JUDGMENT : Arun Palli, J. Vide this judgment, I shall decide a bunch of 60 regular first appeals, of which 22 i.e. RFA Nos.3541 of 2007; 376 to 381, 703 to 706, 827, 828, 882, 2152, 2644 to 2647, 2914 to 2919 of 2012, 4502 of 2013 and X-Objr-4-CI-2014 in RFA No.882 of 2012 have been preferred by the claimant-landowners, whereas the rest 38 appeals i.e. RFA Nos.1949, 2141, 2142, 2163 to 2169, 6014 to 6021, 6030 to 6045 of 2012 and X-Objr-34-CI-2014 in RFA No.6030 of 2012 have been filed by the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short, ‘IOC’), the beneficiary of the acquisition. For, the facts involved in all these appeals are similar, and the question that is required to be determined being common, the same are disposed of by a common judgment. By consensus the facts are being culled out from Regular First Appeal No.4502 of 2013 – [Sampuran Singh v. State of Haryana and others]. 2. Vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), published on 12.12.1994, an area measuring 97 acres 4 kanals and 1 marla, comprised in the revenue estate of villages Shodapur, Khukhrana, Nohra, Sithana and Baholi, Tehsil and District Panipat, was sought to be acquired for construction of Broad Gauge Railway siding, for Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., to cater to Panipat Oil Refinery. Publication under Section 6 of the Act was made on 13.06.1996. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ‘the Collector’), vide award No.4, dated 05.01.1996, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre i.e. Rs. 35.53 per sq. yard. Being aggrieved with the assessment and the compensation awarded by the Collector, landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, and resultantly the Collector referred the matter to the civil court for determination. But, as vide an earlier notification dated 25.05.1993, land measuring 4.63 acres, which also formed part of the revenue estate of the same village i.e. Sithana, was acquired for IOC, and the reference court vide its award dated 07.06.1999, had assessed the market value of the said land @ Rs. 83/- per sq. yard, the reference court vide award, dated 30.05.2002, by awarding 12% annual increase for the time difference i.e. one year and seven months, between the notification in the previous acquisition and the present proceedings, awarded compensation @ Rs. 97.94 per sq. yard. 83/- per sq. yard, the reference court vide award, dated 30.05.2002, by awarding 12% annual increase for the time difference i.e. one year and seven months, between the notification in the previous acquisition and the present proceedings, awarded compensation @ Rs. 97.94 per sq. yard. However, in the appeals preferred by the landowners as also the State against the award, dated 07.06.1999 – [Khan Chand Bajaj v. State of Haryana and another], this court vide order and judgment dated 05.11.2008, rendered in RFA No.3719 of 1999 & other connected matters – [Hukam Chand v. State of Haryana and others], set aside the said award, for the sale instances (Ex.RA to Ex.RG), which were relied upon by the State, were not taken into consideration by the reference court. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the reference court for re-decision. For, the very basis of the decision of the reference court in this case i.e. award dated 07.06.1999, had become extinct, in the appeals preferred by the IOC, the award dated 30.05.2002, rendered in the matter in hand, was also set aside by this court, and the matter was remanded, vide order and judgment dated 26.07.2010, rendered in RFA No.2886 of 2002 [Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Om Parkash and others]. It is not disputed that even on re-consideration, the reference court vide its award, dated 19.11.2010, in the matter of Hukam Chand and Khan Chand Bajaj (supra) reached the same conclusion as earlier and assessed the market value of the land at the same rate i.e. Rs. 83/- per sq. yard. Further, in the appeals preferred by the landowners, as also the IOC against the said award, this court, vide order and judgment dated 25.02.2016, rendered in RFA No.2517 of 2011 [Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Khan Chand Bajaj and others], dismissed the appeals filed by the IOC-beneficiary department, whereas the appeals filed by the claimant-landowners were partly accepted. Resultantly, the compensation awarded to the claimant-landowners was enhanced to Rs. 5,20,600/- per acre i.e. Rs. 107.56 per sq. yard. Likewise, in the present case the reference court, again, by relying upon its earlier award in the case of Hukam Chand (supra), awarded 12% annual increase for the time difference between the two notifications, and granted compensation @ Rs. 97.94 per sq. yard, vide awarded dated 30.08.2011. 5,20,600/- per acre i.e. Rs. 107.56 per sq. yard. Likewise, in the present case the reference court, again, by relying upon its earlier award in the case of Hukam Chand (supra), awarded 12% annual increase for the time difference between the two notifications, and granted compensation @ Rs. 97.94 per sq. yard, vide awarded dated 30.08.2011. That is how, as indicted above, the landowners have appealed for further enhancement and the IOC-beneficiary department prays to set aside the award rendered by the reference court. 