JUDGMENT : Rajesh Bindal, J. This order will dispose of. R.F.A. Nos. 2373 to 2380, 2478, 2853, 2978, 3044 to 3048, 3127 to 3146, 3148 to 3164, 3170 to 3186, 3191, 3223, 3383 to 3401, 3503 to 3525, 3540, 3541, 3790 to 3798, 3840 to 3842, 3930 to 3946, 3959 to 3975, 4043 to 4062, 4148, 4149, 4153, 4157, 4158, 4162 to 4169, 4171, 4172, 4174 to 4177, 4179 to 4192, 4195, 4213 to 4215, 4217 to 4220, 4235, 4236, 4241, 4278, 4281, 4312 to 4320, 4322 to 4368, 4514, 4527, 4528, 4585 to 4587, 4597 to 4601, 4624, 4625, 4646, 4674, 4739, 4740, 4837, 4838, 4856 to 4861, 4871 to 4876, 4949, 4984, 5016 to 5022, 5275, 5359, 5360, 5382, 5383, 5482 of 2010; Cross Objections Nos. 173-CI, 182-CI, 184-CI to 189-CI, 193-CI, 198-CI, 216-CI and 217-CI of 2010; RFA Nos. 150, 622 to 626, 673, 683, 1195 to 1199, 1714, 1915, 2234, 2247 to 2249, 2407 to 2453, 2864 to 2871, 3009, 3061 to 3078, 3102 to 3109, 3181 to 3231, 3358 to 3361, 3364, 3365, 3373 to 3376, 3429, 3443, 3444, 3708, 3769 to 3774, 4113 to 4115, 4118, 4119, 4136, 4139, 4154, 4199 to 4202, 4205, 4206, 4307, 4310, 4319, 4322, 4326 to 4328, 4333, 4334, 4342, 4343, 4353, 4354, 4357, 4455, 4464, 4468, 4477, 4491, 4492, 4513, 4586 to 4608, 4712 to 4720, 4817, 4818, 4830 to 4832, 4841, 4842, 5230, 5231, 5343 to 5346, 5385, 5386, 5390, 5431, 5941 to 5957, 6124, 6132, 6139, 6146, 6154, 6242 to 6305 to 6357, 6482, 6494 to 6508, 6525 to 6527, 6735 to 6738, 6797, 6798, 6804, 6805, 6887, 6888, 6943, 6949, 6957, 7122, 7125, 7133, 7139, 7259, 7260, 7336 to 7341, 7370, 7645, 7654, 7665, 7689, 7825 to 7829, 7868, 7878, 7882, 7897, 7993 of 2011; Cross Objections Nos. 14-CI, 15-CI, 80-CI of 2011; RFA Nos. 256, 268, 270, 271, 522, 523, 552, 553, 1087, 1088, 1189, 1562, 1573, 1597, 1968, 2677, 2678, 3072, 3088, 4687 to 4689, 4736, 5582, 5762,6532, 6546, 6942, 6943, 7149 to 7151, 7185, 7225, 7242, 7260 to 7262 of 2012; Cross Objections Nos. 4-CI, 11-CI of 2012; RFA Nos. 14-CI, 15-CI, 80-CI of 2011; RFA Nos. 256, 268, 270, 271, 522, 523, 552, 553, 1087, 1088, 1189, 1562, 1573, 1597, 1968, 2677, 2678, 3072, 3088, 4687 to 4689, 4736, 5582, 5762,6532, 6546, 6942, 6943, 7149 to 7151, 7185, 7225, 7242, 7260 to 7262 of 2012; Cross Objections Nos. 4-CI, 11-CI of 2012; RFA Nos. 384, 385, 399, 400, 462, 465, 958, 959, 1022, 1023, 1056, 1088, 1094, 1102, 1355 to 1363, 1656, 1969 to 1972, 2075 to 2080, 2086 to 2091, 2126 to 2128, 2138, 2142, 2143, 2146, 2147, 2360, 2488, 2507 to 2515, 2539 to 2542, 2616, 2638, 2726 to 2730, 2822, 2826, 2872, 2874, 3378, 3381 to 3443, 3469 to 3490, 3766, 3801, 3802, 3828 to 3839, 3899 to 3901, 4012, 4013, 4018, 4019, 4034, 4105, 4106, 4224 to 4226, 4304, 4319, 4334, 4338, 4356, 4398, 4424 to 4426, 4434, 4440, 4446, 4472, 4474, 4476, 4487, 4549 to 4600, 4602 to 4607, 4751, 5414, 5418, 5420, 5898, 5901, 6211, 6369, 6424, 6549, 6853, 6865, 6875, 6880, 7110 to 7116, 7119, 7135, 7225, 7275, 7294 to 7296, 7317, 7326, 7333, 7337, 7661 to 7673, 7692 to 7696, 7913 to 7916, 8048 of 2013; Cross Objections Nos. 69-CI, 71-CI to 75-CI of 2013; RFA Nos. 42, 55, 74, 75, 80, 86, 89, 92, 134 to 139, 143, 144, 149, 151, 157, 161 to 163, 168, 169, 171, 172, 178, 192, 193, 245, 246, 515 to 518, 527 to 530, 582, 594, 678, 679, 769 to 771, 776, 777, 1013, 1014, 1038, 1039, 1242, 1243, 1261, 1272, 1273, 1495, 1508, 1513, 1514, 1576, 1799 to 1806, 1817 to 1819, 2067 to 2079, 2090, 2091, 2154, 2155, 2199, 2204 to 2207, 2230 to 2234, 2253 to 2255, 2266, 2276, 2277, 2304, 2310, 2314, 2422 to 2425, 2442 to 2444, 2530, 2542, 2543, 2898 to 2902, 2906, 2908, 3371, 3382, 3388, 3425 to 3427, 3651, 3669, 3731, 3734, 3942, 3943, 4004 to 4056, 4077 to 4079, 4400, 4631 to 4635, 4643, 4664, 4963 to 4967, 4973, 5102 to 5210, 5274, 5321 to 5323, 5431, 6619, 7224, 7225, 7276 to 7279, 7357, 7382, 8160, 8186, 8993, 9171, 9373, 9737, 9741, 9746, 9805, 10319, 10385 of 2014; Cross Objections Nos.5-CI, 6-CI, 18-CI, 39-CI, 54-CI to 67-CI, 69-CI, 90-CI, 95-CI, 102-CI of 2014; RFA Nos. 279, 316, 442, 2230, 2695, 3499, 3743 of 2015; Cross Objections Nos. 21-CI, 26-CI, 28-CI, 36-CI, 40-CI, 65-CI of 2015. 279, 316, 442, 2230, 2695, 3499, 3743 of 2015; Cross Objections Nos. 21-CI, 26-CI, 28-CI, 36-CI, 40-CI, 65-CI of 2015. In the appeals and cross-objections filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (for short, 'HSIIDC') and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the prayer is for reduction thereof. Details of acquisition being dealt with (i) Vide notification dated 26.2.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), State of Haryana sought to acquire 657 acres, 4 kanals and 3 marlas of land, situated in the revenue estate of villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, Dhana and Kasan for setting up of Industrial Model Township, Manesar (for short, 'IMT'), Phase-IV, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. In some of the land references, the date of notification under Section 4 has been mentioned as 26.6.2002 in the impugned award. Learned counsel for the State on verification clarified that there is no notification issued on 26.6.2002. The same was followed by notification dated 18.11.2002, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide award dated 20.5.2004, assessed the market value of the acquired land as under : Name of the village Chahi per acre in Rs. Gair Mumkin per acre in Rs. Rs. 2,25,000/- Rs. 3,60,000/- Bas Haria Rs. 2,25,000/- Rs. 3,60,000/- Dhana Rs. 2,25,000/- Rs. 3,60,000/- Kasan Rs. 5,25,000/- Rs. 7,50,000/- Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land of all the villages @ Rs. 37,47,232/- per acre. In some set of the cases, the amount awarded is Rs. 28,15,849/-. (ii) Vide notification dated 6.3.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Act, State of Haryana sought to acquire 1,380 kanals and 16 marlas of land, situated in the revenue estate of villages Kasan, Bas Kusla, Naharpur Kasan and Manesar for setting up of IMT, Phase-II, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 15.11.2002, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide award dated 22.7.2003, assessed the market value of the acquired land as under : Name of the village Chahi per acre in Rs. Bhood per acre in Rs. The same was followed by notification dated 15.11.2002, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide award dated 22.7.2003, assessed the market value of the acquired land as under : Name of the village Chahi per acre in Rs. Bhood per acre in Rs. Banjar per acre in Rs. Gair Mumkin per acre in Rs. Kasan Rs.5,25,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.7,50,000/- Bas Kusla Rs.2,25,000/- Rs.1,75,000/- Rs.1,75,000/- Rs.3,60,000/- Naharpur Kasan Rs.5,25,000/- Rs.4,00,000/- Rs.4,00,000/- Rs.7,20,000/- Manesar Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.10,00,000/- Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land of all the villages @ Rs. 28,15,356/- per acre. (iii) Vide notification dated 7.3.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Act, State of Haryana sought to acquire 598 acres, 5 kanals and 12 marlas of land, situated within the revenue estate of village Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana for setting up of IMT, Phase-III, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 25.11.2002, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide award dated 24.12.2003, assessed the market value of the acquired land as under : Name of the village Chahi per acre in Gair Mumkin per acre in Rs. Kasan Rs. 5,25,000/- Rs. 7,50,000/- Bas Kusla Rs. 2,25,000/- Rs. 3,60,000/- Bas Haria Rs. 2,25,000/- Rs. 3,60,000/- Dhana Rs. 2,25,000/- Rs. 3,60,000/- Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land of all the villages @ Rs. 28,15,849/- per acre. (iv) Vide notification dated 28.6.2004, issued under Section 4 of the Act, State of Haryana sought to acquire the land in villages Bas Kusla, Kasan, Khoh and Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon for integration and completing infrastructural facilities and other public utilities such as roads, water supply, sewerage, electrification and drainage etc. The same was followed by notification dated 24.6.2005, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide award dated 27.7.2006, assessed the market value of the acquired land of all the villages @ Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. The same was followed by notification dated 24.6.2005, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide award dated 27.7.2006, assessed the market value of the acquired land of all the villages @ Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land of all the villages @ Rs. 48,83,403/- per acre. (v) Vide notification dated 17.9.2004, issued under Section 4 of the Act, State of Haryana sought to acquire 3,675 kanals and 9 marlas of land in village Naharpur Kasan, Tehsil and District Gurgaon for setting up of Chaudhary Devi Lal Industrial Model Township, Phase-V, Manesar to be planned and developed as an integrated complex for industrial, commercial, recreational and other public utilities in villages Nawada Fatehpur, Naurangpur, Manesar, Lakhnoula, Naharpur Kasan and Shikhohpur, Tehsil & District Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 27.10.2004, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide award dated 9.3.2006, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 50,43,315/- per acre. (vi) Vide notification dated 27.9.2005, issued under Section 4 of the Act, State of Haryana sought to acquire 1,471 kanals of land in village Dhana, Tehsil and District Gurgaon for setting up of Chaudhary Devi Lal Industrial Model Township, Manesar and for completing the infrastructural facilities and other public utilities such as roads, water supply, sewerage, electrification, drainage, transport hub and communication etc. in village Dhana. The same was followed by notification dated 2.6.2006, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide award dated 24.1.2007, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 46,07,890/- per acre. The Collector, vide award dated 24.1.2007, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 46,07,890/- per acre. (vii) Vide notification dated 24.11.2006, issued under Section 4 of the Act, State of Haryana sought to acquire 41 kanals and 1 marla of land, situated within the revenue estate of village Bas Kusla, Tehsil and District Gurgaon for construction of 60 meter wide road for development of Industrial Model Township, Manesar. The same was followed by notification dated 9.4.2007, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide award dated 28.12.2007, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 20,00,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 58,34,400/- per acre. Against the aforesaid awards, HSIIDC, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and the landowners have preferred appeals. Background of the case 2. In the first round of litigation, appeals filed by the landowners as well as HSIIDC pertaining to acquisition vide notifications dated 6.3.2002 and 7.3.2002 were decided by this court vide judgment dated 11.2.2011 in RFA No. 2373 of 2010-Madan Pal v. State of Haryana and another. None of the counsels appearing for the parties pointed out at that time that appeals pertaining to acquisition vide notification dated 26.2.2002, which was earlier in time, were still pending. In the aforesaid case, this court assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 37,40,000/- per acre, whereas in the appeal filed by M/s Kohli Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (RFA No. 4646 of 2010), the landowner was held entitled to compensation @ Rs. 2,119/- per square yard as land in that case was abutting National Highway No. 8. Both the parties preferred Special Leave Petitions before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Vide order dated 2.7.2013 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 4843-4940 of 2013 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 17962-18059 of 2011) - Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited v. Udal and others etc. etc.. Hon'ble the Supreme Court remitted the matters back to this court for fresh disposal. 3. Vide order dated 2.7.2013 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 4843-4940 of 2013 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 17962-18059 of 2011) - Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited v. Udal and others etc. etc.. Hon'ble the Supreme Court remitted the matters back to this court for fresh disposal. 3. This is how the appeals pertaining to acquisition vide notifications dated 6.3.2002 and 7.3.2002 are before this court. As the acquisition, where notification under Section 4 of the Act were issued on 26.2.2002, 28.6.2004, 17.9.2004, 27.9.2005 and 24.11.2006 and the land pertaining thereto is located adjoining to the earlier acquired land or was left out portions in the earlier acquisition and the learned Reference Court for the purpose of assessment of compensation in all the cases primarily relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh and others, 2013 (1) RCR (Civil) 846, all the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. Further the acquired land is located at one place. 4. Before adverting to the issue regarding assessment of market value of the acquired land, the applications filed by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and HSIIDC are taken up first. CM No. 13671-CI of 2013 in RFA No. 3383 of 2010 filed by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and other similar applications 5. This is an application filed by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. seeking impleadment as party to the appeal filed by HSIIDC and party in appeals filed by landowners, where the claim is for reduction of compensation awarded to the landowners for the acquired land. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the cases in hand, the land was acquired by the State of Haryana for use by HSIIDC to establish Industrial Model Township, Phase II, Phase-III and Phase-IV. Notifications under Sections 4 of the Act were issued on 6.3.2002 and 7.3.2002 and 26.2.2002, respectively. Out of the acquired land, land measuring 602.04 acres (501.84 acres in Phase II and Phase-III and 100.56 acres in Phase-IV) was transferred in the name of the applicant vide conveyance deeds dated 7.8.2008 for total consideration of Rs. 119,42,89,200/-. The need arose to file the application for being impleaded as party to the appeal, as HSIIDC had issued notice dated 22.3.2012 for recovery of Rs. 235.40 crores on account of enhanced compensation from the applicant. 119,42,89,200/-. The need arose to file the application for being impleaded as party to the appeal, as HSIIDC had issued notice dated 22.3.2012 for recovery of Rs. 235.40 crores on account of enhanced compensation from the applicant. At that time, the appeals filed by HSIIDC and the landowners were pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, hence, application was filed there. While remitting the matters back to this court for fresh consideration, liberty was granted to the applicant to file application before this court. The submission is that with increase in compensation, demand of Rs. 235.40 crores had been raised against the applicant and in case that amount is required to be paid, the plant may have to be shut down, which may result in loss of employment to thousands of workers and loss of revenue to the State. In case the amount of enhanced compensation is not paid, the land allotted can be resumed, as a result of which even the factory installed thereon will be of no use and may result in wastage of crores of rupees. The increase in compensation to the extent of 10% to 20% can be visualised but not to the extent the demand has been raised by HSIIDC. This is the result of cases being not properly defended and apparent reason is that HSIIDC or the State were not going to be affected. In support of his argument that the applicant is a necessary party to the litigation, reliance was placed upon judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho (Dead) by LRs, (1980) 3 SCC 223 and U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by LRs and others, (1995) 2 SCC 326. 7. He further submitted that once there was a clause in the allotment letter providing for payment of enhanced compensation by the allottees, it was incumbent on HSIIDC to have informed the allottees about any pending litigation on that account to enable them to safeguard their interest, but nothing such was done. The land was transferred in favour of the applicant without any development immediately after the same was acquired. The applicant spent crores of rupees on its development and setting up of plant. The land was transferred in favour of the applicant without any development immediately after the same was acquired. The applicant spent crores of rupees on its development and setting up of plant. Against enhancement of compensation, the burden of which ultimately is to be borne by the applicant, it has no remedy available except filing the present application in appeal, where the issue regarding determination of compensation is under consideration. Reference was also made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs and others, (2005) 12 SCC 1, wherein it was opined that the courts will have to take into consideration the enormity of the financial implication of enhancement in view of the size of the land acquired for a particular project. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 1496 of 1991-Smt. Karam Devi and others v. The State of Haryana and another, decided on 27.8.2015, where similar application filed on behalf of allottee plot holders was allowed. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the landowners/non-applicants, while contesting the application, submitted that the Act defines "person interested" and "public purpose". It is only in cases where the acquisition is dealt with in Part-VII of the Act, where it is for any local authority or a company, the concept of opportunity of hearing has been recognised in terms of the provisions of the Act. The applicant does not fall in that category. It envisages grant of opportunity only to the local authority or the company for whose benefit the land is acquired and not the subsequent allottees thereof. As the applicant in the present case does not fall in that category, the application filed by it for being impleaded as party to the litigation or for grant of opportunity of hearing cannot be entertained. In the cases of acquisition covered under Part-VII of the Act, the authority or the company for whose benefit the land is acquired have the opportunity of hearing even before the Collector at the time of announcement of the award. Distinguishing the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the non-applicants submitted that those were the cases pertaining to acquisition of land covered under Part-VII of the Act, hence, have no application. Distinguishing the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the non-applicants submitted that those were the cases pertaining to acquisition of land covered under Part-VII of the Act, hence, have no application. He referred to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hindu Kanya Maha Vidyalaya, Jind v. Municipal Committee, Jind, AIR 1988 SC 2139 , whereby considering the earlier judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Himalayan Tiles & Marbles (P) Ltd.'s case (supra), it has been specifically opined that the subsequent allottee has no right of hearing in the process of determination of compensation. Further reference was made to the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pran Sukh's case (supra), where similar application filed by IMT Industrial Association was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 9. On facts, it was argued that after the award was pronounced by the Collector on 22.7.2003 for acquisition of Phase-II and 24.12.2003 for Phase-III, the land vested in the State, which was transferred to HSIIDC. The allotment was made to the applicant on 5.4.2004. Agreement was executed on 9.8.2004 and possession of land was given to the applicant in 2008. Conveyance deeds were registered in favour of the applicant on 1.8.2008. By that time, even the objections filed by the landowners had been decided by the Reference Court and the appeals were pending before this court. The application was filed at the stage, when the matters were pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Once there was a clause in the conveyance deed, the applicant, even if was seeking to defend the cases pertaining to enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, should have availed of its remedy at the appropriate time. It is the admitted case of the applicant that there is a clause in the conveyance deed regarding payment of enhanced compensation by it, hence, it should have taken care of this aspect. 