Judgment Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of 214 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. 2. R.F.A. Nos.2067 to 2075, 2370, 2371, 3057, 3182, 3186, 3195 to 3201, 3569 to 3576, 4520 of 2007, 363, 412, 413, 418 to 420, 423 to 429, 438, 439, 530, 721 to 725, 811, 858, 864, 865, 867, 970, 1402, 1404, 1407 to 1410, 1412, 1433, 1450, 1451, 1454 to 1457, 1547 to 1551, 1736, 1737, 1811, 1921, 2622 to 2628, 2821, 3340 to 3344, 3519, 3526, 3978, and 3986 of 2008 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. R.F.A. Nos.1867, 1877 to 1888, 1923 to 1943, 1945 to 1956, 1991, 1992, 1994 to 1997 of 2007, 637, 639, 642, 644, 647, 651, 652, 654, 1221, 1224 to 1228, 1230 to 1232, 1234 to 1240, 1290 to 1292, 1297, 1298, 1305, 1306, 1308, 1309, 1311, 1314, 1317, 1319, 1321, 1338 to 1341, 1344, 1345, 1351, 1353, 1354, 1357, 1414, 1422, 1470, 1471, 1473 to 1478, 1480, 1482, 1484, 1542, 1768, 5164 and 5177 of 2008 have been filed by the State seeking reduction of compensation for the acquired land awarded to the land owners. However, the facts have been noticed from RFA No. 1867 of 2007. 3. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 127.57 acres, falling in villages Baguwali, Narelkhera, Bhaudin, Suchan, Kotli, Rasulpur, Sikanderpur and Moriwala, District Sirsa was acquired vide notification dated 10.4.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) for the purpose of construction of Rangoi Kharif Channel from RD 0 to Tail RD 280700 (Sub-Reach RD 155450 to 218600) off taking from Tail of Rangoi Nallah. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector) awarded compensation for the acquired land per acre at the following rates:- S.No. Village Nehri Chahi Barani 1 Baguwali Rs. 1,30,000/- Rs. 1,10,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 2. Narelkhera Rs. 1,30,000/- Rs. 90,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 3. Bhaudin Rs. 1,30,000/- Rs. 1,10,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 4. Suchan Rs. 1,30,000/- Rs. 1,10,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 5. Kotli Rs. 1,30,000/- Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 6. Rasulpur Rs. 1,30,000/- Rs. 1,10,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 7. Sikanderpur Rs. 1,30,000/- Rs. 1,10,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 8. Moriwala . Rs. 1,30,000/- Rs. 1,10,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 4. 70,000/- 2. Narelkhera Rs. 1,30,000/- Rs. 90,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 3. Bhaudin Rs. 1,30,000/- Rs. 1,10,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 4. Suchan Rs. 1,30,000/- Rs. 1,10,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 5. Kotli Rs. 1,30,000/- Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 6. Rasulpur Rs. 1,30,000/- Rs. 1,10,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 7. Sikanderpur Rs. 1,30,000/- Rs. 1,10,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 8. Moriwala . Rs. 1,30,000/- Rs. 1,10,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 4. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value for all the villages @ Rs.3,50,000/- per acre for Nehri land; Rs.2,50,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for Barani kind of land. It is this award, which is impugned in the present set of appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate the evidence led by the land owners on record while determining the fair value of the acquired land. Sale deeds, Ex.Pl and Ex.P2 (produced on record in RFA No.1923 of 2007 arising out of LA case No.813 of 2004) dated 6.11.1995, pertaining to village Patli Dabar, whereby 19 marlas of land each was sold for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, has not been considered at all in terms of which the average price comes out to Rs.4,21,052/- per acre, way back in the year 1995. The acquisition in the present case having been made in April, 2003, the land owners are also entitled to further increase thereon. It was further submitted that vide letter dated 28.4.2005 (Ex.P4), the State Government had framed a policy for valuation of land under acquisition and the minimum value in the zone in which the land in questions falls, was fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre irrespective of any categorisation. The same has not been given due weightage by the learned court below. For the purpose of issuance of aforesaid letter (Ex.P4), the State had considered the data which was available for the previous years only and the acquisition in the present case being prior to that, a small cut could be applied. 6. Another contention raised by learned counsel for the land owners in R.F.A. No.363 of 2008 is that the evidence produced therein, in addition to the earlier award pertaining to the same acquisition, has not been considered at all. 6. Another contention raised by learned counsel for the land owners in R.F.A. No.363 of 2008 is that the evidence produced therein, in addition to the earlier award pertaining to the same acquisition, has not been considered at all. Sale deed (Ex.P2) (produced on record in Land Reference No.670-LA of 2004) pertaining to the land of village Arnia dated 8.5.1992 was produced, whereby at an average price of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, 12 kanals of land was sold. The acquisition in the present case being later in time in terms of the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited v Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another, (2009-1)153 P.L.R. 494, the land owners are entitled to further increase in the compensation. Further reference was made to agreement to sell dated 3.12.2002 (Ex.P51), whereby the land pertaining to village Ali Mohammad was agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs.4,84,000/- per acre. It was further submitted that the factum of appreciation of land at a fast pace was even recognised by the State as the minimum amount of compensation, which was determined payable by the State vide letter dated 28.4.2005 at Rs.5 lacs per acre was further revised to Rs.8,00,000/- per acre vide letter dated 6.4.2007 (Ex.PA). Further the contention is that part of the land even abuts the main Delhi-Sirsa National Highway No.10 which pertains to villages Sikenderpur and Moriwala. Reference was made to site plans (Ex.P55 and Ex.P57) and statement of PW16 O.P. Madaan, Architect to submit that the acquired land shown in site plan (Ex.P55) was four acres away from the National Highway. The award pertaining to some other acquisition mark U was referred to submit that even for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 25.2.2005, before the issuance of policy letter dated 28.4.2005, the Collector himself had awarded compensation placing reliance thereupon, even though the policy had been issued later on. 7. In addition to the contentions raised with regard to valuation of the acquired land, another additional submission is with regard to the claim of severance. It was submitted that sufficient evidence was led by the land owners on record for the purpose. However, in spite of that, the learned court below had rejected the claim made by the land owners in that regard. 