JUDGMENT : ARUN PALLI, J. 1. Vide this order and judgment, I shall decide a batch of 82 appeals of which 43 appeals have been filed by the Indian Oil Corporation, the beneficiary of the acquisition, and the rest 39 appeals have been preferred by the claimants-landowners. For, the matter arises out of the same acquisition, and the issues that arise for determination in all these appeals are common, these are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, by consensus the facts are being culled out from RFA No. 3079 of 2007. 2. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') published on 24.11.1999, a land measuring 6051 kanals 11 marlas i.e. 744 acres, 1 kanal 10 marlas, situated in village Bal Jattan, Tehsil and District Panipat, was sought to be acquired for a Petro-Chemical Complex of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC). The final declaration under Section 6 was published on 13.06.2000. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide award No.1, dated 4.12.2001, assessed the market value of the land that was chahi/nehri at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre (41.32 per square yard) and Banjar/gair mumkin at Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre (30.99 per square yard). Claimants were also awarded all the statutory benefits that were admissible in law. 3. Aggrieved of the assessment as also the compensation awarded by the reference Court the claimants-landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the LAC referred the dispute for determination of compensation to the Civil Court. And, on a consideration of the material and the evidence on record the reference Court reached a conclusion that for the entire land under acquisition lay in a compact block, was being acquired vide a same notification, and for a common purpose, all the landowners were entitled to the same compensation. However, the sale deeds Ex.P1 to Ex.P2 that were relied upon by the claimants-landowners were ruled out of consideration, for, these pertained to an extremely small or a negligible area, and were of a different village i.e. Dharamgarh. Although, the sale deed (Ex.P3) was of village Bal Jattan itself but the same was also discarded, for, it was executed on 9.12.2004, i.e. 5 years post issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Although, the sale deed (Ex.P3) was of village Bal Jattan itself but the same was also discarded, for, it was executed on 9.12.2004, i.e. 5 years post issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Likewise, it was also held that even the sale deeds i.e. Ex.R2 to R15 that were produced by the IOC did not reflect the true value of the acquired land, for those were executed for a consideration far less than the rate at which the compensation was assessed by the Collector himself. That being so, the Court relied upon the judicial pronouncements/or its previous awards Ex.P5 dated 24.12.2005 and Ex.P6 dated 28.11.2002, for, vide these awards the Court had assessed the value of the land situated in the adjacent villages i.e. Baholi and Assan Kalan at Rs. 97.94 per square yard. But as the awards dated 28.11.2002 (Ex.P6) and 24.12.2005 (Ex.P5) were rendered in relation to a notification, under Section 4 of the Act, that was published on 12.12.1994, and in the present proceedings the said notification was issued almost 5 years later, the reference Court awarded 12% annual increase upon the amount assessed in the earlier acquisition. Resultantly, the claimants were held entitled to compensation at Rs. 155.43 paise per square yard. That is how, as indicated above, both the parties are in appeal before this Court. Of course, the IOC has appealed to set aside the award rendered by the reference Court, whereas the claimants seek further enhancement in the compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants-landowners submit in unison that all what forms basis of the enhancement and the compensation awarded by the reference Court are the awards Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, however, in the appeals preferred against those award this Court, vide order and judgment dated 6.9.2016, rendered in RFA No.4502 of 2013 (Sampuran Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others) and other connected matters, had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 127 per square yard. Therefore, it is submitted that as a necessary consequence the claimants even in the present appeals shall be entitled to the same compensation but with 12% annual increase for the time difference between the two notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act. 5. As opposed to this, Mr. 127 per square yard. Therefore, it is submitted that as a necessary consequence the claimants even in the present appeals shall be entitled to the same compensation but with 12% annual increase for the time difference between the two notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act. 5. As opposed to this, Mr. Pawan Mutneja, learned counsel for the IOC submits that the reference Court gravely erred to discard all the sale deeds i.e. Ex.R2 to R15, for, these were executed for a consideration less than the rate awarded by the Collector, even though, each of the said sale instances pertained to the revenue estate of village Bal Jattan itself. Further, he asserts that the observations recorded by the reference Court that these sale transactions were under valued, and thus, did not reflect the true value of the acquired land, are equally erroneous, for, there was hardly any evidence on record to even draw such an inference. He submits that if it was actually so the registration authorities were fully empowered to impound the documents and resort to appropriate measures in this regard. But no such evidence exists in this regard. Therefore, the conclusion, reference Court arrived at was wholly conjectural. Lastly, he submits that even if it is assumed that the reference Court could rely upon the award Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, still the acquired land being agriculture in nature, the Court could never award increase @ 12% per annum. He has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Chand v. Union of India and another, 2009(15) SCC 769 . 