10. He further submitted that the applicant had filed the application before Hon'ble the Supreme Court for the same purpose. The same was never allowed. Only opportunity was given to the applicant to file application before this court, which is to be decided on merits. There was no direction for allowing the application. Along with the application for being impleaded as party to the litigation, even application seeking permission to lead additional evidence has also been filed. The same was never allowed. Only opportunity was given to the applicant to file application before this court, which is to be decided on merits. There was no direction for allowing the application. Along with the application for being impleaded as party to the litigation, even application seeking permission to lead additional evidence has also been filed. The remand by Hon'ble the Supreme Court is on limited terms just to see as to whether there could be any further enhancement of compensation. None of the parties was permitted to lead further evidence. The applicant cannot be said to be an interested party to the litigation. The demand notice issued to the applicant company seeking payment of enhanced compensation cannot be said to be the cause of action. Any third party to the litigation cannot file application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment as a party. It is only the parties to the litigation, who are entitled to file such an application. He further submitted that the provisions of Section 50(2) of the Act do not envisage impleadment of party. They have only been given right to intervene and lead evidence, hence, the application for impleadment deserves to be dismissed. 11. Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the landowners, submitted that the application is highly belated having been filed more than 12 years after acquisition of land. He further referred to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and another v. G. Jayarama Reddy and others, (2011) 10 SCC 608 , wherein it was opined that acquisition of land by the State for allotment to the company, while bypassing the provisions of Part-VII of the Act, amounts to fraud on power of eminent domain. 12. Mr. Akshay Bhan, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the landowners, while adopting the contentions raised by other counsels, submitted that opportunity of hearing in the Act is envisaged only in the process of acquisition under Part-VII of the Act and not otherwise. 13. In response, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) CPC, any one can file application seeking impleadment of party. He further submitted that in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad's case (supra), the authority for whose benefit the land was acquired was impleaded as a party to the litigation and not merely allowed to intervene. In response, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) CPC, any one can file application seeking impleadment of party. He further submitted that in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad's case (supra), the authority for whose benefit the land was acquired was impleaded as a party to the litigation and not merely allowed to intervene. 14. Learned counsel for HSIIDC does not have any objection for impleadment of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. as a party to the appeal. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. 16. In the case in hand, the land was acquired by the State of Haryana for use by HSIIDC to establish Industrial Model Township, Phase II to Phase-IV. Notifications under Sections 4 of the Act were issued on 6.3.2002, 7.3.2002 and 26.2.2002, respectively. Out of the acquired land, land measuring 602.4 acres (501.84 acres in Phase II and Phase-III and 100.56 acres in Phase-IV) was transferred in the name of the applicant vide conveyance deeds dated 1.8.2008 for total consideration of Rs. 119,42,89,200/- The land references were decided by the learned court below assessing the market value @ Rs. 28,15,356/- per acre for the land acquired vide notification dated 6.3.2002 and @ Rs. 28,15,849/- per acre for the land acquired vide notification dated 7.3.2002. In the appeals filed by the landowners, this Court in Madan Pal's case (supra) assessed the compensation @ Rs. 37,40,000/- per acre. The landowners as well as HSIIDC preferred appeals before Hon'ble the Supreme Court against the judgment of this court. While the matter was pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the present applicant, namely, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. filed application for being impleaded as party to the litigation pointing out that out of 771 acres of land acquired for Phase-II and Phase-III, IMT, Manesar, 602.4 acres of land was allotted to the applicant. In case, the applicant is made to pay enhanced compensation running into about Rs. 900 crores, it may have to close down the unit resulting in direct loss of employment to about 20,000 work force, besides loss to the tune of Rs. 8,000 crores to the State exchequer. 17. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the observations thereon, while granting liberty to the applicant to file application before this court, are reproduced hereunder : "26. 8,000 crores to the State exchequer. 17. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the observations thereon, while granting liberty to the applicant to file application before this court, are reproduced hereunder : "26. Shri P.S. Patwalia and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for Maruti Suzuki India Limited (for short, 'Maruti Udyog Limited') opposed the landowners' claim for further enhancement in the amount of compensation by arguing that this would place unbearable burden on the company. They pointed out that out of 771 acres land acquired for Phases-II and III of IMT, Manesar, 600 acres land was allotted to Maruti Udyog Limited at the rate of Rs. 19,00,000 per acre in 2008 and if further enhancement is granted, the financial health of the company will be seriously impaired. Learned senior counsel pointed out that vide letter dated 1.10.2012 HSIIDC has already made demand of Rs. 500 crores in lieu of the enhanced compensation to the landowners and submitted that if further enhancement is granted, the management may have to take a decision to discontinue the plant at Manesar. Shri Patwalia emphasised that if the manufacturing activities are closed by the company at Manesar, more than 20,000 workers will be rendered jobless and the State will suffer revenue loss to the tune of Rs. 8,000 crores. Both the learned senior counsel emphasised that the land was allotted to Maruti Udyog Limited without any development and argued that this should be taken as the criteria for determination of the compensation. Shri Patwalia also made an additional submission that the judgments of the Reference Court and the High Court are liable to be set aside because Maruti Udyog Limited was not impleaded as a party despite the fact that it falls within the ambit of the expression 'person interested' in Section 3(b) of the Act. In support of this argument, reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court in Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Limited v. Francis Victor Coutinlo (1980) 3 SCC 223 , U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad v. Giyan Devi (1995) 2 SCC 326 and DDA v. Bhola Nath Sharma (2011) 2 SCC 54 . 27. Learned counsel for the landowners controverted the statement made by the learned senior counsel for Maruti Udyog Limited that the company was allotted the land in 2008. 27. Learned counsel for the landowners controverted the statement made by the learned senior counsel for Maruti Udyog Limited that the company was allotted the land in 2008. They pointed out that as per conveyance deed dated 7.8.2008, 501.8 acres of land was allotted to Maruti Udyog Limited vide allotment letter dated 5.4.2004 which was followed by agreement dated 9.8.2004. They further argued that if the object of the acquisition was to benefit Maruti Udyog Limited, the Government should have resorted to the provisions contained in Part VII of the Act and its failure to do so should be treated as sufficient for quashing the acquisition proceedings in their entirety. In support of this argument, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Royal Orchid Hotels Limited v. G. Jayarama Reddy (2011) 10 SCC 608 . Learned counsel also pointed out that as per Exhibit P11 which was filed in L.A.C. No. 34/2008, 7875 square meters of land was allotted to M/s. Krishna Maruti Limited (subsidiary of Maruti Udyog Limited) at the rate of Rs.73,38,795/- per acre and argued that this by itself should be treated as sufficient for awarding higher compensation to the landowners. xx xx xx 36. Maruti Udyog Limited shall be free to file an appropriate application before the High Court for its impleadment or grant of leave to act as intervenor in the appeals filed by the parties. If such an application is filed, the same shall be decided on its own merits." 18. Part-VII of the Act deals with acquisition of land for the local authority and companies. Certain procedure has to be followed in the process. Section 50 of the Act provides that where the land is acquired invoking the provisions of the Act at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by a local authority or of any company, in any proceedings held before the Collector or the Court, in such cases the local authority or the company concerned may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determination of the amount of compensation. However, it has been provided that the local authority or the company shall not demand a reference under Section 18 of the Act. 19. However, it has been provided that the local authority or the company shall not demand a reference under Section 18 of the Act. 19. It remained undisputed that in the present case, the land has not been acquired as such for the applicant-company, for which the procedure, as provided for under Part-VII of the Act, was required to be followed. In Himalayan Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd.'s case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that definition of " a person interested" given in Section 18 of the Act is inclusive and must be liberally construed, where in any agreement a company is required to pay enhanced compensation, it was the most interested person to see that proper amount of compensation is paid. In the aforesaid case, the land was acquired for use by the company. Relevant paragraphs 8 and 14 thereof are extracted below : "8. It seems to us that the definition of "a person interested" given in Section 18 is an inclusive definition and must be liberally construed so as to embrace all persons who may be directly or indirectly interested either in the title to the land or in the quantum of compensation. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the lands were actually acquired for the purpose of the company and once the land vested, in the Government, after acquisition, it stood transferred to the company under the agreement entered into between the company and the Government. Thus, it cannot be said that the company had no claim or title to the land at all. Secondly, since under the agreement the company had to pay the compensation, it was most certainly interested in seeing that a proper quantum of compensation was fixed so that the company may not have to pay a very heavy amount of money. For the purpose, the company could undoubtedly appear and adduce evidence on the question of the quantum of compensation. xx xx xx 14. Thus, the preponderance of judicial opinion seems to favour the view that the definition of "person interested" must be liberally construed so as to include a body, local authority, or a company for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is bound under an agreement to pay the compensation. In our opinion, this view accords with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. In our opinion, this view accords with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. How can it be said that a person for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is to pay the compensation is not a person interested even though its stake may be extremely vital. For instance, the land acquisition proceedings may be held to be invalid and thus a person concerned is completely deprived of the benefit which is proposed to be given to him. Similarly, if such a person is not heard by the Collector or a court, he may have to pay a very heavy compensation which, in case he is allowed to appear before a court, he could have satisfied it that the compensation was far too heavy having regard to the nature and extent of the land. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view taken by the Orissa High Court or even by the Calcutta High Court that a company, local authority or a person for whose benefit the land is acquired is not an interested person. We are satisfied that such a person is vitally interested both in the title to the property as also in the compensation to be paid therefor because both these factors concern its future course or action and if decided against him, seriously prejudice his rights. Moreover, in view of the decision of this court referred to above, we hold that the appellant was undoubtedly a person interested as contemplated by Section 18(1) of the Act. The High Court, therefore, committed an error in throwing out the appeal of the appellant on the ground that it had no locus to file an appeal before the Bench." 20. The rights of local authority or the company for whose benefit the land is acquired, was subject-matter of consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad's case (supra), wherein the following principles were culled out : "The conclusions, thus, that can be drawn from the discussion may be summarised as under : (i) An acquiring body including local authority or company is not a necessary party either before the Collector who makes the award or before the Court which hears the reference. (ii) Any proceeding for determination of compensation is not vitiated nor is liable to be set aside for non-impleadment or non-issuance of notice to the acquiring body, including local authority or the company. (iii) (a) The Collector and the Court hereinafter shall be under an obligation to intimate the local authority or the company of pendency of the proceedings to enable it to lead evidence. (b) Non-appearance by the local authority or company in pursuance of notice sent by the Collector would not absolve the reference court from issuing any notice. (iv) (a) If a local authority or company appears in proceedings and leads evidence as provided by subsection (2) of Section 50 in proceedings which were initiated earlier it shall be made party in subsequent proceedings and its non-impleadment shall render the proceedings as invalid. (b) But if the local authority or the company on whom notice was served or it had knowledge of the proceedings but it did not appear then it shall not be entitled to claim at later stage or in appeal that the proceedings were vitiated due to its non-impleadment. (v) Any proceeding taken under the L.A. Act as amended by the State law or if specifically provided in the State enactment under which the land is being acquired providing for issuance of notice or giving an opportunity of hearing is required to be followed and if such notice is not issued or hearing is not afforded then the proceedings as in the Karnataka Act or in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam referred to earlier are liable to be set aside. (vi) In appeal pending in the High Court or this Court the local authority or the company shall not be entitled to claim setting aside of the order except if it establishes fraud or collusion. No order shall be set aside on the ground if it is only in the realm of appreciation of evidence." 21. (vi) In appeal pending in the High Court or this Court the local authority or the company shall not be entitled to claim setting aside of the order except if it establishes fraud or collusion. No order shall be set aside on the ground if it is only in the realm of appreciation of evidence." 21. In Hindu Kanya Maha Vidyalaya's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court upheld an order passed by this court dismissing a writ petition declining an application filed by the allottee of a land by Improvement Trust, for whose benefit the land was acquired, for being a party in the proceedings for enhancement of compensation holding that a subsequent allottee of land does not fall within the category of local authority or company for whose benefit the land is acquired, hence, not a person interested having right to question the award. 22. The fact of which judicial notice can be taken is that there is spurt of development activity after 1990, when the economy in country started opening up. There were lot of acquisitions by the local authorities in the State of Haryana, which included Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation, wherein the land was acquired for development as industrial estates and further by the other local authorities for planned development as residential/commercial areas. The private builders had stepped in at large scale later on. As was and is, a process followed after acquisition of land considering the compensation fixed by the Collector and the amount spent for development and the areas left out for infrastructural facilities, the cost is determined and the plots are sold to prospective allottees. In all such allotments, there is a condition that in case of enhancement of compensation by any court, the additional burden shall be the liability of the allottees. In fact, the plots are allotted with the aforesaid condition at tentative prices. It is also a matter of common knowledge, as is experienced in courts, that hardly in any case barring a few exceptions, the award of compensation by the Collector is never found to be reasonable considering the value of the land in the area at the time of acquisition, as a result of which there is always enhancement of compensation. It is also a matter of common knowledge, as is experienced in courts, that hardly in any case barring a few exceptions, the award of compensation by the Collector is never found to be reasonable considering the value of the land in the area at the time of acquisition, as a result of which there is always enhancement of compensation. It is also a fact that many times the cases pertaining to valuation of land remain pending before the Reference Court for years together and similar is the position before the High Court, as a result of which even on the enhanced compensation, huge amount of interest is also added, which is statutorily payable to the landowners on the enhanced compensation. The burden of entire enhanced compensation ultimately falls on the allottees. 23. It has further been seen in number of cases that the State or even if a local authority, for whose benefit the land is acquired which, in turn, carves out the plots and allots to a prospective allottee, ever lead proper or sufficient evidence before the Reference Court or address effective arguments. In fact, all the cases practically go by default. The assessment of compensation is made relying upon the evidence produced by the landowners only. This is despite the fact that the State is the custodian of record, which has access to all the sale-deeds registered in the area at the time of acquisition, which though initially should be considered at the time of assessment of compensation by the Collector, but still it is the duty of the State to produce the same before the Reference Court when the matter regarding assessment of fair value of the acquired land is in judicial scrutiny. 24. In the case in hand also, there is a clause in the conveyance deeds, vide which the land was transferred in favour of the applicant, pertaining to payment of enhanced compensation, if any, for the acquired land. The same is extracted below : "1. 