Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2222 (PNJ)

Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2017-09-25

ARUN PALLI

body2017
JUDGMENT : ARUN PALLI, J. 1. Vide this order and judgment I shall decide a batch of 20 appeals of which 8 appeals have been filed by the claimant/landowners, 5 by the State and the rest 7 have been preferred by the PUDA/GMADA (the beneficiaries of the acquisition). Although, the reference Court, vide two separate awards, dated 25.08.2003 and 1.5.2012, which are in question in these appeals, assessed the acquired land at different rates, but as all these appeals arise out of the same acquisition, these are being decided by a common judgment. 2. However, by consensus the facts are being culled from RFA No.4447 of 2003 (Bhupinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab). Vide notification, dated 28.01.1999, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), a land measuring 92 Kanals 3 Marlas, situated in village Mataur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar was sought to be acquired to set up; Khalsa Heritage Memorial Complex. Final declaration under Section 6 was published on 10.03.1999. Vide award No.9 dated 31.03.1999, the Land Acquisition Collector, assessed the value of the acquired land, in terms of its nature and quality; Sr. No. Kind of Land Rate per acre (Rs.) Rates per acre for land within 40 karams of the road (Rs.) 1 Chahi/Nehri 3,00,000/- 4,50,000/- 2 Barani/Banjar/Zadid Kadim 1,95,000/- 2,93,500/- 3 Gair Mumkin Pahar/Cho/Khad 65,000/- 97,500/- 4 Gair Mumkin Abadi 4,55,000/- No additional benefit 5 Gair Mumkin House/Abadi 4,55,000/- No additional benefit 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment as also the compensation awarded, the claimants filed objections under Section 18 of the Act to the award rendered by the Collector. Resultantly, the dispute was referred to the Civil Court for determination of the true value of the acquired land. On a consideration of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, the reference Court vide award, dated 25.08.2003, enhanced the compensation as regards the land, categorized as baraini and situated within 40 karams from the road, @ Rs. 5,87,000/- per acre, and beyond 40 karams @ Rs. 3,90,000/- per acre. Likewise, the land, classified, as Gair Mumkin pahar, and situated within 40 karams was assessed @ Rs.2,92,500/- per acre, and beyond 40 karams @ Rs.1,95,000/- per acre. But while rendering the award, dated 01.05.2012, the reference Court relied upon a decision of this Court, dated 5.5.2009, rendered in RFA No.4176 of 2002 (Harbhajan Singh Vs. 3,90,000/- per acre. Likewise, the land, classified, as Gair Mumkin pahar, and situated within 40 karams was assessed @ Rs.2,92,500/- per acre, and beyond 40 karams @ Rs.1,95,000/- per acre. But while rendering the award, dated 01.05.2012, the reference Court relied upon a decision of this Court, dated 5.5.2009, rendered in RFA No.4176 of 2002 (Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Punjab), vide which, the land situated in the same revenue estate i.e. village Mataur, acquired vide notification dated 4.12.1998, was assessed @ Rs.33,750/- per marla. And, since there was a time difference of almost two months between the notifications issued under Section 4, in the relied upon acquisition and in the present proceedings, the reference Court, also awarded 10% increase P.A. for a period of two months. Accordingly, the claimant/landowners were awarded compensation @ Rs.34,500/- per marla (Rs.33750/-+375/- +375/-). That is how, as indicated above, the parties are in appeal before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants submit that although the landowners had proved on record the sale deeds Ex-P2 to P-11, executed between 19.10.1995 to 14.01.1998, in the range of Rs.45,00 000/- per acre to Rs.1,11,11,080/- per acre, yet the decision rendered by this Court in case of Harbhajan Singh (supra), relied upon by the reference Court in its award, dated 1.5.2012, was the best evidence to evaluate the acquired land. He submits that concededly the land under acquisition even in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra) formed part of the same revenue estate i.e. village Mataur, and was located in the vicinity of the acquired land. Further, even the time gap between the two notifications, issued under Section 4, in both the proceedings was less than two months. Therefore, he asserts that no interference is called for with the award dated 1.5.2012, particularly, for, the decision in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra) has since attained finality. Rather, he submit that the claimant/landowners, whose references were decided vide award dated 25.08.2003, are also entitled to the same compensation as awarded to there co-landowners vide award dated 1.5.2012. 5. Therefore, he asserts that no interference is called for with the award dated 1.5.2012, particularly, for, the decision in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra) has since attained finality. Rather, he submit that the claimant/landowners, whose references were decided vide award dated 25.08.2003, are also entitled to the same compensation as awarded to there co-landowners vide award dated 1.5.2012. 