3. All what has been argued by Mr. Ashwani Talwar, learned counsel for the landowners is that, the reference court had relied upon an earlier award dated 19.11.2010, rendered in the case of Khan Chand Bajaj (supra), vide which the market value of the land was assessed @ Rs. 83/- per sq. yard, and since the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present proceedings was issued on 12.12.1994, one year and seven months later, by awarding 12% annual increase, the reference court assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 97.94 per sq. yard. Thus, he submits that, for, this court vide its judgment dated 25.02.2016, rendered in RFA No.2517 of 2011 [Khan Chand Bajaj and other connected appeals], has further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5,20,600/- per acre i.e. Rs. 107.56 per sq. yard, the appellants-landowners are entitled to 12% annual increase upon the market value of the land i.e. 107.56 per sq. yard as on 25.05.1993. 4. As opposed to this, Mr. Ashish Kapoor, learned counsel for the IOC-beneficiary department submits that in another acquisition, in relation to a land that too was situated in village Sithana, an area measuring 101 kanals 4 marlas was acquired, pursuant to a notification, dated 17.06.2002, for construction of approach road to the site of IOCL (JV) Power and Petrol Chemical Project. And the Collector, vide award, dated 05.11.2003, had assessed the market value of the said land @ Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre i.e. Rs. 72.31 per sq. yard. Further, the reference court by relying upon its earlier award dated 30.08.2011 (which is in question in the present appeals), and for there was a time difference of over eight years in the notifications under Section 4 of the Act, in both the proceedings, awarded 12% increase upon Rs. 97.94 per sq. yard, vide award dated 14.12.2006, and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 97.94 per sq. yard, vide award dated 14.12.2006, and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 186.30 per sq. yard. Therefore, he submits that as the appeal filed by the State against the award dated 14.12.2006, was dismissed by this court vide order and judgment dated 08.03.2010, in RFA No.1226 of 2007 [State of Haryana and others v. Subhash Chander and others], thus, as a result, this court actually affirmed the assessment made by the reference court @ Rs. 97.94 per sq. yard even in the present case. Therefore, it is not feasible, for the claimant-landowners, to seek any further enhancement. Further, in reference to another order and judgment dated 16.07.2014, rendered by this court in RFA No.1040 of 1998 [Kapoor Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others], produced during the course of hearing, he submits, that in yet another acquisition regarding the land situated in village Baholi (pursuant to notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 31.07.1993), the reference court had assessed the compensation @ Rs. 1,65,000/- per acre i.e. Rs. 34.10 per sq. yard, and the appeals preferred by the claimant-landowners against the said award, were dismissed by this court. Thus, he submits that the appeals preferred by the landowners are liable to be dismissed. No other argument was advanced. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Ex facie, all what form basis of the assessment and the compensation awarded by the reference court is; an earlier award dated 19.11.2010, rendered by the reference court in the case Khan Chand Bajaj (supra), vide which the land that also formed part of the same revenue estate i.e. village Sithana, was assessed @ Rs. 83/- per sq. yard. No doubt, pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, in the matter in hand, published on 12.12.1994, land situated in five different villages “including Sithana”, Tehsil and District Panipat, was sought to be acquired. But this has never been the case of the respondents, either before the reference court or during the hearing of these appeals, that for the land situated in other four villages was dissimilar in terms of quality or/and character to the land that formed part of village Sithana, the reference court erred in relying upon its earlier awarded dated 19.11.2010 or to assess the market value of the acquired land on the basis thereof. Understandably so, for Mahabir Singh, Patwari Halqua, village Naura (PW2) testified in his deposition that the boundaries of the village Khukhrana, Shodapur and Naura abut each other. No evidence was led to prove the contrary. Further, which is why, the land situated in these villages was acquired for a common purpose i.e. construction of Broad Gauge Railway siding for Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 7. This has also not been the case of the State/IOC that although it had brought on record the relevant sale instances by way of evidence, the reference court ought to have determined the value of the acquired land only in terms of those sale transactions. Even earlier this court vide order and judgment, dated 26.07.2010, in RFA No.2886 of 2010, had remanded the matter for re-decision, only because the award upon which the reliance was placed by the reference court, that itself had been set aside, and