24. In the case in hand also, there is a clause in the conveyance deeds, vide which the land was transferred in favour of the applicant, pertaining to payment of enhanced compensation, if any, for the acquired land. The same is extracted below : "1. That any additional price of the aforesaid plot, as a consequence of enhancement in compensation that may be awarded by the Courts in the matters/cases arising out of the acquisition proceedings or any incidental or connected matter thereto, shall be payable by the transferee, in lump-sum, within 30 days from the date of issuance of demand notice, failing which penal interest @ 14% p.a. shall be charged on the due amount from the date of notice till the date of payment. In the event of non-payment of such enhanced compensation, within a period of 3 months from the date of notice, the aforesaid plot shall also be liable to be resumed." 25. Initially, the allotment of land to the applicant-company was for a total consideration of Rs. 119.04 crores. The total area transferred in favour of the applicant was 602.04 acres. In the case in hand, though the Reference Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 28,15,356/- per acre for the land acquired vide notification dated 6.3.2002 and @ Rs. 28,15,849/- per acre for the land acquired vide notification dated 7.3.2002 from different rates awarded by the Collector, however, nothing has been referred to from the record that any notice was issued to the applicant for payment of the enhanced compensation. In appeals before this court, the compensation was further enhanced to Rs. 37,40,000/- per acre vide judgment of this court in Madan Pal's case (supra). In the aforesaid judgment as well, seeing the conduct of the State/HSIIDC, the following observations were made: "28. As against the evidence led by the landowners, the State or even HSIIDC did not lead any documentary evidence to justify the award of the Collector by showing any sale transaction pertaining to agricultural land in the area. This is not a case in isolation of the type. As against the evidence led by the landowners, the State or even HSIIDC did not lead any documentary evidence to justify the award of the Collector by showing any sale transaction pertaining to agricultural land in the area. This is not a case in isolation of the type. A lot of hue and cry is raised by the agencies of the State for whose benefit the land is acquired that they should be heard before assessment of compensation at every stage, but the experience is that it is very rare that in any case they lead evidence or raise any effective argument in the court below and many a times, even in this court." 26. The notice, as has been referred to above, was issued to the applicant-company on 22.3.2012 requiring it to pay Rs. 235.40 crores, as enhanced compensation. As had been stated by learned counsel for the applicant, with the compensation determined by this court @ Rs. 37,40,000/- per acre, the burden on the applicant-company at present is about Rs. 900 crores. The amount is certainly huge. The consequences of non-payment is resumption of land allotted to the applicant, on which the plant has already been set up. Payment of such huge unforeseen amount can certainly result in finances of the company go haywire. It is a case of big company, who may have good revenue. On principle, if we see there may be small industrial units or the residential plot holders, who are also similarly placed and have to bear the burden of enhanced compensation. The demand in many cases runs into number of times the price at which the plots are allotted that too after a number of years. 27. There had been many instances coming before this court, which established that in fact the State or the local authority, for whose benefit the land is acquired, had not been taking care of the cases properly and the apparent reason is only that they have to pass on the burden on the allottees of the plots, who do not have any opportunity to even know the details thereof. They are only sent notices after the cases are decided. They are only sent notices after the cases are decided. One such instance, pertaining to acquisition of land at Gurgaon, where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 17.4.1989, came up for consideration before this court in RFA No. 1971 of 2002-Naut Ram and others v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 15.10.2010. In the aforesaid acquisition, as against the award of the Collector assessing compensation at different rates, the Reference Court assessed the same @ Rs. 9,15,000/- per acre, which was reduced to Rs. 8,23,500/- per acre by this court in Naut Ram's case (supra). The landowners preferred Special Leave Petitions, where the State arrived at consensus with the landowners and conceded before Hon'ble the Supreme Court that as a special case, it has settled the matter with the landowners for assessment of compensation for the acquired land at the rate awarded by the Reference Court minus 10%. That was the percentage of amount, which the State could recover after the compensation was reduced by this court, there being no interim stay granted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The assessment of compensation by this court was on appreciation of evidence. The total amount involved was Rs. 150 crores. In some of the pending appeals before this court arising out of the same acquisition, the State sought to take a plea that the appeals before Hon'ble the Supreme Court having been decided on a concession given by the State, the same should not be taken as a precedent for awarding same amount of compensation to other landowners. From the conduct of the State, it is evident that it was not concerned with any amount of compensation paid to the landowners, as it was to pass on the burden to the plot holders, who may not be knowing what is happening in the background, as they only get the notices for enhanced compensation. No doubt, for acquisition of land, the landowners should be paid just and fair compensation, but that would not mean windfall on a section of society and undue burden on the other. 28. In the State of Haryana, with a view to curtail litigation with reference to compensation awarded for the acquired land, different policies dated 28.4.2005, 6.4.2007 and 9.11.2010 were framed providing for minimum amount of compensation. The State was divided into different zones. 28. In the State of Haryana, with a view to curtail litigation with reference to compensation awarded for the acquired land, different policies dated 28.4.2005, 6.4.2007 and 9.11.2010 were framed providing for minimum amount of compensation. The State was divided into different zones. The experience had been that there is no reduction in litigation, however, with the fixation of minimum rates, certain areas, where the value of the land was far less, the compensation awarded was much more than the market value at that time in other cases, where the compensation, as assessed by the Collector was not fair, the landowners produced evidence and could establish their right to get better compensation. 29. As far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the non-applicants/landowners that Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. does not have a right to file application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC is concerned, the same is rejected being misconceived. The court has been clothed with ample powers under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) CPC to add or delete any party at any stage of the proceedings in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the issue raised. 30. The principle on which the local authority or the company have been given right to intervene from the stage of the award of the Collector onwards, in the process of assessment of compensation, is that they are to be affected with the amount of compensation awarded. However, the experience in the cases where the land is being acquired by a local authority for carving out plots for sale is that there is always a condition that the prospective allottee shall be liable to pay enhanced compensation, if any, with reference to the acquisition of land. In those cases, the local authority is least bothered as it has not to bear the burden of majority of the compensation from its own pocket. It is ultimately to be borne by the allottees, hence, they are the affected persons. 31. In a recent case pertaining to acquisition of land at Hissar, where the State failed in its duty to produce relevant evidence on record and the matter went upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the plot holders in land acquired for use by HUDA for development as residential estate, moved application seeking permission to intervene in the matter. 31. In a recent case pertaining to acquisition of land at Hissar, where the State failed in its duty to produce relevant evidence on record and the matter went upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the plot holders in land acquired for use by HUDA for development as residential estate, moved application seeking permission to intervene in the matter. The same was allowed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order 15.7.2004. As a result of that, the State also became active and filed application before Hon'ble the Supreme Court seeking permission to lead additional evidence to enable it to produce a sale deed pertaining to the acquired land, which was registered just prior to the acquisition in that case, as a result of which the compensation finally determined by this Court in Karam Devi's case (supra) was drastically reduced. 32. It cannot be disputed that with a notice seeking payment of enhanced compensation by an authority to an allottee of land/plot, his rights are substantially affected, in the sense that he is required to pay small or huge amount on account of enhanced amount of compensation determined in the process, where he was not associated. The result of non-payment of enhanced amount of compensation, which is termed as price of the plot, can result in resumption of plot, on which he may have constructed his house or factory long back. Meaning thereby, he is to be materially affected with additional amount of compensation on account of acquisition of land, which may be demanded from him. 33. The principles of audi alteram partem are well-settled. This right has its roots in the notion of fair procedure. A person affected must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise. Audi alteram partem rule is not cast in a rigid mould and judicial decisions establish that it may suffer situational modifications. It has many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes it, applies when people are affected by acts of authority. Audi alteram partem rule is not cast in a rigid mould and judicial decisions establish that it may suffer situational modifications. It has many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes it, applies when people are affected by acts of authority. Reference can be made to the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sayeedur Rehman v. State of Bihar, (1973) 3 SCC 333 ; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 ; Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 and Darshan Lal Nagpal (Dead) by LRs v. Government of NCT of Delhi and others, (2012) 2 SCC 327 . 34. As far as the provisions of the Act are concerned, Section 50 of the Act provides a right under the Act to the local authority or the company for whose benefit the land is acquired, to be represented before the Collector or at any subsequent stage in the matter pertaining to assessment of compensation. The principle behind is that ultimately the enhanced compensation has to be borne by that authority or the company, hence, person interested. In my opinion, the applicant in the present case does not strictly fall in that category and seek its impleadment as a party, however, the fact remains that in terms of the clause in the conveyance deeds pertaining to transfer of land in favour of the applicant, it is liable to bear the burden of enhanced compensation, hence, on the principles of audi alteram partem, the applicant-company or for that matter any allottee of a plot or land deserves to be granted opportunity of hearing before the compensation pertaining to the acquired land, the plots out of which have been allotted to them, to present their view point or even lead evidence showing that value of the land, as assessed by the Collector, was fair or if not, what should be the reasonable amount of compensation. 35. The level of assistance and the seriousness at which the State is taking the cases, especially pertaining to land acquisition and where burden of enhanced compensation is to be passed on to the allottees of the plots is deteriorating with the passage of time. The allottees deserve to be granted opportunity of hearing in the process of determination of compensation at whatever stage the cases are pending at that time. The allottees deserve to be granted opportunity of hearing in the process of determination of compensation at whatever stage the cases are pending at that time. In case the same has already attained finality, it will not be reopened. Representation of the allottees in the process of determination of compensation for the acquired land would not be individual, rather, it would be in the representative capacity on behalf of association of allottees. The applicant-Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. is being permitted for the reason that out of the total acquired land measuring 771 acres, the applicant was allotted 602.04 acres, meaning thereby major chunk was allotted to it. At the time of allotment of plots, it shall be incumbent on the local authority to furnish details regarding pending litigation pertaining to the land acquired for the purpose. 36. In view of my aforesaid discussions, in my opinion, the application filed by Maruti Suzuki India Limited seeking impleadment as a party to the appeal to take care of its interest in the process of determination of compensation deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. CM No. 14618-19-CI of 2013 in RFA No. 3383 of 2010 filed by Maruti Suzuki India Limited 37. Prayer in the applications filed by Maruti Suzuki India Limited is for permission to lead additional evidence. 38. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that need arose to file the application seeking permission to lead additional evidence, as the local authority, which acquired the land and allotted a part of the same to the applicant, never defended the cases pertaining to acquisition of land, as a result of which huge demand of about Rs. 900 crores has been raised against the applicant. The value of the land at the time of acquisition in the area was not so much as has been assessed by the court. There are numerous sale deeds available pertaining to the same revenue estate, the land of which has been acquired, which show that value of the land, as assessed by the Collector, was just and fair and did not require any interference by this court. Reference was made to various sale deeds, as mentioned in para No. 7 of CM No. 14619-CI of 2013, certified copies of some of which have been annexed along with it. Reference was made to various sale deeds, as mentioned in para No. 7 of CM No. 14619-CI of 2013, certified copies of some of which have been annexed along with it. The submission is that average sale consideration paid in the sale deeds, which were registered prior to the acquisition in question, ranges from Rs. 2,25,000/- per acre to Rs. 16,00,000/- per acre. The variation in the prices establishes the fact that location or demand and supply and size of the plot are some of the factors, which govern the value. He further submitted that once Hon'ble the Supreme Court had remitted the matters to this court for fresh consideration, especially giving liberty to the applicant to file application for intervenor/impleading as a party, the applicant has filed application for impleadment as party and also the present applications for seeking permission to lead additional evidence. 39. He further submitted that the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court regarding payment of compensation to the landowners, as assessed by this court, was for the reason that there was no material produced showing that value of the land, as assessed by this court, placing reliance upon earlier award and granting increase for the time gap, was not just and fair as there were sale transactions available pertaining to the acquired land or the same revenue estate during the period from earlier acquisition till the acquisition in question. The applicant could file application seeking permission to lead additional evidence only after it is impleaded as a party. The applicant only wants to assist the court to determine fair value of the acquired land on the date of acquisition. 40. Lot of arguments are sought to be addressed by learned counsel for the non-applicants/landowners regarding existence of various infrastructural facilities, hotel, multi-storeyed complexes etc. around the acquired land, but the fact situation as on the date of issuance of notifications under Section 4 of the Act is to be seen. There is nothing produced on record by the landowners to show the same. The State or the local authority failed to discharge their onus to defend the award of the Collector. 41. He further submitted that even in Karam Devi's case (supra), the application filed by the State seeking permission to lead additional evidence was allowed, when the matters were pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The State or the local authority failed to discharge their onus to defend the award of the Collector. 41. He further submitted that even in Karam Devi's case (supra), the application filed by the State seeking permission to lead additional evidence was allowed, when the matters were pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In that case also, the plot holders, who had been allotted plots out of the acquired land, had to intervene. He further submitted that the applicant could not file the application seeking permission to lead additional evidence, as earlier it was not party to the litigation. Being not a party, even the principle of due diligence also does not affect the case of the applicant as it could not possibly file such an application. Even clause (b) of Order 41, Rule 27 (1) CPC also comes to the rescue of the applicant as the object is to assess fair compensation. The relevance of evidence, sought to be relied upon, will be considered by the court at the time of evaluation thereof. The same cannot be subject-matter of consideration at this stage. 42. In response, learned counsel for the non-applicants/landowners submitted that once the applicant-Maruti Suzuki India Limited cannot be impleaded as a party to the litigation, it has no right to file application seeking permission to lead additional evidence. Even though Maruti Suzuki India Limited had filed application for intervening before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it was only given opportunity to file such an application before this court. Hon'ble the Supreme Court did not allow it to file application for additional evidence. The remand by Hon'ble the Supreme Court is on limited terms, i.e., to see as to whether compensation can be further enhanced. The case set up by the applicant is for reduction of compensation, as has already been awarded by this court, hence, the applications deserve to be dismissed. 43. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 44. CM No.13671-CI of 2013 filed by Maruti Suzuki India Limited seeking impleadment as party to the appeal has been allowed by this court in the preceding paragraph. 43. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 44. CM No.13671-CI of 2013 filed by Maruti Suzuki India Limited seeking impleadment as party to the appeal has been allowed by this court in the preceding paragraph. Once the applicant has been permitted to be impleaded as a party to defend its interest in the case, which is pertaining to valuation of the acquired land and the burden of any enhanced compensation is to fall on it, in my opinion, the application filed by the applicant seeking permission to produce additional evidence deserves to be allowed. The applicant could not produce the evidence at any earlier stage as it was not a party. HSIIDC, i.e., local authority, was also pro-active only after Maruti Suzuki India Limited filed application seeking to intervene before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, as after remand of the cases to this court, HSIIDC also filed application seeking permission to lead additional evidence, which otherwise was not led at any earlier stage. As ultimate burden of enhanced compensation will be on the allottees, the applicant being one of them, in my opinion, the applications seeking permission to lead additional evidence deserve to be allowed. 