5. Per contra, as to the award dated 1.5.2012, learned State counsel as also the counsel for the beneficiaries of the acquisition (GMADA), submit that the reference Court, erred in relying upon the decision of this Court in Harbhajan Singh (supra), for, the total land under acquisition in those proceedings was merely 18 marlas, and which is why, this Court had even relied upon the sale deed, dated 22.11.1996 (Ex.P-3), alienateing an area measuring 16 marlas @ Rs. 28,125/- per marla, to evaluate the acquired land in those proceedings. Whereas, vide present acquisition a much larger tract, of land, measuring 92 Kanals 3 Marlas was under acquisition. So much so, it is urged, that in yet another decision, arising from a separate acquisition, qua a land measuring 62 Kanals, situated in the same village i.e. Mataur, this Court, vide order and judgment, dated 26.8.2010, rendered in RFA No.146 of 2005 (Jagtar Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab) had distinguished its earlier decision in Harbhajan Singh (supra) and had awarded compensation at a lesser rate. And, even though, the same sale deed i.e. 22.11.1996 (Ex.P3), that formed basis of assessment in the case of Harbhajan Singh (Supra), was relied upon to assess the acquired land, but, a 50% cut was caused owing to the smallness of the site. Resultantly, the land in the case of Jagtar Singh and others (supra) was assessed at Rs.17,000/- per marla i.e. Rs.27,20,000/- per acre, upto the depth of two acres from the road. Whereas, the land situated beyond two acres was assessed at Rs.8,500/- per marla i.e. Rs.13,60,000/- per acre. Accordingly, it is submitted that the claimant/landowners, at best, are entitled to be awarded compensation at the rate assessed and awarded by this Court in the case of Jagtar Singh and others (supra). 6. Whereas, the land situated beyond two acres was assessed at Rs.8,500/- per marla i.e. Rs.13,60,000/- per acre. Accordingly, it is submitted that the claimant/landowners, at best, are entitled to be awarded compensation at the rate assessed and awarded by this Court in the case of Jagtar Singh and others (supra). 6. Further, in reference to the award, dated 01.05.2012, it is submitted that although the reference Court had awarded annual increase @ 10% for the time gap of two months between the notifications in the relied upon acquisition and the present proceedings but yet awarded increase @ Rs.375/- per month, which is apparently erroneous. 7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the claimant/landowners submits that the acquired land was a part of an urban area for, it was located within the limits of Municipal Council Anandpur Sahib. In reference to the evidence on record it is submitted that the acquired land was located near Chandigarh-Nangal road and was adjacent to Dashmesh Academy and Killa Anand Garh Sahib. Even a three star international hotel was also located in its vicinity. The acquired land was surrounded by many residential houses, commercial establishments and certain other places of religious importance. Therefore, no sale instances of a larger tract of land were available. In so far as, the decision of this Court, in the case of Jagtar Singh and others (supra), it is submitted that the same could not be relied upon, for, it was not yet final, and the appeals preferred by the claimant/landowners against the said decision, i.e. SLP(C) Nos.38693-38727 of 2012, were pending before the Supreme Court. In fact, another decision of this Court is referred to i.e. Baldev Singh Vs. State of Punjab, rendered in RFA No. 2269 of 2005 decided on 28.10.2010, wherein the reference Court had assessed the value of the land, acquired vide three separate notifications, dated 17.07.1997, 24.09.1997 and 12.11.1997, situated in village Mataur itself and the adjacent villages i.e. Lodhipur and Anandpur Sahib @ Rs.24,200/- per marla, and this Court had affirmed the said assessment. And, as a result, the appeals filed by the State/PUDA/GMADA were dismissed. It is urged that although, this Court while deciding the matter in Baldev Singh and others (supra) had also considered its decision in Jagtar Singh (supra), but yet the evaluation of the acquired land, @ Rs.24,200/- per marla. And, as a result, the appeals filed by the State/PUDA/GMADA were dismissed. It is urged that although, this Court while deciding the matter in Baldev Singh and others (supra) had also considered its decision in Jagtar Singh (supra), but yet the evaluation of the acquired land, @ Rs.24,200/- per marla. It is submitted that S.L.P(C) Nos.4916-5008 of 2012 preferred by the State/GMADA against the judgment of this Court in the case of Baldev Singh and others (supra) has since been dismissed by the Supreme Court, vide order, dated 09.01.2013. Whereas, in the appeals preferred by the claimant/landowners, the Supreme Court has granted leave and the matter is pending. Another decision of this Court is referred to; Banka Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, rendered in RFA No.1605 of 2005, decided on 28.01.2016, vide which, as regards the land situated in the revenue estate of village Jhinjri, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar, acquired vide notification dated 30.06.1998, this Court while relying upon its judgment in Baldev Singh (supra) had assessed its value at Rs.24,200/- per marla. It is submitted that the said decision was accepted by the State/GMADA and the claimant/landowners in those proceedings have even been disbursed the enhanced compensation. Thus, it is submitted that all the claimant/landowners are entitled to be awarded compensation, at the same rate, as awarded to the landowners, in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra). For, the land under acquisition in both the proceedings were similar. But, for the time gap between the two notifications, issued under Section 4, the claimants were also entitled to an appropriate/suitable increase in the present case. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Concededly, in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra), this Court, had assessed the value of the land, that too formed part of the same revenue estate i.e. village Mataur, acquired vide notification dated 4.12.1998, for construction of Tourist and Reception Center, at Rs.33,750/- per marla. It is not disputed either that the said decision has since attained finality. 9. Concededly, in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra), this Court, had assessed the value of the land, that too formed part of the same revenue estate i.e. village Mataur, acquired vide notification dated 4.12.1998, for construction of Tourist and Reception Center, at Rs.33,750/- per marla. It is not disputed either that the said decision has since attained finality. The observations as also the analysis that preceded the conclusion arrived at by this Court reads thus:- “Learned counsel for the land owner submitted that the court below has totally failed to appreciate the evidence led by him on record considering the strategic location of the land, which admittedly is located in front of Dashmesh Academy and National Highway Chandigarh-Nangal road is hardly at a distance of 200 yards from the acquired land. Historical Gurdwaras like Sri Qila Anandgarh Sahib, Sri Kesgarh Sahib, Gurdwara Shaheedi Bag and other religious places are in the vicinity of the acquired land. Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College Anandpur Sahib and Govt. High School is at a distance of 200 yards. Three star Ashok Hotel adjoins the acquired land. Petrol pump and police station are also near the acquired land. A park is in front of the acquired land. He further submitted that the acquired land is a small plot of 18 marlas forming part of khasra No. 6/11/2 (12 marlas) and 6/20/1 (6 marlas). Relying upon sale deed (Ex. P1) and referring to site plan (Ex. P7), it was submitted that the land measuring 16 marlas, which is located adjoining to the acquired land, was sold vide sale deed dated 22.11.1996 at an average price of Rs. 28,125/- per marla. Considering the fact that the sale deed was registered two years prior to the date of acquisition and the land being strategically located in a town of historical importance, the land owner is entitled to at least further increase @ 10% per annum. If that is counted, the value of the acquired land would come out to Rs. 33,750/- per marla”. 10. What is the position in the matter at hands? The site plan Ex.P5 reveals that acquired land too is situated adjacent to the historical Gurdwara Killa Anand Garh Sahib. Likewise, Gurdwara Kes Garh Sahib and Anandpur Sahib Model School are also located nearby. And a three star international hotel is also adjacent thereto. The acquired land is surrounded by many residential houses. The site plan Ex.P5 reveals that acquired land too is situated adjacent to the historical Gurdwara Killa Anand Garh Sahib. Likewise, Gurdwara Kes Garh Sahib and Anandpur Sahib Model School are also located nearby. And a three star international hotel is also adjacent thereto. The acquired land is surrounded by many residential houses. Further, five piara fuara park, Government High School, Mataur, Sh. Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College, Anandpur Sahib are at a distance of 200 yards from the acquired land. PSEB Colony and Circle and Divisional Offices are also located in it's vicinity. And the above position is duly testified by Baldev Singh, Halqa Patwari (PW1), in his deposition. Thus, a comprehensive analysis of the two parcels of land irresistibly show that; the acquired land too was equipped with the same features, surroundings and potential as the land in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra). So much so, the distance between the land under acquisition in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra) and the acquired land is virtually nil. Nothing is brought on record by the State either to show that the area under acquisition in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra) was dis-similar to the acquired land in terms of its location and value. Meaning thereby, the relied upon acquisition or the decision of this Court in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra), was not only the most suitable but also the safest evidence to determine the true value of the acquired land. No doubt, the total land under acquisition in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra) was merely 18 marlas and this Court evaluated its value on the basis of a sale deed, dated 22.11.1996, vide which an area measuring 16 marlas was alienated. But, the fact that cannot be lost site of is that the acquired land formed part of an urban area (Ward No.6). It was situated within municipal limits of the Municipal Council, Anandpur Sahib much before the issuance of notification dated 28.01.1999, under Section 4. Thus, in the given situation, the sale instances of a larger tract or a bigger chunk of land were indeed hard and rare to come by. Significantly, even the State as also the beneficiaries of the acquisition failed to produce any such sale deeds/sale instances. Obviously, for none existed. 