JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Vide this judgment, RFA Nos. 3670 of 1998, 852 of 1999 and 2581 of 2000 as well as cross objection No. 62-CI of 2011 would be disposed of as these have arisen out of the same acquisition. 2. Land was sought to be acquired in the revenue estate of village Mawai for development and utilization of land for construction of Road between Sector 28 and 31, Faridabad Extension Ballabgarh Controlled Area vide notification dated 6.5.1988 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act’ for short). The Land Acquisition Collector vide its award dated 29.1.1991 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits admissible under the Act. 3. Feeling dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought references under Section 18 of the Act and claimed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 500/- per square yard. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the Additional District Judge. 5. The Additional District Judge vide its award enhanced the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 445/- per square yard. Hence, the present appeals. 6. Evidence is referred from the case RFA No. 3670 of 1998. 7. Learned senior counsel for the land owners have submitted that the Additional District Judge had rightly based reliance on Ex. P-28, judgment passed by the Additional District Judge qua land acquired for green belt on the west of Delhi- Mathura Road, Opposite City Centre, Sector 12, Faridabad. Learned Additional District Judge had, however, erred in awarding enhancement at the rate of Rs. 5/- per year from the date of notification qua Ex. P-28. In fact, the enhancement was liable to be allowed at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum with cumulative effect. In this regard, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in ‘Om Parkash (D) by LRs and others versus Union of India and another’ The Punjab Law Reporter Vol. CXXXVIII (2004-3), 727, wherein it was held as under:- “In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in working out the fair market value of the lands in question on the basis of Rs. 16,750/- per bigha as on 30.10.1963. CXXXVIII (2004-3), 727, wherein it was held as under:- “In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in working out the fair market value of the lands in question on the basis of Rs. 16,750/- per bigha as on 30.10.1963. The High Court noticed that in several judgments of this Court escalation at different and varying rates i.e. 6% per annum from 1959 to 1965, @ 10% per annum for every year from 1966 to 1973 and @ 12% per annum from 1975 had been considered to be reasonable increase to arrive at the fair market value, assuming that the pace of escalation during this period was normal for the entire period from 1959 onwards. Since no material was placed on record to show that there was any abnormality during the period, the High Court applied the same principle to the facts and circumstances before it, and accepted increase of 10% every year progressively from 1963 to 1973 and thereafter @ 12% every year progressively upto the date of acquisition. The High Court noticed in the judgment that if escalation is allowed on the basis, the fair market value, would be Rs. 1,28,889/-- per bigha. In case progressive increase is allowed @ 10% for the entire period, the amount will work out to Rs. 1,08,397/- per bigha. Allowing appreciation @ 12% per annum from 1963 to 1983, the amount would work out to Rs. 56,11/- per bigha. The High Court in its judgment under appeal pointed out that the market value of Rs. 16,750/- per bigha fixed in the case of Dharambir and others v. Union of India was not in respect of commercial land but only of agricultural land. That the market value of agricultural land is much lower than that of land suitable for commercial purposes, is trite. After having worked out the market value of the lands on various bases and keeping in view the fact that between 8.12.1992 and 2.6.1983, the lands in question had at least some commercial potentiality, the High Court decided that the fair market value of all categories of lands situated in the villages in question as on the date of acquisition should be fixed at Rs. 82,225/- per bigha.-” 8. 82,225/- per bigha.-” 8. Learned senior counsel has next placed reliance on ‘Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and others versus State of Punjab and others, [2012(3) Law Herald (SC) 2250] : (2012)5, Supreme Court Cases, 432’, wherein it was held as under:- “This Court has time and again granted 10% to 15% increase per annum. In Ranjit Singh vs. UT of Chandigarh this Court applied the rule of 10% yearly increase for award of higher compensation. In DDA vs. Bali Ram Sharma this Court considered a batch of appeals and applied the rule of annual increase for grant of higher compensation. In ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel this Court held that where the acquired land is in urban/semi-urban areas, increase can be to the tune of 10% to 15% per annum and if the acquired land is situated in rural areas, increase can be between 5% to 7.5% per annum. In Union of India v. Harpat Singh, this Court applied the rule of 10% increase per annum.” 9. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the Additional District had erred in basing reliance on Ex. P-28. In fact, the present case was covered by the decision of the Apex Court in ‘Ashrafi and others versus State of Haryana and others, [2013(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2117 (SC) : 2013(3) Law Herald (SC) 2481 : 2013(2) Land L.R. 234 (SC)] : 2013(2) RCR (Civil) 856’, wherein it was held as under:- “In the case of Smt. Ashrafi & othrs arising out of RFA No. 99 of 1997 decided by the Punjab and Haryana Higfh Court on 21st May, 2007, along with several other similar appeals, lands measuring 184.66 acres in village Mewla, Maharajpur, District Faridabad, were acquired for the development of Sector 45 in Faridabad. Notification was published under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 2nd August, 1989. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre for chahi lands and Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for other lands. On a reference made by the land owners to the learned District Judge, Faridabad, under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, the Reference Court fixed the compensation at Rs. 45/- per sq. yard against which the parties moved the High Court in First Appeal. 3,50,000/- per acre for chahi lands and Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for other lands. On a reference made by the land owners to the learned District Judge, Faridabad, under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, the Reference Court fixed the compensation at Rs. 45/- per sq. yard against which the parties moved the High Court in First Appeal. x x x x x In regard to the 157.20 acres of land situated in Fatehabad, District Hisar, Haryana, acquired for utilisation and development of residential and commercial purposes in Sector-3, Fatehabad, the compensation in respect thereof has been questioned in Civil Appeal Nos. 319-352 of 2011 by one Mukesh and a number of appeals have been tagged with the said matter, including the one filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, being SLP(C) Nos. 26772-26779 of 2009 (now appeals). As indicated hereinbefore, in paragraph 24, the Collector had awarded compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 1,81,200/- per acre along with statutory benefits. The Reference Court determined the compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 206/- per sq. yard. The High Court modified the said award and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 260/- per sq. yard for the land acquired up to the depth of 100 meters abutting National Highway No. 10. The value of the rest of the acquired land was maintained at Rs. 206/- per sq. yard. The area in question being already developed to some extent, a cut of 50% on the value is, in our view, excessive. We agree with Mr. Swarup that resorting to the belting system by the High Court was improper and that at best a standard cut of 1/3rd would have been sufficient to balance the smallness of the exhibits produced. It has been pointed out by Mr. Swarup that on a comparative basis, the price of lands in the area in 1991 was on an average of about Rs. 420/- per sq. yard. Given the sharp rise in land prices, the value, according to Mr. Swarup, would have doubled to about Rs. 800/- per sq. yard by 1993. Even if we have to apply the formula of 12% increase, the valuation of the lands in question in 1993 would be approximately Rs. 527/- per sq. yard. Imposing a deduction of 1/3rd, valuation comes to about Rs. 350/- per sq. Swarup, would have doubled to about Rs. 800/- per sq. yard by 1993. Even if we have to apply the formula of 12% increase, the valuation of the lands in question in 1993 would be approximately Rs. 527/- per sq. yard. Imposing a deduction of 1/3rd, valuation comes to about Rs. 350/- per sq. yard, which, in our view, would be the proper compensation for the lands covered in the case of Mukesh (supra) and other connected matters.” 10. Learned State counsel has submitted that village Mewla, Maharajpur, District Faridabad was right opposite the acquired land and, therefore, compensation in the present case was liable to be determined in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Ashrafi’s case (supra). 11. In the present case, land was sought to be acquired for development purposes i.e. for construction of road in Sector 28 and 31, Faridabad. So far as the acquisition of land in Ex. P-28 is concerned, the land was acquired for development and utilization of land, as green belt, opposite Sector 12, Faridabad. So far as acquisition in Ashrafi’s case (supra) is concerned, the land was acquired in village Mewla, Maharajpur for development of Sector 45 in Faridabad. Ex. P-25 is the site plan which shows that so far as Sectors 28 and 31 are concerned, the same are opposite Sector 45 whereas so far as Ex. P-28 is concerned, the same relates to acquisition of land opposite Sector 12, Faridabad, for green belt purposes, and the same is at some distance from the acquired land in the present case. Thus, to my mind, keeping in view the site plan Ex. P-25, the present case is not covered vide Ex. P-28 as upheld by this Court in RFA No. 2392 of 1997 decided on 6.10.2010 but the same is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Ashrafi’s case (supra). Thus, in the present case, the quantum of compensation is liable to be determined in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Ashrafi’s case (supra) and not as per Ex. P-28. In Ashrafi’s case (supra) notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 2.8.1989 for development of Sector 45 in Faridabad whereas in the present case, notification was issued on 7.5.1988 for construction of road in Sectors 28 and 31, Faridabad. P-28. In Ashrafi’s case (supra) notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 2.8.1989 for development of Sector 45 in Faridabad whereas in the present case, notification was issued on 7.5.1988 for construction of road in Sectors 28 and 31, Faridabad. The Apex Court while dealing with the quantum of compensation has determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 350/- per square yard. Since, present case is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Ashrafi’s case (supra) and the claimants are entitled to receive compensation as determined by the Apex Court in the said case. However, 10% cut is liable to be imposed qua compensation as awarded in Ashrafi’s case (supra) as in the said case, notification under Section 4 of the Act is dated 2.8.1989 whereas in the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act is dated 6.5.1988. 12. Accordingly, the State appeals are allowed. The market value of the acquired land is determined at Rs. 315/- per square yard. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimants and cross objections are dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------