8. It was submitted that sufficient evidence was led by the land owners on record for the purpose. However, in spite of that, the learned court below had rejected the claim made by the land owners in that regard. 8. In response to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the land owners, learned counsel for the State submitted that the court below had not given any reasoning whatsoever while determining the amount of compensation payable for the acquired land. It had merely applied a thumb rule. The evidence led by the land owners did not justify any increase whatsoever. There is no site plan produced on record by the land owners to show where the land pertaining to sale deeds relied upon by them is located. The policy issued by the State Government on 28.4.2005 was not retrospective in operation as the same was applicable only for the acquisitions carried subsequent thereto. The agreement to sell, as is sought to be relied upon by the land owners, carries no value for the reason that genuineness thereof is clearly in doubt for the reason that the vendor and the vendee, both are residents of same village, namely, Village Ali Mohammad, the land of which was under acquisition. It has been ante-dated just with a view to jack up the prices to claim higher compensation. The entire earnest money was paid in cash. As regards severance, the submission was that the land owners have not led any evidence to show as to in what manner, they have suffered any loss on account of acquisition of land for channel. Accordingly, the learned court below had rightly negatived the claim to that extent. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. 10. A perusal of the award of the Collector shows that for the acquisition carried out, pertaining to the land of villages Baguwali, Narelkhera, Bhaudin, Suchan, Kotli, Sikanderpur and Moriwala, the value was determined in the same range. 11. As far as value of the acquired land is concerned, in my opinion, in case there is any evidence on record which is unquestionable then the court can simply rely thereon. Sometimes even the evidence pertaining to the sale-deeds which are subsequent to the acquisition are also relied upon in case the genuineness thereof is not in doubt and a reasonable cut is applied thereon. Sometimes even the evidence pertaining to the sale-deeds which are subsequent to the acquisition are also relied upon in case the genuineness thereof is not in doubt and a reasonable cut is applied thereon. In the present case the evidence produced on record by the landowners, besides the sale deeds and agreement to sell, is the policy of the State Government Ex.P4 dated 28.4.2005 whereby for acquisition of land in the State three categories have been formed for the purpose of awarding minimum rate of compensation. The acquired land in the present case falls in the 3rd category for which the minimum rate has been fixed as Rs.5 lacs per acre. The fact cannot be disputed that for the purpose of framing of policy, fact and figures which were available for any period prior thereto will have to be considered and must have been so considered by the State. It is also on record in the form of letter dated 6.4.2007 (Ex.PA) whereby the minimum rates as were fixed for acquisition of land were further revised as under:- Sr. no. Area Earlier rates fixed by the Government Revised rates i)Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Gurgaon Rs.15.00 lacs per acre Rs. 20.00 lacs per acre ii)Minimum floor rate for rest of the Haryana Sub-Region of NCR including Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State Rs. 12.50 lacs per acre Rs. 16.00 lacs per acre iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State Rs. 05.00 lacs per acre Rs. 08.00 lacs per acre 12. A perusal of the aforesaid policy shows that after a gap or nearly two years, the minimum compensation payable for acquisition of land was enhanced @ 30% per annum or the price as shown in 2005 is 37.5% less than the price shown in the year 2007. This is evident of rising prices of land on which there is lot of pressure in recent times because of demand for urbanization and other infrastructural facilities 13. The aforesaid policy letter, in my opinion, can be considered as a piece of evidence showing the value of the land and considering the fact that the acquisition in question was carried out almost two years prior thereto, a reasonable cut can be applied which should be in the near by range as the increase in the prices. The aforesaid policy letter, in my opinion, can be considered as a piece of evidence showing the value of the land and considering the fact that the acquisition in question was carried out almost two years prior thereto, a reasonable cut can be applied which should be in the near by range as the increase in the prices. Accordingly, by applying a cut of 40% therefrom, the value of the acquired land can very well be determined at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. The aforesaid shall be the value of chahi kind of land. For other qualities of land the value shall be determined in the same proportion taking clue from the award of the learned court below. The same shall be Rs.2,14,300/- per acre for chahi and Rs.1,28,600/- per acre for barani kind of land. 14. Another factor which weighed with the court, to rely upon the rate fixed by the State Government though shown by the policy subsequent to the acquisition is that it is a welfare State, the landowners have been deprived of their land and in the rural area primarily their source of livelihood, for which they deserve to be adequately compensated. The steps taken by the government in fixing minimum rate for acquisition is certainly a commendable act otherwise at the time of acquisition, the compensation used to be awarded at a very less price and the landowners were made to fight litigation with the State to get the fair compensation for the acquired land determined. After loosing the land, they had to wait for years together to get adequate compensation. With the compensation initially paid by the Collector, they were not able to purchase land of equal quality and quantity at other place and by the time they were paid the compensation after its determination by the courts, the value of the money will go down as the value of the land increases at much faster rate. So it is just and fair if the landowners are paid compensation at reasonable rates at the stage of the award of the Collector. 