11. Thus, in the given situation, the sale instances of a larger tract or a bigger chunk of land were indeed hard and rare to come by. Significantly, even the State as also the beneficiaries of the acquisition failed to produce any such sale deeds/sale instances. Obviously, for none existed. 11. The Supreme Court in Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, 1992(1) RRR 257: 1992 L.A.C.C. 314, had held that if the larger tract of land was capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used, and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of the value for the purpose of compensation was not justified: “The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which shall plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. If the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is not warranted. With regard to the nature of the plots involved in these two cases, it has been satisfactorily shown on the evidence on record that the land has facilities of road and other amenities and is adjacent to a developed colony and in such circumstances it is possible to utilise the entire area in question as house sites. In respect of the land acquired for the road, the same advantages are available and it did not require any further development. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has erred in applying the principle of deduction and reducing the fair market value of land from Rs. 10/- per sq. yard to Rs. 6.50/- per sq. yard. In our opinion, no such deduction is justified in the facts and circumstances of these cases.” Following the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwathula Samanna (supra), the Division Bench of this court in Harbans Singh and others v. State of Punjab through the Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala, 2006(1) RCR (Civil) 634, concluded: “14. yard. In our opinion, no such deduction is justified in the facts and circumstances of these cases.” Following the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwathula Samanna (supra), the Division Bench of this court in Harbans Singh and others v. State of Punjab through the Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala, 2006(1) RCR (Civil) 634, concluded: “14. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge himself that all the sale instances relied upon pertained to the sale of land which was out of the acquired land. However, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on May 3, 1980 whereas all the three sale instances relied upon by the learned Single Judge are prior in time to the said notification. Since the said sale instances pertained to sale of land in municipal area itself, therefore, it could not be accepted that there would be any sale instance with regard to bigger chunk of land. The learned Single Judge in our considered view was not justified in applying any cut on the average price of the aforesaid sale instances. The proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in Bhagwathula Samanna’s case (supra) and by the Madras High Court in Abdul Reguman’s case (supra) is fully attracted.” 12. Thus, there indeed was/is nothing to choose between the two sites i.e. land under acquisition in Harbhajan Singh (supra) and the acquired land in the present proceedings. Therefore, the fact that acquired land in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra) was a smaller chunk, and the sale deed dated 22.11.1996, that was relied upon to assess the said land was also a sale instance of a smaller area, pale into insignificance or was/is inconsequential. 13. As regards the argument advanced by the learned State counsel as also the beneficiary of the acquisition; since this Court had declined to assess the acquired land in Jagtar Singh and others (supra) at the same rate as in Harbhajan Singh (supra), the claimant/landowners in these proceedings could also not be awarded compensation at the same rate, lacks conviction. 14. As regards the argument advanced by the learned State counsel as also the beneficiary of the acquisition; since this Court had declined to assess the acquired land in Jagtar Singh and others (supra) at the same rate as in Harbhajan Singh (supra), the claimant/landowners in these proceedings could also not be awarded compensation at the same rate, lacks conviction. 