45. Ordered accordingly. CM Nos. 15410-11-CI of 2013 in RFA No. 3383 of 2010 filed by HSIIDC 46. The present applications have been filed by HSIIDC seeking permission to lead additional evidence by producing various sale deeds, which were registered in the area just prior to the acquisition of land in question. 47. Learned counsel for HSIIDC submitted that all the sale-deeds, referred to in the application, were registered from 4.8.1997 till 4.12.2001. The average sale consideration paid therein ranges from Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre to Rs. 6,25,000/- per acre. While not disputing the fact that the documents, namely, the sale deeds being public documents could be procured earlier by the applicant and produced in evidence, learned counsel submitted that during the pendency of the reference before the court below, the same were not produced. He could not even plead that it was a case of due diligence. He relied upon clause (b) of Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, where the court can seek production of any document, however, in the case in hand, the court never required the applicant to produce any evidence. He could not even plead that it was a case of due diligence. He relied upon clause (b) of Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, where the court can seek production of any document, however, in the case in hand, the court never required the applicant to produce any evidence. It is a case pertaining to valuation of the acquired land and in the process of determination of compensation, both the parties are at liberty to produce evidence. The onus is on the landowners in case the compensation claimed is more than what has been awarded by the Collector and on the State or the local authority to defend the award of the Collector. As the matter was remitted to this court by Hon'ble the Supreme Court for fresh disposal, the applicant can file the application. 48. Considering the fact that the application filed by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. seeking permission to lead additional evidence is being allowed and the interest of the applicant as well as Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. is common, in my opinion, even the application filed by HSIIDC seeking permission to lead additional evidence also deserves to be allowed. 49. Ordered accordingly. 50. The applications stand disposed of. Arguments on behalf of the landowners regarding assessment of market value of the acquired land. 51. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned senior counsel for the appellant in RFA No. 4646 of 2010, submitted that the land where notification under Section 4 was issued on 6.3.2002, was located at two places. Major chunk was behind the land already acquired for Phase-I, where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 30.4.1994. The land of the appellant was abutting National Highway No. 8. The land was purchased by the appellant for industrial purpose after the earlier acquisition of land for Phase-I. This Court had already noticed special location of the land of the appellant and awarded higher compensation, than what was awarded to the landowners whose land is located behind the land acquired for development as IMT Phase-I. 52. He further submitted that in the development plan, the land in question was already ear-marked for industrial purpose, hence, for setting up of industrial unit, even no CLU was required. He referred to site plan Ex. P42 (LAC No. 688 of 2007) showing location of the acquired land and the allotment letters Ex. P39 to Ex. He further submitted that in the development plan, the land in question was already ear-marked for industrial purpose, hence, for setting up of industrial unit, even no CLU was required. He referred to site plan Ex. P42 (LAC No. 688 of 2007) showing location of the acquired land and the allotment letters Ex. P39 to Ex. P41 (LAC No. 688 of 2007) dated 30.6.2006, whereby plots were sold @ Rs. 1,16,887.33; Rs. 145,632.46 and Rs. 1,14,306.22 per square yard, respectively. The land dealt with in the aforesaid allotment letters is located close by. He referred to the statements made by PW4-B.M. Chhabra (LAC No. 688 of 2007), who stated about location of the land and the land pertaining to sale instances. He also referred to the statement made by RW1-Dalbir Singh Bhati, Manager, HSIIDC (LAC No. 688 of 2007), who deposed regarding status of development activities in the area, especially after acquisition of land for Phase-I. He further referred to new photographs annexed with CM No. 14439-CI of 2013 showing exact location of the acquired land and multi-storeyed buildings and complexes just in the close vicinity of the acquired land. 53. He further submitted that vide allotment letter Ex. P38 (LAC No. 688 of 2007), a big chunk of land measuring 30,000 square meters was allotted to Orient Craft Limited, sister concern of the appellant, at an average price of Rs. 1,254.72 per square yard. He also referred to allotment letter Ex. PW9/A, whereby plot was allotted to M/s Honda Motorcycles and Scooters India (Private) Limited on 23.11.1999 at the same rate. With reference to the aforesaid sale transactions, the contention is that if the principle for granting increase for the time gap in two acquisitions is to be applied for the purpose of assessment of compensation, the same should be taken from 23.11.1999. He further submitted that auction of commercial plots for multi-storeyed complexes being 4 years and 3 months later, clearly shows phenomenal increase of prices of the land in the area, hence, increase, if any to be granted to the appellant, should not be merely @ 12% or 15% per annum, rather, it deserves to be granted at much more rate. He further submitted that compensation in the case in hand deserves to be assessed with reference to the auction of plots for commercial complex, may be 4 years and 3 months later. He further submitted that compensation in the case in hand deserves to be assessed with reference to the auction of plots for commercial complex, may be 4 years and 3 months later. As the land in question is even better located, as abutting the National Highway. The average sale consideration is Rs. 1,25,608/- per square yard. This is in fact the real price, which a buyer was ready to pay and had in fact paid at the relevant time. The genuineness of the transactions cannot be disputed as it was a sale by HSIIDC. He further submitted that before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the contention raised was that the land of the appellant was strategically located. The auction sale pertaining to the land adjoining to the land even if conducted after four years of acquisition should be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of compensation. 54. He further submitted that even if cut of 1/3rd is applied on the sale transactions, being 4 years and 3 months later, and further 1/3rd cut is applied, considering these to be transactions of auction sale, still the value of the acquired land of the appellant would come to Rs. 41,854/- per square yard. The entire land in the area was fit for use as industrial and commercial purpose. There were no other comparable sale transactions available. 55. Mr. Shailendra Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the landowners, while referring to the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court remitting the cases to this court, submitted that intent of the order is not for consideration of the matter for decrease in compensation, rather, it was for increasing the same further. No belting system is required to be applied as even in Pran Sukh's case (supra), where large chunk of 1,490 acres, 3 kanals and 17 marlas was acquired, part of which was even abutting National Highway No. 8, Hon'ble the Supreme Court awarded same amount of compensation. He further submitted that there is ample evidence produced on record by the landowners, which justifies the claim for enhancement of compensation, besides the earlier award in Pran Sukh's case (supra), which had totally been ignored by the court below. He further submitted that there is ample evidence produced on record by the landowners, which justifies the claim for enhancement of compensation, besides the earlier award in Pran Sukh's case (supra), which had totally been ignored by the court below. Distinguishing the judgment pertaining to acquisition of land at Hisar in Karam Devi's case (supra), it was submitted that there additional evidence was produced before Hon'ble the Supreme Court on which report was sought and after the cases were remitted to the Reference Court, new evidence was considered. In the present case, the fact that amount of compensation already assessed by this court had been directed to be paid to the landowners, clearly shows that compensation is not to be reduced. Fresh evidence sought to be led by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. is not to be considered as the same was not permitted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Even if it is impleaded as party, they could be heard only on the basis of evidence already produced on record with no further evidence. 56. In addition to the evidence referred to by Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned senior counsel, he referred to another allotment letter, vide which land was allotted to Krishna Maruti Limited at the same rate. He further submitted that after acquisition of land for Phase-I, the acquisition thereafter for Phase-II, III and IV was almost at the same time within a gap of 15-16 days. The rates at which the plots were allotted by HSIIDC should be taken as the basis and after applying reasonable cut and granting increase for the time gap, the compensation deserves to be assessed. Regarding application of cut, he submitted that in IMT Industrial Association and others v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation and others, 2015 (2) SCT 140, this court with reference to IMT Manesar, it was held that 35% of the land was left for infrastructural facilities and 65% was plotable area. In addition to 35% left for infrastructural facilities, a reasonable cut can be applied for development expenses, hence, even if 50% cut is applied in total, after awarding increase for the time gap on the allotment price, the value of the acquired land would come out to be much more than what has been assessed earlier. In addition to 35% left for infrastructural facilities, a reasonable cut can be applied for development expenses, hence, even if 50% cut is applied in total, after awarding increase for the time gap on the allotment price, the value of the acquired land would come out to be much more than what has been assessed earlier. Even the plots, which were auctioned are also located in close vicinity to the acquired land, hence, even those transactions are also relevant. After development of an industrial estate, there is no distinction in the rates of plots with reference to their location, hence, at the time of acquisition, there cannot be any difference in the value of land with reference to its location. 57. Relying on allotment letter (Ex. PW9/A) in favour of M/s Honda Motor Cycles and Scooter India (Pvt.) Ltd., he submitted that if simple increase @ 12% flat per annum for the time gap of 2 years 3 months and 13 days is granted thereon, the value would come out to Rs. 77,09,249/- per acre and after deducting 50%, the value of the acquired land would come out to Rs. 38,54,624.50 per acre. He further submitted that if increase @ 12% with cumulative effect is granted, the value would come out to Rs. 78,51,908.22 per acre and after deducting 50%, the value of the acquired land would come out to Rs. 39,25,954.11 per acre. He further submitted that if simple enhancement @ 15% per annum for the time gap of about 2 years 3 months and 13 days is granted thereon, the value of the acquired land would come out to Rs. 81,18,992/- per acre and after deducting 50%, the value of the acquired land would come out to Rs. 40,59,446/- per acre. He further submitted that if increase @ 15% with cumulative effect is granted, the value would come out to Rs. 83,74,834/- per acre and after deducting 50%, the value of the acquired land would come out to Rs. 41,87,417/- per acre. 58. He further submitted that alternatively increase @ 12% per annum with cumulative effect should be granted on the value of the land assessed in Pran Sukh's case (supra) for the time gap of 7 years and 111 days. It was submitted that by this method also the compensation will come in the close range. Reference was also made to sale deed Ex. It was submitted that by this method also the compensation will come in the close range. Reference was also made to sale deed Ex. P8 (in LAC No. 164 of 2004) dated 20.9.1996, vide which 1 kanal and 1 marlas of land in village Naharpur Kasan was sold at an average price of Rs. 25,00,000/- per acre. However, no site plan was referred to to show the location thereof. The increase for the time gap was prayed even on this sale transaction. 59. Further argument raised was that the land on the other side is abutting Kundli-Manesar-Palwal (KMP) Expressway and the same was quite valuable, even if it is not close to National Highway No. 8. However, learned counsel was not able to point out as to when the land for KMP Expressway was acquired and when process of construction started. It is sought to be pointed out in plan, which was prepared on 9.11.2012. 60. Reliance was also sought to be placed on the award of compensation for acquisition of land for Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Phase-I, which is forming part of Sectors 36, 37, 37-A and 37-B, Gurgaon. It was submitted that development process started in the area in question with first acquisition in the year 1994. For SEZ, first notification was issued on 29.1.2003. In RFA No.2174 of 2012-Smt. Savitri Devi v. The Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon and others, decided on 23.9.2014, this Court assessed the compensation @ Rs. 57,80,000/- per acre for the land pertaining to revenue estates of villages Khandsa, Narsingpur and Mohammadpur Jharsa and @ Rs. 40,80,000/- per acre for the land pertaining to revenue estates of villages Harsaru and Garauli Khurd. In Special Leave Petition No. 499 of 2015-Sachin and others v. State of Haryana and others, vide order dated 31.3.2015, Hon'ble the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 40,80,000/- per acre to Rs. 47,60,000/- per acre for villages Harsaru and Garauli Khurd. Even if it is one year later, a reasonable cut can be applied, as the location of the land is similar if considered vis-a-vis city of Gurgaon. 61. As far as acquisition of land for development as Phase-IV is concerned, it was submitted that the land pertaining thereto is adjoining to the land already acquired for development as Phase-II and III. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 26.2.2002. 61. As far as acquisition of land for development as Phase-IV is concerned, it was submitted that the land pertaining thereto is adjoining to the land already acquired for development as Phase-II and III. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 26.2.2002. Besides the evidence already led in the cases pertaining to acquisition of land for Phase-II and Phase-III, reference was made to certain allotment letters pertaining to the plots allotted. Some of the allotment letters were for the period subsequent to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, it was submitted that the learned court below had placed reliance upon the award in Pran Sukh's case (supra) and awarded increase for the time gap. 62. Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the landowners, while adopting the contentions already noticed above, submitted that the land had great future potential, hence, deserves to be assessed keeping that aspect in view. Reg. Notification dated 28.6.2004 63. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the present acquisition is for a small area of 7 acres, 6 kanals and 13 marlas in different pockets in Phase-II. The same were left out portions, otherwise the land for Phase-II was notified under Section 4 of the Act initially on 7.3.2002 and the area in the interregnum had been fully developed, hence, it would not be appropriate to grant simple increase for the time gap of 2 years, 3 months and 21 days. There is sale deed (Ex. P1 in LAC No. 455 of 2009) dated 28.4.2004 on record, which pertain to the period prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and sale deeds (Ex. P2 to Ex. P5 in LAC No. 455 of 2009) dated 28.11.2006, 9.1.2006, 4.12.2006 and 14.12.2006, respectively, which pertain to the period subsequent thereto, showing trend of prices in the area. Reg. Notification dated 17.9.2004 64. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 17.9.2004 for the purpose of development as IMT, Phase-V. He submitted that the acquired land is abutting National Highway No. 8 adjoining to the land already acquired for Phase-I and partly for Phase-II. However, learned counsel has not been able to point out on any site plan the location of the aforesaid land. However, learned counsel has not been able to point out on any site plan the location of the aforesaid land. He submitted that the same can be seen from the site plan produced on record in the cases pertaining to acquisition for Phase-II and Phase-III. The learned Reference Court had merely relied upon the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 2373 of 2010-Madan Pal v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 11.2.2011 and granted increase for the time gap of 2 years, 7 months and 21 days. There is sale deed (Ex. P20 in LAC No. 1408 of 2009) dated 28.4.2004 available on record, vide which 96 kanals and 13 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 13,62,00,000/-. The sale deed pertaining to the same land earlier was relied upon by Hon'ble the Supreme Court for the purpose of assessment of compensation of the land acquired for Phase-I in Pran Sukh's case (supra). The aforesaid land is located close to the land acquired for Phase-I. The entire land has been acquired for commercial and residential purpose. The mere fact that big chunk of land was released from acquisition on account of industries already established shows potentiality of the land and establishes the fact that it was already being used for industrial purpose. He also relied upon sale deeds (Ex. P21, Ex. P23 and Ex. P25 in LAC No. 1408 of 2009), vide which the land was sold at an average price of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- per acre. He further submitted that though the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds have not been shown on any site plan produced on record, but the same pertain to revenue estate of village Naharpur Kasan, the entire land of which has been acquired. Reg. Notification dated 27.9.2005 65. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the learned Reference Court in the case in hand had relied upon the award pertaining to acquisition of land for Phase-I and granted simple increase @ 12% per annum for the time gap of 10 years, 10 months and 12 days. However, in some cases increase was granted with compound effect. He further submitted that there is sale deed (Ex. P27 in LAC No. 713 of 2009) dated 28.4.2004, vide which 96 kanals and 13 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 13,62,00,000/-. He also referred to the following allotment letters : Ex. However, in some cases increase was granted with compound effect. He further submitted that there is sale deed (Ex. P27 in LAC No. 713 of 2009) dated 28.4.2004, vide which 96 kanals and 13 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 13,62,00,000/-. He also referred to the following allotment letters : Ex. Date of allotment letter Area in sq. meters Transaction value in Rs. P8 13.9.1999 7,875 Rs. 1,46,69,500/- P10 28.12.1999 450 Rs. 8,38,260/- P5 7.8.2002 1,800 Rs. 39,60,000/- P4 14.11.2003 1,800 Rs. 39,60,000/- P3 13.12.2004 450 Rs. 11,25,000/- P2 18.4.2006 38,151.24 Rs. 16,02,35,208/- P7 13.12.2004 1,012.50 Rs. 25,31,250/- P6 30.3.2006 450 Rs. 16,65,000/- P9 13.5.2004 450 Rs. 9,90,000/- 66. He referred to the statement of RW1-Dalbir Singh Bhati, Manager (Utility), IMT Manesar, stating that distance of the acquired land is about 8 kilometers from entry point of IMT and 1.5 kilometers from Phase-IV. He further submitted that the learned court below had merely relied upon the earlier award, where notifications under Section 4 of the Act were issued on 30.4.1994 and 15.11.1994, ignoring other evidence produced on record despite the fact that the sale deeds pertain to the period subsequent thereto. Reg. Notification dated 24.11.2006 67. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the acquired land in the present case is a small strip of 5 acres, 1 kanal and 1 marla. The same was acquired for construction of 60 meters wide road between Phase-II and Phase-III. He further submitted that despite there being number of sale deeds and allotment letters produced on record by the landowners, which are Ex. P1 to Ex. P32, Ex. P34 and sale deeds Ex. P35 to Ex. P39 (LAC No. 149 of 2009), the learned court below had merely relied upon Madan Pal's case (supra) and awarded increase for the time gap of 56 months. It cannot be disputed that the land all around small strip of land was already developed and the plots had been sold and even construction had been raised, hence, grant of mere increase for the time gap will not be justifiable in the case in hand as even the plots adjoining to the acquired land had also been developed. Arguments on behalf of HSIIDC 68. Arguments on behalf of HSIIDC 68. In reply, learned counsel for HSIIDC submitted that paragraph 35 of the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Udal's case (supra) clearly establishes a fact that final stamp had not been put on the judgment of this Court assessing compensation @ Rs. 37,40,000/- per acre, as the matter was left open to be decided afresh after considering the contentions raised by the parties, uninfluenced by the observations made in the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Hence, to claim that the matters were remitted back only for the purpose of considering further increase in the value of the land is totally misconceived. 69. In support of his arguments, he referred to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Lal Chand v. Union of India and another, (2009) 15 SCC 769 . Further reference was made to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 487 to submit that increase, if any, to be granted for the time gap should not be for a period of more than 4 to 5 years. In the case in hand, the time gap is more than 7 years, hence, the appropriate method would be to consider the sale transactions pertaining to the acquired land or adjoining thereto. Once the case set up by the landowners is that the land had great future potential and the value thereof sky-rocked after the first acquisition, then there must be sale transactions available. He further submitted that even if the judgment in Pran Sukh's case (supra) pertaining to acquisition of land, where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued way back in the year 1994, is to be considered and increase for the time gap is to be granted, it should not be more than 6% per annum as appreciation of prices during the period was not more than that. 70. Regarding reliance upon the award pertaining to SEZ, it was submitted that firstly that acquisition was about one year later in time and secondly the same was located adjoining to the already developed areas of Gurgaon city and part of that was abutting National Highway No. 8. 70. Regarding reliance upon the award pertaining to SEZ, it was submitted that firstly that acquisition was about one year later in time and secondly the same was located adjoining to the already developed areas of Gurgaon city and part of that was abutting National Highway No. 8. The acquired land is located about 20 kilometers from Gurgaon city and 10 kilometers away from even the land acquired for SEZ. 71. Replying to the contentions raised by Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned senior counsel, it was submitted that reliance on the auction sale transactions, that too taking place more than four years after the acquisition of land, will not be a safe method for the purpose of assessment of compensation of the acquired land, as by that time, the land upto Phase-V and Transport Area, IMT, Manesar had been acquired. The area was being developed. In auction sale, the commercial angle and competitiveness amongst various buyers step in. It is for verticle growth. FAR is much more than the plotable area as compared to an industrial plot, where it is quite less. Infrastructure to be provided for the purpose is also much more as compared to industrial estate. He submitted that in this case as well, at the most the earlier award pertaining to Pran Sukh's case (supra) can be relied upon as part of that land was also abutting National Highway No. 8 and increase for the time gap can be granted @ 10% per annum. Even otherwise, the auction sales can be relied upon only if there are no other comparable sale transactions available. 72. He further submitted that sale deed Ex. P8 (in LAC No.164 of 2004) dated 29.9.1996, vide which 1 kanal and 15 marlas of land in village Naharpur Kasan was sold at an average price of Rs.25,00,000/- per acre, cannot be said to be a relevant piece of evidence for the reason that the same is quite old and for a very small piece of land. The acquired land runs into hundreds of acres. The rate at which the land was allotted to industrial establishments in already developed IMT Phase-I had already been rejected, however, as the cases have been sent back to this court, the relevance thereof has to be considered. The acquired land runs into hundreds of acres. The rate at which the land was allotted to industrial establishments in already developed IMT Phase-I had already been rejected, however, as the cases have been sent back to this court, the relevance thereof has to be considered. There are sale deeds produced on record by HSIIDC and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. as well, which may also be considered as those were the transactions pertaining to agricultural land, which was either acquired or was close by. It will not be safe to place reliance upon the sale transactions pertaining to plots developed in an urban estate, which otherwise were also better located as compared to the land in question. He did not dispute the fact that there is locational difference in the land pertaining to other landowners vis-a-vis the land of M/s Kohli Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Reg. Notification dated 27.9.2005 73. Learned counsel for HSIIDC submitted that in the case in hand, the learned court below had relied upon its first award pertaining to that acquisition in subsequent cases, which is subject matter of appeal before this Court in RFA No. 4549 of 2013 and no evidence was led except referring to the earlier judgment in Pran Sukh's case (supra) and increase for a period of 10 years, 10 months and 12 days was sought, which was granted. Even in subsequent cases, reliance was only on the earlier awards, though the sale deeds were produced, but those were not pressed in arguments. The learned court below in some cases had awarded compensation by granting increase at flat rate and in some cases with compound effect. He further submitted that award of increase @ 12% per annum simple or compound for the time gap is highly excessive. The area had not been developed during that interregnum. Increase in the prices was not that much. If at all any increase was to be granted, the same could not be more than 6% per annum to be calculated at flat rate. Reg. Notification dated 24.11.2006 74. The area had not been developed during that interregnum. Increase in the prices was not that much. If at all any increase was to be granted, the same could not be more than 6% per annum to be calculated at flat rate. Reg. Notification dated 24.11.2006 74. Though there had been acquisition for Phase-II, Phase-III and Phase-IV and in the site plan it was shown that the entire acquired land was adjoining to each other, but still a small strip of 60 meters between Phase-II and Phase-III was acquired later on for the purpose of construction of road, Learned counsel for HSIIDC had not been able to explain how during the process of acquisition of land, strip of 60 meters wide was left out from acquisition, which was acquired lateron. Arguments on behalf of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 75. Learned counsel appearing for Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., while adopting the contentions raised by learned counsel for HSIIDC, submitted that in fact, it is a case of no evidence. The best method for assessment of compensation in a given case is the sale-deeds pertaining to the land, kind of which has been acquired and not the sale transactions pertaining to plots in a developed area. In fact, all the sale deeds produced by the landowners were rejected by the court below being irrelevant. He further submitted that location of the land pertaining to Phases-II, III and IV is about 3.5 kilometers to 6-7 kilometers away from National Highway No. 8. 76. Referring to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ranvir Singh and another v. Union of India, (2005) 12 SCC 59, it was submitted that onus to prove that compensation as awarded by the Collector was not just and fair is on the landowners and they need to discharge the same by producing relevant evidence. In the case in hand, no evidence has been led by the landowners in discharge of the onus on them, hence, the award of the Collector deserves to be upheld. He further submitted that the contention raised by learned counsel for HSIIDC conceding increase @ 6% per annum on the award in the case of Pran Sukh's case (supra) shows its concern as HSIIDC is not to bear the burden of enhanced compensation. It has merely to pass on the same to the allottees. In fact, the best method is only the sale deeds. It has merely to pass on the same to the allottees. In fact, the best method is only the sale deeds. HSIIDC had earlier failed to take care of the case when the matter was pending before the Reference Court, as no evidence was led by it. This is the reason that allottees are required to be afforded opportunity. He further submitted that increase at any rate cannot be granted for a period of more than 4 to 5 years. 77. He further submitted that despite there being judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.'s case (supra) restricting increase for the time gap from 4 to 5 years, in RFA No. 5916 of 2011-Narender Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 19.3.2015, this Court having granted increase for a period of 7 years without cumulative effect, when the matter went to Hon'ble Supreme Court, counsel for the State conceded increase with cumulative effect. Before this court, State also filed appeals seeking reduction in the amount of compensation, but no arguments were raised in support thereof. It was acquisition for development by HUDA. Again, the burden of the enhanced compensation was on the allottees. The aforesaid order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court was in Special Leave Petition on a concession made by counsel for the State, hence, should not be considered as a precedent. Reply by the landowners 78. In response, learned counsel for the landowners submitted that it is incorrect to suggest that primary evidence is only the sale deeds as the awards pertaining to earlier acquisition can be relied upon. All the sale deeds produced by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. are without any reference to site plan produced on record. The locational angle being missing, these are not relevant. The mindset of the buyers and the sellers at the time of registration of the sale deeds to show value less than the market value was judicially accepted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pran Sukh's case (supra), hence, to state that all the sale deeds are of fair value of the land in the area at that time cannot be accepted. He further submitted that Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. filed application before Hon'ble the Supreme Court but never attached any sale-deed. He further submitted that Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. filed application before Hon'ble the Supreme Court but never attached any sale-deed. He further submitted that Karam Devi's case (supra) is distinguishable for the reason that there was a sale deed available pertaining to the acquired land. 79. Mr. M.L. Sarin, while responding to the contentions raised by learned counsel for HSIIDC, submitted that the real price of the land in any area comes out only in auction sale, as that is the price a willing buyer is ready to pay to a seller. The appellant in the present case is one of the largest exporter of garments in the country. Its sister concern, Orient Craft Limited was allotted a plot measuring 30,000 square meters at an average price of Rs. 1,254.72 per square yard, for which even the allottee is liable to pay the enhanced compensation. Thereafter, the land in question was purchased by the appellant for the purpose of expansion of its activities. He further submitted that HSIIDC never filed appeal against the judgment of this court in the appeal filed by the appellant whereby the compensation was enhanced. It merely filed appeals against the dismissal of their appeals, where prayer was for reduction of compensation. 80. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. Discussion Location of land 81. The acquired land is located in Tehsil Manesar, District Gurgaon. The first acquisition in the area was carried out, where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 30.4.1994. It was to be developed as IMT, Phase-I. The land pertaining thereto was located on right side of National Highway No. 8 leading from Delhi to Jaipur. Immediately thereafter, a big chunk of land was acquired vide notification dated 15.11.1994 on the right side of National Highway No. 8. This Court in RFA No. 2699 of 2003-Pran Sukh and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 19.5.2006, assessed the compensation @ Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre for the land acquired vide notification dated 15.11.1994. For the land acquired vide notification dated 30.4.1994, this Court assessed compensation @ Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre in RFA No. 2587 of 2004-M/s Opera House Creations Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 5.9.2008. In appeal, the value of both chunks of land was determined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court @ Rs. For the land acquired vide notification dated 30.4.1994, this Court assessed compensation @ Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre in RFA No. 2587 of 2004-M/s Opera House Creations Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 5.9.2008. In appeal, the value of both chunks of land was determined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court @ Rs. 20,00,000/- per acre in Pran Sukh's case (supra). For the purpose, reliance was placed upon sale deed (Ex. P1). Thereafter, vide notification dated 6.3.2002, the land was sought to be acquired for development as IMT Phase-II. Major chunk of land pertaining thereto is located behind the land acquired for IMT Phase-I. A small portion of land was abutting National Highway No. 8. This is subject matter of appeal in RFA No. 4646 of 2010. Subsequent thereto, vide notification dated 7.3.2002, the land was sought to be acquired for Phase-III. The land pertaining thereto is located behind Phase-II. Vide notification dated 26.2.2002, land was sought to be acquired for IMT Phase-IV, which is partly located behind Phase-II and partly parallel to Phase-III. The land acquired vide notification 17.9.2004 for IMT Phase-V is abutting National Highway No. 8. The land acquired vide notification 27.9.2005 is located behind Phase-IV. Compensation as assessed for different acquisitions 82. For the sake of brevity, the amounts assessed by the Reference Court and this Court for different acquisitions, are given in the following tabulated form : Date of acquisition Amount assessed by the Reference Court per acre in Rs. Amount assessed by this Court per acre in Rs. Remarks Date of award of the Reference Court 26.2.2002 Rs. 37,47,232/- 30.11.2010 Rs. 28,15,849/- 21.12.2010 6.3.2002 Rs. 28,15,356/- Rs.37,40,000/- In appeals before Hon'ble Supreme Court, matters remanded to this Court for fresh disposal 8.9.2012 7.3.2002 Rs. 28,15,849/- Rs.37,40,000/- 16.12.2009 28.6.2004 Rs. 48,83,403/- 15.5.2013 17.9.2004 Rs. 50,43,315/- 24.12.2012 27.9.2005 Rs. 46,07,890/- 4.9.2012 24.11.2006 Rs. 58,34,400/- 17.8.2013 83. The manner in which the cases have been decided created anomalous situation. The cases, where the acquisition was subsequent in time, were decided earlier and the cases where the acquisition was earlier, were decided later on. To avoid such a situation, this Court in Smt. Maya and others v. State of Haryana and others, (2013) 2 RCR (Civil) 518, issued comprehensive directions. The same are extracted below : "16. The cases, where the acquisition was subsequent in time, were decided earlier and the cases where the acquisition was earlier, were decided later on. To avoid such a situation, this Court in Smt. Maya and others v. State of Haryana and others, (2013) 2 RCR (Civil) 518, issued comprehensive directions. The same are extracted below : "16. To streamline the dealing of cases under the Land Acquisition Act, with a view to ensure their expeditious disposal, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following directions : (1) The Land Acquisition Collector shall ensure that all the land owners who file objections furnish their complete addresses. (2) All the objections received by the Collector in land acquisition cases shall be referred to the court for adjudication maximum within three months after receipt thereof. Along with the objections or bunch of objections, a certificate shall be annexed by the Collector to the effect that all the objections received upto that date for the acquisition in question have been sent to the court. (3) Whenever a land reference is put up before the learned court below, to which it is entrusted, it shall ensure from the District Attorney/Assistant District Attorney and/or the Collector that all the objections received by the Collector upto date have been sent to the court for adjudication. A certificate to the effect has to be placed on record. In case the land references were received on different dates and were put up on different dates either for first hearing or for hearing after notice, the learned court below shall club all the land references arising out of the same acquisition to be heard on one date of hearing before it proceeds further in the matter. Assistance of the office of District Attorney is most relevant on this aspect. (4) In case some objections are received late by the Collector for any reason whatsoever, he shall be duty-bound to refer the same to the court immediately after its receipt so that the same is clubbed with the cases already pending and are disposed of along with that. Information about the cases already sent to the court shall also be furnished by the Collector. Information about the cases already sent to the court shall also be furnished by the Collector. (5) In case any objection is received after the disposal of the land references by the learned Reference Court, the Collector while sending the same to the court for adjudication shall annex a copy of the award/judgment of the court along with that, pertaining to the acquisition in question. (6) The decision of the land references arising out of the same acquisition in piece-meal on different dates has to be avoided at all cost unless the reference is received late. (7) The learned courts below to keep in view the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangat Ram Tanwar's case (supra) pertaining to disposal of land acquisition cases which are extracted below : "6. We are aware of the problem of back long in most of the Courts. The references under Section 18 should be treated as a class by themselves entitled to priority attention. If care and attention are devoted at the appropriate time, these cases can be easily disposed of by clubbing them group-wise and recording evidence after taking the consent of counsel for the parties. Most of the acquisitions these days relate to large patches of land and ordinarily they are covered under one notification. Cases which are covered by a common notification should be clubbed together for which a statutory foundation is available in the Amending Act of 1984 in extending the benefit of higher compensation to all lands covered by a common notification even if dispute is not raised. If that is done the total number of cases where evidence would be necessary is likely to be reduced and better attention can perhaps be given. The High Courts should take special note of the pendency of land acquisition references and where it is possible a Court may be set apart for those cases. 