by the State of Haryana are allowed. The impugned award of the learned Reference Court dated 27.1.2000 is set aside in respect of the assessment of compensation for the land acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 2.12.1996 and the compensation is re-determined @ Rs.1,46,884/- per acre for chahi/canal irrigated land and Rs. 73,442/- per acre for Banjar Quadim. The landowners shall, however, be entitled to all the statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the amended Act. No costs. -----------------------