14. A bare analysis of the decision in the case of Jagtar Singh and others (supra) reveals that this Court declined to assess the land under acquisition in those proceedings, in terms of its decision in Harbhajan Singh (supra), not only because the land under acquisition in the latter case was a smaller chunk (18 marlas), but also, for it was situated on the road, in an already developed area. Near a hotel. And, was located towards the city. Not just that, the land sold vide sale deed dated 22.11.1996, relied upon to evaluate the land in Harbhajan Singh (supra), was a part of the same khasra number as the acquired land in those proceedings. Whereas, the land under acquisition in Jagtar Singh and others (supra), measuring 62 kanals, was located, while going from the city, towards Ropar. Which is why, though the sale deed dated 22.11.1996, formed basis of assessment even in the case of Jagtar Singh and others (supra), but after awarding 12% increase, a deduction @ 50% was caused to assess its value. Thus, the land under acquisition in Harbhajan Singh (supra) was held to be dis-similar to the acquired land in the case of Jagtar Singh and others (supra). And, as indicated earlier, the judgment of this Court in the case of Jagtar Singh and others (supra) is not yet final, for, the appeal against the said decision is pending before the Supreme Court. Still further, in another acquisition i.e. Baldev Singh (supra), the Reference Court had assessed the value of the land, situated in the same village i.e. Mataur, acquired vide notification dated 12.11.1997, @ Rs.24,200/- per marla. And co-incidentally the same Bench on a consideration of it's decision in Jagtar Singh and others (supra), vide order and judgment dated 28.10.2010, affirmed the assessment made by the reference Court. Hence, the argument that the claimant/landowners could not have been awarded compensation in terms of the decision of this Court in Harbhajan Singh (supra), cannot be countenanced. 15. And co-incidentally the same Bench on a consideration of it's decision in Jagtar Singh and others (supra), vide order and judgment dated 28.10.2010, affirmed the assessment made by the reference Court. Hence, the argument that the claimant/landowners could not have been awarded compensation in terms of the decision of this Court in Harbhajan Singh (supra), cannot be countenanced. 15. In fact, the matter can be viewed from yet another perspective. This Court, in the case of Baldev Singh (supra) had affirmed the assessment of a land, situated in the same revenue estate i.e. Mataur, @ Rs. 24,200/- per marla. And, the SLPs preferred by the State/PUDA/GMADA against the decision of this Court were dismissed by the Supreme Court, vide order and judgment dated 09.01.2013, rendered in SLP(C) Nos. 4916-5008 of 2012. Whereas, in the SLPs filed by the claimants leave has been granted and the matter is pending. Not just that, subsequently, in the case of Banka Singh and others (supra), this Court while assessing the value of the land situated in the adjacent village i.e. Jhinjri, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar, acquired vide notification dated 30.06.1998, relied upon its earlier decision in Baldev Singh’s case (supra) and assessed the compensation @ Rs.24,200/- per marla. Concededly, the decision of this Court in the case of Banka Singh and others (supra) was not questioned by the respondents any further, and the same has since attained finality. The claimant-land owners in those proceedings have even been disbursed the compensation. Meaning thereby, it can neither be disputed by the State or even the beneficiaries of acquisition that value of the land, situated in Village Mataur itself, affirmed by this Court in the case of Baldev Singh (supra) as also the Supreme Court, was Rs.24,200/- per marla as on 12.11.1997 i.e. date of notification under Section 4 in those proceedings. 16. But, in the present proceedings, the notification under Section 4 was issued on 28.01.1999. Thus, a short but a significant question that arises is; as to what would have been the value of the land under acquisition in the case of Baldev Singh (supra), as on 28.01.1999, or whether any appropriate or suitable increase is required to be factored in, for the time difference between the two notifications issued under Section 4, and if yes at what rate? The Supreme Court in The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr., 2008(14) SCC 745 , has held: “11. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors - situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. X X X X Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.” 17. As indicated in the preceding paragraphs, there have been successive acquisitions in the revenue estate of Village Mataur itself, as also in adjacent villages. Resultantly, there indeed has been a large scale and unprecedented development in the vicinity of the acquired land. Significantly, all the acquisitions in Village Mataur, as referred to above, preceded the present acquisition. Further, the claimant-land owners had proved on record various sale deeds/sale instances, tabulated below, which reveal that the value of the real estate in Village Mataur and in the adjoining areas had appreciated rapidly; Exs. Place Dated Area Sold in Marlas Sale consideration (in Rs.) Amount Per Marla (in Rs.) Amount Per Acre (in Rs.) P2 Anandpur Sahib 14.01.1998 10 4,60,000/- 46,000/- 73,60,000/- P3 Mataur 22.11.1996 16 4,50,000/- 28,125/- 45,00,000/- P4 Anandpur Sahib 22.04.1997 1250 sq. ft. Place Dated Area Sold in Marlas Sale consideration (in Rs.) Amount Per Marla (in Rs.) Amount Per Acre (in Rs.) P2 Anandpur Sahib 14.01.1998 10 4,60,000/- 46,000/- 73,60,000/- P3 Mataur 22.11.1996 16 4,50,000/- 28,125/- 45,00,000/- P4 Anandpur Sahib 