7. We expect every referee court to dispose of the references ordinarily within one year of receipt of the reference and the outer limit should be the end of the second year. The High Courts should take special note of the pendency of land acquisition references and where it is possible a Court may be set apart for those cases. 7. We expect every referee court to dispose of the references ordinarily within one year of receipt of the reference and the outer limit should be the end of the second year. The High Courts in exercise of their controlling powers should ensure enforcement of this position so that all pending references in the subordinate courts at the original stage may be disposed of within time frame indicated above." (8) The cases pertaining to acquisition of land for a canal/drain/road/channel/distributory or of similar nature, where the acquired land passes through different villages in the form of a strip, endeavour should always be made to entrust the cases to one court. Even if the same arise out of different notifications, though issued close in time, the learned courts below should also make efforts to decide these cases collectively after perusing site plan for the entire acquired land. It would be in the interest of all the parties concerned that a site plan showing location of the entire acquired land and also the surrounding area is produced by the State in court. The learned courts below to keep in view the observations made by this court in R.F.A. No. 686 of 1991-Lokeshwar Dutt v. The State of Haryana and another, decided on 16.8.2010, pertaining to the same issue, which are extracted below : "However, finding that number of cases are coming before this court, where this type of situation is being repeated on account of which the court finds it difficult to determine the fair value of the acquired land, which may result in injustice to either of the party. Not only that, in number of cases, the applications are filed by the land owners for producing additional evidence, which, in fact, should be part of the evidence to be led by the land owners/State at the very first instance. In many cases, the court, in the interest of justice, had to ask the State or the party to produce on record the site plan showing the exact location of the acquired land, sale deeds etc. to avoid injustice to either of the party. This unnecessarily delays the disposal of cases. In many cases, the court, in the interest of justice, had to ask the State or the party to produce on record the site plan showing the exact location of the acquired land, sale deeds etc. to avoid injustice to either of the party. This unnecessarily delays the disposal of cases. The basic things, which should be brought on record to enable the court to determine fair value of the acquired land is the notification under Section 4 of the Act, copy of the award, site plan to the scale, showing the acquired boundary vis-a-vis its location such as its closeness to the city, village, highway, internal road with all its positive and negative factors. Another important fact is that such a plan should have the status as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the date being crucial for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. It would be appropriate if the sale instances sought to be produced by the land owners or the State are pointed out on the site plan to be produced on record by either of the party. In the absence of which it is difficult to locate the same and consider its true value. The site plan, which should be taken on record, should be on butter paper or cloth, as it is seen in a number of cases that when the appeals are heard after 15-20 years, the site plans, which are quite big and may be on thin tracing paper, are torn out making it difficult for the parties to refer to the same and also for the court to consider." (9) At the time of filing of appeals against the awards of the learned Reference Court pertaining to an acquisition, the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer shall file an affidavit that appeals against all the awards of the learned Reference Court pertaining to the particular acquisition, have been filed. (10) This court in R.F.A. No. 4742 of 2010-The State of Haryana and another v. Sh. (10) This court in R.F.A. No. 4742 of 2010-The State of Haryana and another v. Sh. Tek Chand and others, decided on 11.10.2010, wherein the appeal was filed by the State against award of the learned court below despite the fact that the earlier award of the Reference Court, which had been relied upon for the purpose of determination of compensation in that case had already been upheld by this court and there was no merit in the appeal even on the date of filing thereof, had issued following directions: "To avoid unnecessary adjournments of the cases, I deem it appropriate to direct that in all appeals filed by the land owners or the State following information must be furnished in the appeal itself : (i) In case the learned Reference Court had relied upon any earlier award pertaining to same or any other acquisition, the fact as to whether any appeal against the same is pending or not, should be mentioned in the grounds of appeal. The number of such appeal and status thereof be also mentioned. (ii) In case no earlier award is relied upon by the Reference Court, it should be mentioned that the Reference Court has not relied upon any earlier award. The aforesaid facts should be mentioned in the last para of the grounds of appeal before the prayer clause. The Registry is directed to ensure compliance of the requirement. This may be brought to the notice of the Bar Association for notifying to the learned members of the Bar." (11) In case the State fails to file appeals in all the cases decided by the Reference Court and ultimately the amount of compensation is reduced by the higher court, the State shall be duty-bound to fix the responsibility of the persons concerned for the lapse and also recover the amount of loss suffered from the guilty officers/officials. (12) The learned Reference Court should also ensure from the Collector and/or the District Attorney that no land reference pertaining to the acquisition of land in the area, which is prior in time, is pending for adjudication and in case there was any acquisition of land in the area prior in time, the award passed by the Reference Court or the higher court therein should always be brought to the notice of the court concerned. (13) It should be ensured by the court that the land references pertaining to acquisition of land, which is prior in time, are decided first before taking up the cases of the acquisition carried out subsequently." General principles laid down for assessment of compensation for the acquired land. 84. The principles of law laid down for assessment of compensation for acquisition of land are well-settled and have been reiterated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raj Kumar Baghal Singh (Dead), (2014) 10 SCC 422 . Relevant paragraph thereof is extracted below : "10. It is well settled in determining compensation for the acquired land, price paid in a bona fide transaction of sale by a willing seller to a willing buyer is adopted subject to such transaction being for land adjacent to acquired land, proximate to the date of acquisition and possessing similar advantages. Of course, there are other well-known methods of valuation like opinion of experts and yield method. In absence of any evidence of a similar transaction, it is permissible to take into account transaction of nearest land around the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act by making a suitable allowance. There can be no fixed criteria as to what would be the suitable addition or substraction from the value of the relied upon transaction. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 3 SCC 751 , this Court summed up the principle as follows :- "4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen : (1) -(4) (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant). (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (7) In doing so by the instances method, the court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (7) In doing so by the instances method, the court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. (8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land.) (9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations : (i) proximity from time angle, (ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors : Plus factors Minus factors (1) smallness of size (1) largeness of area (2) proximity to a road (2) situation in the interior at a distance from the road (3) frontage on a road (3) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth (4) nearness to developed (4) lower level requiring the area depressed portion to be filled up (5) regular shape (5) remoteness from developed locality (6) level vis-a-vis land (6) some special disadvantageous under acquisition factor which would deter a purchaser (7) special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. (15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard-and-fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds. cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10,000 sq. yds. or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a layout, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately between 20 per cent to 50 per cent to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the judge must place himself. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the judge must place himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense." Again in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 , it was observed :- "24. The purpose for which acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining the market value. In Basavva v. Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 9 SCC 640 , deduction to the extent of 65% was made towards development charges. 25. In Bhagwathula Samanna v. Tahsildar & Land Acquisition Officer, (1991) 4 SCC 506 , it has been held: (SCC pp. 510-11, para 11) "11. The principle of deduction in the land value covered by the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition which is the only relevant factor. Even in the vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity roads, drainage, electricity, communications, etc. then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified." 26. In Land Acquisition Officer v. L. Kamalamma, (1998) 2 SCC 385 , this Court held: (SCC p. 387, para 6) "6......Ext. B-30 is a sale deed dated 9-8-1976, the transaction having taken place prior to eight months from the issue of the preliminary notification for acquisition of land in the present case. Having found that the piece of land referred in Ext. B-30 is situated very close to the lands that are acquired under the notification in question the Reference Court and the High Court relied upon the said document and, in our view, rightly. Having found that the piece of land referred in Ext. B-30 is situated very close to the lands that are acquired under the notification in question the Reference Court and the High Court relied upon the said document and, in our view, rightly. Further when no sales of comparable land were available where large chunks of land had been sold, even land transactions in respect of smaller extent of land could be taken note of as indicating the price that it may fetch in respect of large tracts of land by making appropriate deductions such as for development of the land by providing enough space for roads, sewers, drains, expenses involved in formation of a layout, lump sum payment as also the waiting period required for selling the sites that would be formed." 27. In Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, (1988) 2 SCC 150 , deduction to the extent of 53% was allowed. 28. In K.S. Shivadevamma v. Commr. and Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 2 SCC 62 , it was held: (SCC p. 65, para 10) "10. It is then contended that 53% is not automatic but depends upon the nature of the development and the stage of development. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel that the extent of deduction depends upon development need in each case. Under the Building Rules 53% of land is required to be left out. This Court has laid as a general rule that for laying the roads and other amenities 33 1/3% is required to be deducted. Where the development has already taken place, appropriate deduction needs to be made. In this case, we do not find any development had taken place as on that date. When we are determining compensation under Section 23(1), as on the date of notification under Section 4(1), we have to consider the situation of the land development, if already made, and other relevant facts as on that date. No doubt, the land possessed potential value, but no development had taken place as on the date. When we are determining compensation under Section 23(1), as on the date of notification under Section 4(1), we have to consider the situation of the land development, if already made, and other relevant facts as on that date. No doubt, the land possessed potential value, but no development had taken place as on the date. In view of the obligation on the part of the owner to hand over the land to the City Improvement Trust for roads and for other amenities and his requirement to expend money for laying the roads, water supply mains, electricity etc., the deduction of 53% and further deduction towards development charges @ 33 1/3%, as ordered by the High Court, was not illegal." 29. In Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons v. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 422 and Land Acquisition Officer v. Nookala Rajamallu, (2003) 12 SCC 334 , it has been noticed that where lands are acquired for specific purposes deduction by way of development charges is permissible. 30. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that normally one-third deduction of further amount of compensation has been directed in some cases. (See Kasturi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354 , Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P., (2003) 10 SCC 525 , V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2003) 12 SCC 642, H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi, (2004) 2 SCC 184 and Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745 .) 31. In University of Agricultural Sciences v. Balanagouda, Civil Appeals Nos. 62-65 of 2000, decided on 10.12.2003 (SC) whereupon Mr Ranjit Kumar placed strong reliance, the Court noticed that if the acquisition is made for agricultural purpose, question of development thereof would not arise; but if the sale instance was in respect of a small piece of land whereas the acquisition is for a large piece of land, although development cost may not be deducted, there has to be deduction for largeness of the land and also for the fact that these are agricultural lands. In that view of the matter, deduction at the rate of 33% made by the High Court was upheld. It may not, therefore, be correct to contend, as has been submitted by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, that there cannot be different deductions, one for the largeness of the land and another for development costs." 85. In that view of the matter, deduction at the rate of 33% made by the High Court was upheld. It may not, therefore, be correct to contend, as has been submitted by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, that there cannot be different deductions, one for the largeness of the land and another for development costs." 85. The principles regarding determination of market value of the acquired land were gone into by Hon'ble the Supreme Court earlier in Himmat Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, (2013) 16 SCC 392 . Relevant paras thereof are extracted below : "21. Before considering the respective arguments, we may notice the principles laid down by this Court for determination of market value of the acquired land. In Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 650 , this Court held : "It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and (5) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land." xx xx xx 23. In Atma Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 568 , the Court held : "4. In order to determine the compensation which the tenure-holders are entitled to get for their land which has been acquired, the main question to be considered is what is the market value of the land. Section 23(1) of the Act lays down what the court has to take into consideration while Section 24 lays down what the court shall not take into consideration and have to be neglected. The main object of the enquiry before the court is to determine the market value of the land acquired. The expression 'market value' has been the subject-matter of consideration by this Court in several cases. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The guiding star would be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and a purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions but not an anxious dealing at arm's length nor facade of sale nor fictitious sale brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz. A price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz. A price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. See Kamta Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (1976) 3 SCC 772 , Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of M.P. (1977) 1 SCC 684 , Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector (1988) 2 SCC 150 and Periyar Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1991) 4 SCC 195 . 5. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of a property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about a town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. See Collector v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur (1979) 1 SCC 236 , Raghubans Narain Singh v. U.P. Govt. AIR 1967 SC 465 and Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector (1988) 2 SCC 150 . It has been held in Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer (1984) 2 SCC 324 and Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust (1989) 2 SCC 329 that failing to consider potential value of the acquired land is an error of principle." 86. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments shows that bona fide sale transaction of the land adjacent to the acquired land, proximate to the date of acquisition and possessing similar advantages, is the best evidence. The size of the land dealt with in the sale deed is also relevant. If all these factors are satisfied, there is no reason for not placing reliance on those sale transactions. Certain negative and positive factors have also been specified besides the location of the land dealt with in the sale transactions. 87. The size of the land dealt with in the sale deed is also relevant. If all these factors are satisfied, there is no reason for not placing reliance on those sale transactions. Certain negative and positive factors have also been specified besides the location of the land dealt with in the sale transactions. 87. In Pehlad Ram and others v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 316, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while referring to an earlier judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in The Dollar Company v. Collector of Madras, AIR 1975 SC 1670 , opined as under : "13. This Court in The Dollar Company (Supra) has categorically laid down that in case the land of the claimant has been acquired in close vicinity of the purchase, the consideration paid by such claimant to the vendor is the best evidence of the market value of the land. The court should not award more unless it is possible to reach a different conclusion. Even the appellate court should not interfere in such a fact situation unless the judgment is based on wrong application of principle or because some important point affecting valuation has been overlooked or misapplied. The consideration paid by the owner only a few months ago presents bonafide evidence of value subject to certain exceptions such as relationship of the parties, market conditions and terms of sale and the date of sale." 88. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ram Kanwar and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 234 opined that sale deeds pertaining to the acquired land or the adjoining land are the best exemplar. The awards pertaining to earlier acquisition are to be relied upon only in the absence thereof. 