15. There is another facet of it. For the purpose of urbanization, it is not that only that the private colonizers are in picture for acquiring the land and developing the colonies and providing flats, plots, etc. 15. There is another facet of it. For the purpose of urbanization, it is not that only that the private colonizers are in picture for acquiring the land and developing the colonies and providing flats, plots, etc. to the prospective buyers, State agencies in the form of Haryana Urban Development Authority, Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation, Punjab Urban Development Authority, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Chandigarh Housing Board, etc. are also involved in the process of acquiring land and selling the plots to the buyers after developing the same in this part of the country. The difference is that the State agencies take the help of Land Acquisition Act to acquire the land. In the process of acquisition, initially it is the Land Acquisition Collector who determines the value of the land and pays compensation to the landowners, which is taken into consideration at the time of fixation of initial prices of the plots/flats. The landowners being dissatisfied file objections and remain engaged in long drawn litigation. Firstly, it is the Reference Court where the value of the acquired land is determined and subsequently this court and further in some cases the landowners even approach Honble the Supreme court. 16. On the pretext of safeguarding the interest of the allottees of the plots/flats, the State agencies, for whose benefits the land is acquired, also become party to the Reference petition and subsequently file or defend appeals. It is different matter as to whether they take effective steps in that regard or it is merely a formality, which may further add the burden of litigation expenses on the allottees of plots/flats. But the fact remains that in this entire process a lot of litigation is generated, which is avoidable. Plots/flats sold by the State agencies after acquisition of land carry a condition that in case there is any further enhancement in the value of the land by any court, the same shall be payable by the allottee of the plot/flat. After redetermination of the value of acquired land, the allottees are burdened with notices for enhancement of the prices, some times not only after years but after decades. 17. At that stage even allottees of plots/flats also approach the court challenging the demand of enhanced compensation. After redetermination of the value of acquired land, the allottees are burdened with notices for enhancement of the prices, some times not only after years but after decades. 17. At that stage even allottees of plots/flats also approach the court challenging the demand of enhanced compensation. There are numerous instances where the enhancement ultimately determined and demanded from the allottees was even upto 8 to 10 times of the original price at which the plots were allotted and that too at 3-4 stages. The allottees are also to bear the burden of interest for the intervening period which some times makes it unaffordable to retain the plot/flat or next generations continue to pay the cost of plots/flats purchased by their parents, which is never final. If the value of the land acquired for any purpose is determined fairly at the very first instance, the scope for further revision is minimized which helps in further minimization of litigation on one hand for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land and on the other hand by the allottees of plots challenging the demands of enhanced compensation. 18. Another contention raised was with regard to the valuation of land abutting National Highway No. 10. In the evidence led by the landowners, as has been referred to above, land pertaining to Villages Sikenderpur and Moriwala abuts the main Delhi-Sirsa National Highway No. 10. The submission of the learned counsel for the landowners was that any land which abuts National Highway certainly carries more value as compared to other part of the land, in my opinion, is certainly meritorious. Availability of approach to the land through a kachha gohar, small path, a link road, a State Highway or a National Highway and its closeness to the city are some of the factors which would certainly add to its value as compared to the land which has no such facility. Accordingly, in my opinion, for the land upto a depth of one acre from the National Highway No. 10, the landowners shall be paid compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.3,50,000/- per acre as against Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the landowners, regarding payment of damages on account of severance also deserves consideration. With the construction of channel, the land is divided into two parts. 19. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the landowners, regarding payment of damages on account of severance also deserves consideration. With the construction of channel, the land is divided into two parts. 19. The level of the channel is always above the level of the land which makes it difficult to irrigate or use the divided portion of the land to its optimum and also even to approach other part of the land. The bridges are provided at a distance and the landowners have to take a longer route to reach their other part of the land. 20. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the severance @ 20% would be a reasonable amount which the landowners deserve to be paid. The landowners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the manners indicated above. R.M.S. Appeal disposed of