22.04.1997 1250 sq. ft. = 4.63 Marla 2,77,000/- 59827.21/- 9572353.6/- P8 Anandpur Sahib 20.10.1995 7 4,16,666/- 59,523/- 95,23,794/- P9 Anandpur Sahib 22.10.1997 11 3,80,000/- 34,545/- 55,27,272/- P10 Anandpur Sahib 22.10.1997 7 2,42,000/- 34,571/- 55,31,428/- P11 Anandpur Sahib 19.10.1995 4 2,77,777/- 69,444/- 1,11,11,080/- 18. The bonafides of these sale transactions were neither in issue before the Reference Court nor in the present proceedings. Apparently, all the sale deeds, referred to above were executed between 1995 to 1998 i.e. prior to the notification, dated 28.01.1999, in the present acquisition. In and other connected matters fact, vide sale deeds Ex.P2, Ex.P4, Ex.P8 and Ex.P11 different parcels of land were sold at double or even at a higher price than the value of the land assessed in the case of Jagtar Singh and others (supra) i.e. Rs.24,200/- per marla. 19. Thus, certainly, for, there exist a specific evidence, annual increase, not by a rule of thumb i.e. 10% to 15% per annum, but @ 30%, on cumulative basis, can safely be factored in. Particularly, for even the Supreme Court in The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (supra) had observed; In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. Resultantly, value of the land under acquisition even in the case of Baldev Singh (supra), as on 28.01.1999, would have been around Rs.33,275/- per marla. 20. But as demonstrated above, the land in the relied upon acquisition i.e. in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra), was far more prime or valuable owing to its location surroundings and potential. Which is why it was assessed or evaluated at Rs.33,750/- per marla. Concededly, the decision of this Court in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra), has since become final. And as recorded earlier, the acquired land was located in extreme proximity to the land under acquisition in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra), and was also equipped with the same features, surroundings and potential. Concededly, the decision of this Court in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra), has since become final. And as recorded earlier, the acquired land was located in extreme proximity to the land under acquisition in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra), and was also equipped with the same features, surroundings and potential. Thus, in the given circumstances, the relied upon acquisition or the decision of this Court in Harbhajan Singh (supra), was not only the most suitable but also the safest mode or evidence that could be the basis to assess the true value of the acquired land. But it is also true that the impugned assessment suffers from a arithmetical error. Though, the compensation in the case of Harbhajan Singh (supra), was assessed @ Rs. 33,750/- per marla, but as the notification in the present acquisition was issued two months later, the reference Court had also awarded increase @ 10% P.A., for two months, i.e. @ Rs.375/- per marla. Accordingly, the compensation was awarded @ Rs.34,500/- per marla (Rs.33,750/- + 375 + 375). Whereas, the 10% increase P.A. upon the value of the land assessed in Harbhajan Singh (supra), shall work out to Rs.3,375/- for a period of 12 months. Naturally, for each month it would be Rs.281.25/- and not Rs.375/- per marla. Thus, there indeed is a marginal difference. But it is equally true that the precise value of the land under acquisition cannot be determined with mathemetical precision. For instance, the claimant/landowners, herein, could very well say that the reference Court ought to have awarded increase at a higher rate than just @ 10% per annum. Particularly, when the acquired land was urban in nature, and owing to the unprecedented development in the area, it's value was appreciating phenomenally. Further, there indeed has been a significant development during the pendency of these appeals; learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in the absence of any interim stay, all the claimant/landowners have since been disbursed the compensation, over 5 years ago @ Rs.34,500/- per marla. Thus, in conspectus of the above position, the impugned award dated 01.05.2012 does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the assessment as also the compensation awarded to the claimants @ Rs.34,500/- per marla is affirmed. 21. Thus, in conspectus of the above position, the impugned award dated 01.05.2012 does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the assessment as also the compensation awarded to the claimants @ Rs.34,500/- per marla is affirmed. 21. Accordingly, RFA Nos.4447 and 4554 of 2003, that have been filed against the award dated 25.08.2003, are disposed of in the above terms, the claimant/landowners in these appeals shall also be entitled to compensation @ Rs.34,500/- per marla, as also all the statutory benefits admissible in law. Consequently, the appeals preferred by the State/PUDA/GMADA against the awards, dated 25.08.2003 and 01.05.2012, i.e. RFA Nos. 589, 590 & 1906 of 2004; 898 of 2005; 3090, 3091, 3094, 3096, 3102 & 3104 of 2012; and 2230 & 2231 of 2013 are dismissed. Likewise, the appeals preferred by the claimant-landowners, i.e. RFA Nos. 2103 to 2108 of 2013, against the award dated 01.05.2012 are also dismissed.