89. The issue regarding application of reasonable cut while considering the sale deeds pertaining to small plots was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Major General Kapil Mehra and others v. Union of India and another, (2015) 2 SCC 262 . The application of cut falls in two categories, namely, the area required to be utilised for development works and infrastructural facilities and the second is regarding cost of development. The principles for the purpose as laid down in Lal Chand's case (supra) were reiterated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Major General Kapil Mehra's case (supra). Para 40 thereof is extracted below : "40. The principles for the purpose as laid down in Lal Chand's case (supra) were reiterated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Major General Kapil Mehra's case (supra). Para 40 thereof is extracted below : "40. Rule of one third deduction towards development appears to be the general rule. But so far as Delhi Development Authority is concerned, or similar statutory authorities, where well planned layouts are put in place, larger land area may be utilised for forming layout, roads, parks and other common amenities. Percentage of deduction for development of land to be made in DDA or similar statutory authorities with reference to various types of layout was succinctly considered by this Court in Lal Chand's case (supra) and observing that the deduction towards the development range from 20% to 75% of the price of the plots, in paras 13 to 22, this Court held as under : "13. The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated. 14. The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. For example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities), etc. 15. The development authority will also incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads, underground drainage and sewage facilities, laying water lines, electricity lines and developing parks and civic amenities, which would be about 35% of the value of the developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot. 16. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorized private residential layout, the percentage of "deduction for development" may be far less. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot. 16. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorized private residential layout, the percentage of "deduction for development" may be far less. This is because in an unauthorized layout, usually no land will be set apart for parks, playgrounds and community facilities. Even is any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development work would also be comparatively less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthorized layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots. 17. The "deduction for development" with reference to prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and quality of the layout. 18. The position with reference to industrial layouts will be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq. m to 200 sq. m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots. 19. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary). 20. 19. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary). 20. Therefore the deduction for the "development factor" to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be far more than the deduction with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthroized private layout or an industrial layout. It is also well known that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard to higher overheads and expenditure. 21. Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilised for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout-whether it is residential, residential-cum-commercial or industrial; and even among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community facilities, parks and playgrounds provided. 22. Some of the layouts formed by the statutory development authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%, Lal Chand's case deals with acquisition of lands by DDA under the Rohini Residential Housing Scheme where 40% deduction was made towards the land area to be utilised for laying down of roads, drains etc. Further deduction of 35% of the value of the developed plot towards cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads, underground drainage, laying down water lines, electricity lines was made." 90. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties are being considered point-wise. Reliance on compensation assessed for acquisition of land for SEZ Gurgaon. 91. Further deduction of 35% of the value of the developed plot towards cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads, underground drainage, laying down water lines, electricity lines was made." 90. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties are being considered point-wise. Reliance on compensation assessed for acquisition of land for SEZ Gurgaon. 91. Reliance on the assessment of compensation pertaining to the land acquired for SEZ, Gurgaon, where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 29.1.2003 is totally misconceived. Firstly, the acquisition was about 11 months later in time. Secondly, the aforesaid land was located adjoining to the already developed area of Gurgaon city, whereas the acquired land is located at a distance of 20 kilometers from the City Centre and 10 kilometers away from even SEZ and further was at a depth of 3.5 to 6-7 kilometers from National Highway No. 8, as the land located on National Highway No. 8 was earlier acquired for development of IMT Phase-I. Relevance of the land being close to KMP Expressway if not NH-8 92. Though one of the contentions sought to be raised by learned counsel for the landowners was that if the acquired land was located at a distance from National Highway No.8, it was quite close to KMP Expressway, as is evident from the development plan dated 9.11.2012 produced in court by HSIIDC, however, learned counsel for the landowners had not been able to point out as to when the land for KMP was acquired and the process of construction started. Mere reliance on a development plan prepared in 2012 cannot be said to be a relevant factor to consider the location of the acquired land, where notification was issued in the year 2002. Even learned counsel for HSIIDC also did not point out the facts regarding the same, even though HSIIDC is a co-promoter in the project. This is the reason that allottees of the plots are seeking to step in to assist the court in assessment of fair compensation of the acquired land as the assistance by the local authority is lacking in many aspects. Hence, the contention being misconceived, is rejected. Time-gap for which increase can be granted 93. This is the reason that allottees of the plots are seeking to step in to assist the court in assessment of fair compensation of the acquired land as the assistance by the local authority is lacking in many aspects. Hence, the contention being misconceived, is rejected. Time-gap for which increase can be granted 93. The issue was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.'s case (supra), wherein it was observed that increase in land price depends on four factors, namely, situation of land, nature of development in the surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area and demand for land in the area. It was further held that where earlier sale transactions are to be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of compensation, the time gap should not be more than 4 to 5 years, as otherwise it would be unsafe even if it relates to a neighbouring land, as there may be variation in prices during the interregnum. Relevant para 12 thereof is extracted below : "12. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied on sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase." 94. This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase." 94. In the case in hand, there is a time gap of more than 7 years from the acquisition for IMT Phase-I till the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case on 26.2.2002 for Phase-IV. It is not that with the acquisition of land in neighbouring area, the prices of undeveloped adjoining land increase at a very fast pace and as a standard rule, the increase for the time gap is to be granted. The safest method is the sale deeds. The earlier awards are to be relied upon only if the sale deeds pertaining to the relevant period and land comparable in location are not available. It cannot be believed that, though as is sought to be claimed by learned counsel for the landowners, prices of the land increased phenomenally after the first acquisition of the neighbouring area, but still there were no sale deeds in the period of seven years. 95. This court came across such a situation in acquisition of land at Fatehabad in RFA No. 9626 of 2014-Hanuman Singh v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 22.9.2015 where relying upon the earlier acquisition, increase for the time gap was sought. There were sale deeds available during that period pertaining to the land adjoining to the acquired land. If considered the value shown therein, the same was less than the increase being sought by the landowners on the award pertaining to earlier acquisition. In the earlier acquisition dated 4.7.2006, compensation was assessed @ Rs. 1,485/- per square yard. There being time gap of one year and six months between two acquisitions, increase for that period @ 12% per annum with cumulative effect was sought. As the sale deeds were available, this court assessed the compensation @ Rs. 50,00,000/- per acre. 96. In the earlier acquisition dated 4.7.2006, compensation was assessed @ Rs. 1,485/- per square yard. There being time gap of one year and six months between two acquisitions, increase for that period @ 12% per annum with cumulative effect was sought. As the sale deeds were available, this court assessed the compensation @ Rs. 50,00,000/- per acre. 96. Similar position arose in a case pertaining to acquisition of land at Hisar in Karam Devi's case (supra), where the earlier award pertaining to acquisition of land four years prior in time was sought to be relied upon in preference to the sale deeds registered after the aforesaid awards and close to the date of acquisition pertaining to the acquired land. The sale deeds were preferred. 97. In the present case, there being a time gap of more than 7 years, it may not be safe to place reliance merely on the earlier award, if the sale deeds are available. In earlier round of litigation, this court had relied upon the award pertaining to earlier acquisition and granted increase for the time gap. At that time, it was for the reason that HSIIDC and the State did not produce any sale deed. Now Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., which is one of the allottees of a substantial chunk of land from the acquired land, has filed application seeking permission to lead additional evidence producing number of sale deeds pertaining to the same revenue estate, the land of which was acquired which were registered after the earlier award in Pran Sukh's case (supra). Regarding under valuation of the transactions in the sale deeds 98. The contention was sought to be raised by learned counsel for the landowners that correct value of the land is not shown in the registered sale deeds with a view to avoid payment of stamp duty or other reasons. He submitted that this was accepted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pran Sukh's case (supra). The issue was considered in detail by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Lal Chand's case (supra), wherein it was opined that there is no such presumption. The court can either accept the document or reject the same as not reliable. There is no third way of accepting a document by adding the value disclosed therein. The relevant paragraph 31 thereof is extracted below : 31. The court can either accept the document or reject the same as not reliable. There is no third way of accepting a document by adding the value disclosed therein. The relevant paragraph 31 thereof is extracted below : 31. But we have noticed a disturbing trend in some recent cases, where a court accepts the sale deed exhibited by the claimants as the basis for ascertaining the market value. But then, it also accepts a contention of the claimants that the general tendency of members of public is not to show the real value, but show a lesser value to avoid tax/stamp duty and therefore the sale deeds produced and relied on by them, should be assumed to be under valued. On such assumption, some courts have been adding some fancied percentage to the value shown by the sale deeds to arrive at what they consider to be 'realistic market value'. The addition so made may vary from 10% to 100% depending upon the whims, fancies, and the perception of the learned Judge as to what is the general extent of suppression of the price in sale deeds. Such increase, in the market value disclosed by the sale deeds, on the assumption that all sale deeds show a 'depressed' market value instead of the real value, is impermissible. The Court can either accept the document as showing the prevailing market value, in which event it has to be acted upon. Or the Court may find a document to be undervalued in which it should be rejected straightaway as not reliable. There is no third way of accepting a document, by adding to the market value disclosed by the document, some percentage to off set the under-valuation. There is no legal basis to proceed on a general assumption that parties, without exception, fail to reflect the true consideration in the sale deeds, that there is always undervaluation or suppression of the true price and that consequently, all sale deeds reflect a depressed value and not the real market value and therefore, some percentage should be added to arrive at the real value. Such a course also amounts to branding all vendors and purchasers as dishonest persons without any evidence and without hearing them. Such a course also amounts to branding all vendors and purchasers as dishonest persons without any evidence and without hearing them. It ignores the fact that Government has fixed minimum guideline values and whenever a registering authority is of the view that a sale deed is undervalued, proceedings are initiated for determination of the true market value. It also ignores the fact that a large number of sale deeds are accepted by the registering authorities as disclosing the current market value. Be that as it may." Regarding valuation of land in M/s Kohli Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 99. Strenuous argument was raised by learned counsel for the appellant claiming compensation @ Rs.40,000/- per square yard relying upon the auction sale transactions in neighbouring area conducted for commercial plots more than four years after the acquisition in question. Earlier acquisition in the area was for IMT Phase-I, where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 30.4.1994. The land of the appellant is located in close vicinity. Though no specific date was furnished as to when the same was purchased, but the definite stand of learned counsel for the appellant was that it was purchased after the acquisition of land for IMT Phase-I. For the acquisition in question, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6.3.2002. The date on which the appellant purchased the land and at what price would certainly be relevant evidence for the purpose of assessment of compensation pertaining to its land, as this transaction is certainly after the neighbouring land had been developed after acquisition as IMT Phase-I. Precedents of auction sales 100. The issue was considered in Raj Kumar and others v. Haryana State and others, (2007) 7 SCC 609 , wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that the High Court did not commit any error in discarding the auction sales for the purpose of assessment of compensation, as the element of competition in auction sales makes them not safe guides. 101. The issue was considered in Raj Kumar and others v. Haryana State and others, (2007) 7 SCC 609 , wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that the High Court did not commit any error in discarding the auction sales for the purpose of assessment of compensation, as the element of competition in auction sales makes them not safe guides. 101. In Karnataka Housing Board v. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and others, (2011) 2 SCC 246 , while referring to earlier judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra), it was opined that where an open auction sale is the only comparable sale transaction available (on account of proximity in situation and time to the acquired land), the court may, with caution, rely upon the price disclosed by such auction sales by providing an appropriate deduction or cut to off-set the competitive-hike in value. A cut of 20% was applied in that case to off-set the competitive price hike. In that case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6.2.1992 and the auction sale relied upon was dated 2.1.1989, i.e., more than 3 years prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Relevant paras 6 and 7 thereof are extracted below : "6. We may deal with the last submission first. The standard method of determination of market value of any acquired land is by the valuer evaluating the land on the date of valuation (publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - 'Act' for short) notification, acting as a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase the land in open market at the prevailing price on that day, from a seller willing to sell such land at a reasonable price. Thus, the market value is determined with reference to the open market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminary notification, as that would give a fair indication of the market value. A 'willing seller' refers to a person who is not acting under any pressure to sell the property, that is, where the sale is not a distress sale. A willing seller is a person who knowing the advantages and disadvantages of his property, sells the property after ascertaining the prevailing market prices at the fair and reasonable value. A 'willing seller' refers to a person who is not acting under any pressure to sell the property, that is, where the sale is not a distress sale. A willing seller is a person who knowing the advantages and disadvantages of his property, sells the property after ascertaining the prevailing market prices at the fair and reasonable value. Similarly, a willing purchaser refers to a person who is not under any pressure or compulsion to purchase the property, and who, having the choice of different properties, voluntarily decides to buy a particular property by assessing its advantages and disadvantages and the prevailing market value thereof. Of course, unless there are indications to hold otherwise, all sale transactions under registered sale deeds will be assumed to be normal sales by willing sellers to willing purchasers. Where however there is evidence or indications that the sale was not at prevailing fair market value, it has to be ignored. But auction sales stand on a different footing. When purchasers start bidding for a property in an auction, an element of competition enters into the auction. Human ego, and desire to do better and excel other competitors, leads to competitive bidding, each trying to outbid the others. Thus in a well advertised open auction sale, where a large number of bidders participate, there is always a tendency for the price of the auctioned property to go up considerably. On the other hand, where the auction sale is by banks or financial institutions, courts, etc. to recover dues, there is an element of distress, a cloud regarding title, and a chance of litigation, which have the effect of dampening the enthusiasm of bidders and making them cautious, thereby depressing the price. There is therefore every likelihood of auction price being either higher or lower than the real market price, depending upon the nature of sale. As a result, courts are wary of relying upon auction sale transactions when other regular traditional sale transactions are available while determining the market value of the acquired land. This Court in Raj Kumar v. Haryana State, 2007 (7) SCC 609 , observed that the element of competition in auction sales makes them unsafe guides for determining the market value. 7. This Court in Raj Kumar v. Haryana State, 2007 (7) SCC 609 , observed that the element of competition in auction sales makes them unsafe guides for determining the market value. 