not because the reference court had relied upon its earlier award to assess the value of the acquired land. That being so, the only and the inevitable conclusion that is reached is that the reference court had rightly placed reliance upon an earlier award, dated 19.11.2010, vide which even on re-consideration, post remand, the reference court had assessed the market value @ Rs. 83/- per sq. yard. And, once that was so, for, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the present case after over one year and seven months, landowners were rightly awarded 12% annual increase upon the rate awarded by the reference court in the case of Khan Chand Bajaj (supra) i.e. Rs. 83/- per sq. yard. Indisputably, this court in the appeals preferred by the landowners against the award rendered by the reference court in the case of Khan Chand Bajaj (supra) has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5,20,600/- per acre i.e. Rs. 107.56 per sq. yard. Needless to assert, that once this court had enhanced the compensation from Rs. 83/- per sq. yard to Rs. 107.56 per sq. yard in the appeals against the award dated 19.11.2010, which formed basis of the assessment in these appeals, as a natural consequence, the landowners would thus be entitled to 12% annual increase upon the rate determined by this court i.e. Rs. 107.56 per sq. yard. Meaning thereby, the landowners herein shall be entitled to the compensation @ Rs. 126.92 per sq. yard. 8. 107.56 per sq. yard. Meaning thereby, the landowners herein shall be entitled to the compensation @ Rs. 126.92 per sq. yard. 8. In so far as the submission that has been advanced by learned counsel for the respondent; that in another acquisition proceedings, the reference court had relied upon the award dated 30.08.2011, being assailed in these appeals, and by awarding 12% increase upon the rate i.e. Rs. 97.94 per sq. yard, determined in these proceedings, had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 186.23 per sq. yard, vide award dated 14.12.2006, and as the appeals against that award have been dismissed vide its order and judgment dated 08.03.2010, rendered in RFA No.1226 of 2007, this court in essence affirmed the amount/rate awarded by the reference court even in these cases, lacks conviction and cannot be countenanced. 9. Firstly, it appears that it was never brought to the notice of this court that award dated 30.08.2011, which was relied upon by the reference court in those proceedings, had not yet become final or the appeals against the said award seeking further enhancement were already pending before this court. Secondly, even if, this court vide its order and judgment dated 08.03.2010, dismissed the appeals preferred by the landowners in the said case, the only consequence that follow is that the assessment as regards the land involved in those proceedings was affirmed by this court. The issue as regards the true value of the acquired land in this case was never in question in those proceedings. Even otherwise, one wonders that even if the appeals preferred by the landowners against the award, dated 14.12.2006, were dismissed, how in law that would foreclose the rights of the landowners herein to seek enhancement in these appeals. Not just that, rather the argument being advanced by learned counsel for respondents, as noticed above, shows that the respondents not only admit the compensation awarded by the reference court to be just and fair, but even the method to determine the same i.e. by relying upon an earlier judicial pronouncement. 10. Likewise, reference to the decision of this court dated 16.07.2014, in RFA No.1040 of 1998, is also misplaced, for neither any such plea was raised before the reference court nor the requisite evidence was led in this regard. Even otherwise, this court had decided the matter in the wake of the material brought on record in those proceedings. 10. Likewise, reference to the decision of this court dated 16.07.2014, in RFA No.1040 of 1998, is also misplaced, for neither any such plea was raised before the reference court nor the requisite evidence was led in this regard. Even otherwise, this court had decided the matter in the wake of the material brought on record in those proceedings. Whereas, in the matter in hand it is established that the reference court had rightly placed reliance upon its earlier award dated 19.11.2010, vide which the land that formed part of the same revenue estate i.e. village Sithana was assessed @ Rs. 83/- per sq. yard. 11. In conspectus of the position as sketched out above, the landowners shall be entitled to 12% increase upon the rate at which the compensation was assessed by this court in the case of Khan Chand Bajaj and others (supra) i.e. Rs. 107.56 per sq. yard, which comes to Rs. 126.92 per sq. yard, and is rounded of to Rs. 127/- per sq. yard. Accordingly, the appeals as also the cross-objections preferred by the claimant-landowners are disposed of in the terms indicated above, and as a necessary consequence the appeals as also the cross-objections filed by the respondents-IOC fail and are accordingly dismissed. Needless to assert that the claimant-landowners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits as are admissible in law. Parties shall bear their own costs.