7. But where an open auction sale is the only comparable sale transaction available (on account of proximity in situation and proximity in time to the acquired land), the court may have to, with caution, rely upon the price disclosed by such auction sales, by providing an appropriate deduction or cut to off-set the competitive-hike in value. In this case, the Reference Court and High Court, after referring to the evidence relating to other sale transactions, found them to be inapplicable as they related to far away properties. Therefore we are left with only the auction sale transactions. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a deduction or cut of 20% in the auction price disclosed by the relied upon auction transaction towards the factor of 'competitive - price hike' would enable us to arrive at the fair market price. 102. No judgment was cited by learned counsel for the landowners, in terms of which the auction sale conducted more than 4 years after the date of acquisition could possibly be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of compensation, as such a transaction cannot be said to be comparable in time to the acquired land. The case in hand is not such where there is no other evidence available except transactions of auction sales. Relevance of auction sales as instance for assessment of compensation 103. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned senior counsel appearing for M/s Kohli Holdings Private Limited, submitted that for the purpose of assessment of compensation in its case, reliance on the auction sales pertaining to plots conducted more than 4 years after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act be made. The auction was for a plot for building a multi-storeyed commercial complex having FAR much more than the size of the plot. The auction of three plots almost at the same time ranged from Rs. 1,27,806/- to Rs. 1,74,039.78 per square yard. The auction was for a plot for building a multi-storeyed commercial complex having FAR much more than the size of the plot. The auction of three plots almost at the same time ranged from Rs. 1,27,806/- to Rs. 1,74,039.78 per square yard. He submitted that 1/3rd cut be applied considering the fact that transactions were in the form of auction sales and 1/3rd reverse cut be applied considering the fact that auction had taken place more than four years after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case in hand and the compensation deserves to be assessed @ Rs. 40,000/- per square yard. In my opinion, the contention is misconceived. Merely because the land of the appellant was located on National Highway and admittedly, it was part of the controlled area, it could not simply construct a multi-storeyed complex there, for which permission/licence is required. The value of the plot increases considering the fact that construction of a multi-storeyed commercial building is permissible thereon. It cannot be disputed that in the commercial area, where multi storeyed buildings are planned, the infrastructure to be provided is far more as compared to industrial area or even residential area. The judgment of this court in IMT Industrial Association and others' case (supra) was referred to, wherein it was opined that 35% of the total land was utilised by HSIIDC for the purpose of providing infrastructural facilities. This was the position in industrial estate, where some of the plots were running into many acres. Even in that case, the landowners had conceded that a cut of 50% be applied. Learned counsel in the present case conceded a cut of 1/3rd for the transaction being an auction sale and further ?rd cut was conceded for the sale being more than 4 years after the acquisition. No judgment has been cited in support of the argument that auction sale transactions pertaining to some plots, may be in neighbouring area, taking place more than 4 years after the date of acquisition, can be considered even after application of a cut for the purpose of assessment of compensation. No judgment has been cited in support of the argument that auction sale transactions pertaining to some plots, may be in neighbouring area, taking place more than 4 years after the date of acquisition, can be considered even after application of a cut for the purpose of assessment of compensation. It is also relevant to add here that by the time the auction of commercial plots was conducted, HSIIDC had already acquired land for Phase-V vide notification dated 17.9.2004, which was adjoining to the land of the appellant, and for Transport Hub, IMT Manesar, vide notification dated 27.9.2005, which was located beyond Phase-IV. Whether assessment of compensation by this court in first round of litigation is final 104. When the appeals pertaining to acquisition of land for IMT Manesar Phase-II and Phase-III, where notifications under Sections 4 of the Act were issued on 6.3.2002 and 7.3.2002, were earlier considered by this court, compensation was assessed @ Rs. 37,40,000/- per acre. Both the parties being aggrieved challenged the same before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., which had been allotted a large chunk of land measuring 602.04 acres, filed application to intervene, as it had to bear the burden of Rs. 235.40 crores on account of enhanced compensation. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while noticing the contentions raised by learned counsels for the landowners, whose land was located beyond the land acquired for IMT Phase-I, M/s Kohli Holdings Private Limited, part of whose land was abutting National Highway No. 8, HSIIDC and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., which had filed application seeking intervention, while not dealing with all the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, set aside the judgment of this court and remitted the matters back for fresh disposal, uninfluenced by any observation contained in the judgment. The parties were given liberty to urge all points in support of their respective cause before this court. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. was given liberty to file application for impleadment or intervenor, which was to be decided on its own merits. The concluding paras of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court are extracted below : "34. The parties were given liberty to urge all points in support of their respective cause before this court. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. was given liberty to file application for impleadment or intervenor, which was to be decided on its own merits. The concluding paras of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court are extracted below : "34. In view of the above conclusions, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the other points argued by learned counsel for the parties/intervenors and feel that ends of justice will be served by setting aside the impugned judgment and remitting the matters to the High Court for fresh disposal of the appeals and cross objections filed by the parties subject to the rider that the State Government/HSIIDC shall pay the balance of Rs. 37,40,000 to the landowners along with other statutory benefits. 35. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the appeals filed by the parties under Section 54 of the Act as also the cross objections. The parties shall be free to urge all points in support of their respective cause and the High Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by the observations contained in this judgment. 36. Maruti Udyog Limited shall be free to file an appropriate application before the High Court for its impleadment or grant of leave to act as intervenor in the appeals filed by the parties. If such an application is filed, the same shall be decided on its own merits. 37. The State Government/HSIIDC shall pay the balance of compensation determined by the High Court, i.e., Rs.37,40,000 - Rs.28,15,356 = Rs.9,24,644 per acre to the landowners and/or their legal representatives along with all statutory benefits within a period of four months from today. The payment shall be made to the landowners and/or their legal representatives by following the procedure laid down in the interim orders passed by this Court." 105. From a reading of the aforesaid conclusion by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, what could respectfully be gathered is that the matters are to be decided afresh uninfluenced by any observation made in the judgment, under appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which was set aside. From a reading of the aforesaid conclusion by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, what could respectfully be gathered is that the matters are to be decided afresh uninfluenced by any observation made in the judgment, under appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which was set aside. The mere fact that liberty was granted to Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., allottee of large chunk of land out of the acquired land, to file application challenging the compensation already awarded by this court also suggests in the same line. Hence, the submission of learned counsel for the landowners that the matters have been remitted only for the purpose of consideration as to whether further enhancement is possible or not, cannot be accepted. Assessment of compensation 106. Whenever matters come before the court pertaining to assessment of compensation for the acquired land, irrespective of the fact that the landowners may have claimed lesser amount of compensation, it is the duty of the court to award whatever is found to be fair amount of compensation. Reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ambya Kalya Mhatre (Dead) through LRs and others v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 9 SCC 325 . 107. The principle applies both ways, namely, that the compensation should be fair to both the parties. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs' case (supra), where the issue under consideration was pertaining to valuation of land acquired for Jawahar Lal Nehru University at Delhi opined in paragraph No. 87 thereof that 'the courts will also have to take into consideration the enormity of the financial implication of enhancement in view of the size of the land acquired for a particular project.' Sale deeds produced on record by the landowners as well as Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and HSIIDC in applications seeking permission to lead additional evidence 108. The landowners have produced following sale deeds in LAC No. 164 of 2004 : Ex. Date Area K - M Amount of consideration in Rs. Rate per acre in Rs. P1/P9 12.6.1997 2 - 0 Rs. 4,00,000/- Rs. 16,00,000/- P2/P10 23.6.1997 1-10 Rs. 3,00,000/- Rs. 16,00,000/- P3 18.9.1997 18-0 Rs. 14,28,750/- Rs. 6,35,000/- P4 18.8.2003 1-4 Rs. 7,30,000/- Rs. 48,66,666/- P6 16.9.1994 96-13 Rs. 2,42,00,000/- Rs. 20,03,103/- P8 20.9.1996 1-1/2 Rs. 3,53,000/- Rs. 28,24,000/- PY 28.4.2004 96-13M Rs. 13,62,00,000/- Rs. 1,12,73,600/- 109. Rate per acre in Rs. P1/P9 12.6.1997 2 - 0 Rs. 4,00,000/- Rs. 16,00,000/- P2/P10 23.6.1997 1-10 Rs. 3,00,000/- Rs. 16,00,000/- P3 18.9.1997 18-0 Rs. 14,28,750/- Rs. 6,35,000/- P4 18.8.2003 1-4 Rs. 7,30,000/- Rs. 48,66,666/- P6 16.9.1994 96-13 Rs. 2,42,00,000/- Rs. 20,03,103/- P8 20.9.1996 1-1/2 Rs. 3,53,000/- Rs. 28,24,000/- PY 28.4.2004 96-13M Rs. 13,62,00,000/- Rs. 1,12,73,600/- 109. Besides the aforesaid sale-deeds, the landowners have produced on record various allotment letters pertaining to allotment of land by HSIIDC to the industrial units, which are as under : Ex. Date Area in sq. meters Amount of consideration in Rs. Rate per sq. yard in Rs. P4 2.2.2000 Rs. 30,000 Rs. 4.50 crores Rs. 1,371.60 P5 30.6.2006 Rs. 6,804 Rs. 95.10 crores Rs. 1,27,806.77 P6 30.6.2006 Rs. 5,832 Rs. 101.50 crores Rs. 1,74,039.78 P7 30.6.2006 Rs. 6,804 Rs. 93.00 crores Rs. 1,36,684.30 110. To put the record straight, it may be added that sale deed (Ex. P6 in LAC No. 164 of 2004) dated 16.9.1994 is not pertaining to the plain land, rather, a factory having huge covered area, plant and machinery set up therein. The same exchanged hands vide sale deed (Ex. PY) dated 28.4.2004, hence, cannot be said to be a relevant piece of evidence to assess fair value of the land, as running industrial unit was sold. 111. The sale deeds referred to by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. in the application for additional evidence are extracted below : Sr. No. Date Area K - M Amount of consideration in Rs. Rate per acre in Rs. Revenue estate 1. 13.2.2002 9-16 Rs. 6,12,500/- Rs. 5,00,000/- Kasan 2. 13.2.2002 3-1 Rs. 1,91,000/- Rs. 5,00,984/- Khoh 3. 13.2.2002 2-6 Rs. 1,44,000/- Rs. 5,00,870/- Khoh 4. 13.2.2002 0-16 Rs. 1,02,500/- Rs.10,25,000/- Manesar 5. 12.7.2002 0-16 Rs. 1,30,000/- Rs.16,00,000/- Manesar 6. 1.7.2002 4-3 Rs. 2,80,000/- Rs. 5,01,205/- Siwana 7. 27.3.2002 1-8 Rs. 1,22,000/- Rs. 5,00,000/- Manesar 8. 14.3.2002 1-8 Rs. 1,75,000/- Rs.10,00,000/- Manesar 9. 21.3.2002 2-13 Rs. 2,32,000/- Rs. 7,00,377/- Manesar 10. 25.9.2002 3-1 Rs. 2,15,000/- Rs. 5,63,934/- (copy not on record) 11. 11.6.2002 10-3 Rs. 6,34,375/- Rs. 5,00,000/- Kasan 12. 9.10.2002 0-17 Rs. 1,08,000/- Rs.10,16,471/- (copy not on record) 13. 18.12.2002 1-0 Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs.16,00,000/- -do- 14. 6.2.2002 0-16 Rs. 1,02,500/- Rs.10,25,000/- -do- 15. 13.2.2002 9-13 Rs. 6,12,500/- Rs. 5,07,772/- -do- 16. 13.2.2002 3-1 Rs. 1,91,000/- Rs. 5,00,984/- -do- 17. 13.2.2002 2-6 Rs. 1,44,000/- Rs. 5,00,870/- -do- 18. 14.3.2002 1-8 Rs. 11.6.2002 10-3 Rs. 6,34,375/- Rs. 5,00,000/- Kasan 12. 9.10.2002 0-17 Rs. 1,08,000/- Rs.10,16,471/- (copy not on record) 13. 18.12.2002 1-0 Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs.16,00,000/- -do- 14. 6.2.2002 0-16 Rs. 1,02,500/- Rs.10,25,000/- -do- 15. 13.2.2002 9-13 Rs. 6,12,500/- Rs. 5,07,772/- -do- 16. 13.2.2002 3-1 Rs. 1,91,000/- Rs. 5,00,984/- -do- 17. 13.2.2002 2-6 Rs. 1,44,000/- Rs. 5,00,870/- -do- 18. 14.3.2002 1-8 Rs. 1,75,000/- Rs.10,00,000/- -do- 19. 21.3.2002 2-13 Rs. 2,32,000/- Rs. 7,00,377/- -do- 20. 27.3.2002 1-8 Rs. 1,22,500/- Rs. 7,00,000/- -do- 21. 11.6.2002 10-3 Rs. 6,34,375/- Rs. 5,00,000/- -do- 22. 25.6.2002 12-8 Rs. 7,75,000/- Rs. 5,00,000/- Kasan 23. 1.7.2002 10-10 Rs. 4,27,000/- Rs. 3,25,333/- Kakrola 24. 1.7.2002 4-3 Rs. 2,60,000/- Rs. 5,01,205/- Kasan 25. 31.7.2002 4-3 Rs. 2,60,000/- Rs. 5,01,205/- Kasan 26. 7.8.2002 17-14 Rs. 5,31,000/- Rs. 2,40,000/- Dhana 27. 25.9.2002 3-1 Rs. 2,15,000/- Rs. 5,63,934/- Wazirabad 28. 9.10.2002 0-17 Rs. 1,08,000/- Rs.10,16,471/- Manesar 29. 10.10.2002 6-9 Rs. 1,81,500/- Rs. 2,25,116/- Bansharia 30. 27.11.2002 4-0 Rs. 2,50,000/- Rs. 5,00,000/- Kasan 31. 10.12.2002 4-14 Rs. 1,32,500/- Rs. 2,25,532/- Bans 32. 18.12.2002 1-0 Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs.16,00,000/- Naharpur Kasan 33. 10.3.2003 0-17 Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 7,05,882/- Kassar 34. 20.8.2003 3-9 Rs. 95,500/- Rs. 2,21,449/- Khedka Muslman 35. 30.9.2003 0-3.3 Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 9,69,697/- Jakhoda 36. 1.10.2003 3-5 Rs. 2,10,000/- Rs. 5,16,923/- Sarai Aurangabad 37. 20.3.2004 0.32-0 Rs. 2,56,000/- Rs. 3,23,756/- Kohari Kala 38. 10.5.2004 0.15-0 Rs. 4,64,000/- Rs. 16,00,000/- Santhlka 39. 7.6.2004 0.25-0 Rs. 3,50,000/- Rs. 5,62,076/- Bilaheri 40. 15.7.2004 0.13-0 Rs. 90,000/- Rs. 2,85,219/- Sadhodh 41. 3.8.2004 0.35-0 Rs. 3,50,000/- Rs. 4,04,694/- Gadpur 42. 15.10.2004 0.25-0 Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 3,23,756/- Rampura 112. The sale deeds produced by HSIIDC in the application for additional evidence are extracted below : Sr. No. Date Area K - M Amount of consideration in Rs. Rate per acre in Rs. Revenue estate 1. 4.8.1997 4-0 Rs. 2,70,000/- Rs. 5,40,000/- Siwana 2. 21.11.1997 4-0 Rs. 1,25,000/- Rs. 2,50,000/- Siwana 3. 9.1.1998 8-0 Rs. 4,00,000/- Rs. 4,00,000/- Baskusla 4. 19.1.1998 8-0 Rs. 4,00,000/- Rs. 4,00,000/- -do- 5. 20.2.1998 4-0 Rs. 3,12,500/- Rs. 6,25,000/- -do- 6. 25.6.1998 8-0 Rs. 2,25,000/- Rs. 2,25,000/- Bash Haria 7. 14.9.1998 4-0 Rs. 1,12,500/- Rs. 2,25,000/- Baskusla 8. 25.9.1998 4-0 Rs. 1,12,500/- Rs. 2,25,000/- -do- 9. 11.11.1998 8-0 Rs. 3,50,000/- Rs. 3,50,000/- Bash Haria 10. 12.5.1999 4-0 Rs. 1,12,500/- Rs. 2,25,000/- Dhanna 11. 20.5.1999 5-0 Rs. 1,80,000/- Rs. 2,88,000/- Basmukla 12. 2.6.1999 4-0 Rs. 1,12,500/- Rs. 2,25,000/- Bash Haria 13. 25.6.1999 4-1 Rs. 1,15,000/- Rs. 2,30,000/- Baskusla 14. 14.9.1998 4-0 Rs. 1,12,500/- Rs. 2,25,000/- Baskusla 8. 25.9.1998 4-0 Rs. 1,12,500/- Rs. 2,25,000/- -do- 9. 11.11.1998 8-0 Rs. 3,50,000/- Rs. 3,50,000/- Bash Haria 10. 12.5.1999 4-0 Rs. 1,12,500/- Rs. 2,25,000/- Dhanna 11. 20.5.1999 5-0 Rs. 1,80,000/- Rs. 2,88,000/- Basmukla 12. 2.6.1999 4-0 Rs. 1,12,500/- Rs. 2,25,000/- Bash Haria 13. 25.6.1999 4-1 Rs. 1,15,000/- Rs. 2,30,000/- Baskusla 14. 25.11.1999 8-0 Rs. 2,25,000/- Rs. 2,25,000/- Bash Haria 15. 25.11.1999 8-0 Rs. 2,25,000/- Rs. 2,25,000/- -do- 16. 22.12.1999 8-0 Rs. 2,25,000/- Rs. 2,25,000/- Baskusla 17. 30.5.2000 4-0 Rs. 1,25,000/- Rs. 2,50,000/- -do- 18. 21.6.2000 8-0 Rs. 2,25,000/- Rs. 2,25,000/- Dhanna 19. 30.6.2000 8-0 Rs. 2,50,000/- Rs. 2,50,000/- Baskusla 20. 6.7.2000 4-0 Rs. 1,12,500/- Rs. 2,25,000/- Bash Haria 21. 7.7.2000 8-0 Rs. 2,50,000/- Rs. 2,50,000/- Baskusla 22. 20.11.2000 1-18-1/2 Rs. 4,00,000/- Rs. 2,66,000/- Dhanna 23. 19.9.2001 4-3 Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/- Baskusla 24. 4.12.2001 4-0 Rs. 1,12,500/- Rs. 2,25,000/- Bash Haria 113. A perusal of the various sale deeds produced on record by the landowners, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and HSIIDC along with applications seeking permission to lead additional evidence show lot of variation in the prices. Though the landowners have placed on record few sale deeds and few allotment letters pertaining to the land, which was already acquired and developed, whereas Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and HSIIDC have produced various sale deeds pertaining to the revenue estates, the land of which was acquired, the land pertaining to all the sale transactions has not been pointed out on any site plan produced on record. In the absence thereof, it will not be possible for this court to assess fair amount of compensation for the acquired land keeping in view enunciation of law, as referred to above. Further, as Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. has been permitted to be impleaded as party for the first time, it need to be given opportunity to present its case. Let that opportunity be before the Reference Court, as otherwise one remedy of appeal will be curtailed. Ordered accordingly. 114. The assessment of compensation in Pran Sukh's case (supra), where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 30.4.1994 was made relying transaction (Ex.P1) dated 16.9.1994. Different notifications under Section 4 of the Act in the present case were issued on 26.2.2002, 6.3.2002, 7.3.2002, 28.6.2004, 17.9.2004, 27.9.2005 and 24.11.2006. Ordered accordingly. 114. The assessment of compensation in Pran Sukh's case (supra), where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 30.4.1994 was made relying transaction (Ex.P1) dated 16.9.1994. Different notifications under Section 4 of the Act in the present case were issued on 26.2.2002, 6.3.2002, 7.3.2002, 28.6.2004, 17.9.2004, 27.9.2005 and 24.11.2006. In all the cases primarily the learned court below and in the first round of litigation pertaining to Phase-II and Phase-III, this court had also relied upon the same for the purpose of assessment of compensation. If the time gap is considered, the same may not be the appropriate method considering the fact that there are sale transactions available for the intervening period. 115. Since the matters are being remitted to the learned Reference Court, in my opinion, it would not be just and fair to permit only Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. to lead evidence, rather, all the parties shall be at liberty to produce relevant evidence to enable the learned Reference Court to assess fair value of the acquired land in accordance with law considering the evidence produced on record. 116. In the result, the impugned awards passed by the learned court below are set aside. The appeals and cross-objections filed by the landowners, the appeals filed by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. as well as State are disposed of. 117. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Gurgaon on 8.2.2016, who shall either keep the references with him or assign these to any of the Additional District Judge.