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Ex facie, the sale instances that were relied upon by the claimants-landowners i.e. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 indeed pertained to an extremely negligible area measuring 1 kanal 7 marla and 1 kanal 0 marla, respectively and were also of a different village. No doubt, sale deed Ex.P3 was of village Bal Jattan itself, but that was executed almost 5 years post issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. On the contrary, though, all the sale instances that were relied upon by the IOC i.e. Ex.R2 to R15 pertained to village Bal Jattan, but these sale deeds were executed for a consideration far less than the compensation awarded by the Collector. On the contrary, though, all the sale instances that were relied upon by the IOC i.e. Ex.R2 to R15 pertained to village Bal Jattan, but these sale deeds were executed for a consideration far less than the compensation awarded by the Collector. No doubt, and there cannot be any quarrel of proposition that even such sale deeds can always be factored in to assess the true value of the land, for, all what Section 25 of the Act postulates is that the landowners cannot be awarded compensation less than what has been awarded by the Collector. However, in the matter in hand, the sale deeds Ex.R2 to R15 were ruled out of consideration, for, each of these sale deeds were executed subsequent to the issuance of notification under Section 4. The matter can be viewed from yet another perspective. The sale deed dated 9.12.2004 (Ex.P3) also pertained to village Bal Jattan vide which a land measuring 6 kanals was sold at Rs. 247.93 per square yard. No doubt this transaction came into being 5 years post issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, and thus, could not be relied upon, but it certainly cast a doubt upon the bona fides and the veracity of the sale transactions Ex.R2 to Ex.R15, which were executed between 20.04.2000 to 10.09.2002, for Rs. 22.72 to 36.23 per square yards. Nothing was brought on record either to show that it was post September 2002, there was an unprecedented escalation in the value of real estate, and prices jumped to Rs. 247.93 per square yard when the sale deed dated 9.12.2004 (Ex.P3) was executed. Even otherwise if value of a similar land, which too was situated in village Bal Jattan, was Rs. 22.72 per square yard as on 20.04.2000, where was the occasion for the Collector to still assess the compensation, for the acquired land, at a higher rate, and that too as on 24.11.1999. Thus, apparently, it was not safe to rely upon the sale instances Ex.R2 to Ex.R15. Therefore, the presumption that permeate the records is that these sale instances (Ex.R2 to R15) were actually under valued to avert payment of stamp duty. And, thus could never be said to be bona fide transactions. In the situation, the argument that if these transactions were indeed undervalued the authorities would have impound the documents, also lacks conviction. Therefore, the presumption that permeate the records is that these sale instances (Ex.R2 to R15) were actually under valued to avert payment of stamp duty. And, thus could never be said to be bona fide transactions. In the situation, the argument that if these transactions were indeed undervalued the authorities would have impound the documents, also lacks conviction. For an answer to the said question, as demonstrated above, lay only with the Registration authorities. Vide award Ex.P5 dated 24.12.2005 and Ex.P6 dated 28.11.2002 the land that formed part of the adjacent villages i.e. Assan Kalan and Baholi was assessed by the reference Court at Rs. 97.94 per square yard. Dharambir (PW1) testified in his deposition that boundaries of village Bal Jattan abuts boundaries of village Baholi. Likewise, Mahender Singh, Patwari (PW2) proved that the boundaries of both the villages are contiguous. This was never the case of the IOC either before the reference Court or even this Court that the land that formed part of the revenue estate of village Baholi or Assan Kalan was in any way different than the acquired land owing to its quality, character and value. The position of law is settled that in the absence of any bona fide and relevant sale instances, the Court could always factored in its previous awards or judicial pronouncements of the adjacent villages. Therefore, in the given situation award Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 were indeed a true and safe determining factor to assess the value of the land. 8. In so far as the argument that the acquired land was purely agriculture in nature, and therefore, the claimants-landowners ought not to have been awarded 12% annual increase has merit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (supra) clearly observed and held that there is a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi urban areas and increases in market value of lands in rural areas. Therefore, if the increases 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. 9. Indisputably, the acquired land was/is agriculture in nature and is recorded as such in the record of rights. Therefore, if the increases 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. 9. Indisputably, the acquired land was/is agriculture in nature and is recorded as such in the record of rights. It indeed was being used for agricultural purposes only, thus it formed part of a rural area. In fact, the finding recorded by the reference Court is that it was not even situated close to the village Abadi leave alone the Panipat city or its municipal boundaries. Therefore, its value could only be determined being an agricultural land. But it is also true that the acquired land was situated within the urban controlled area of Panipat. Record shows that Panipat is a priority town of national capital region known for handloom products as also the handloom industry. The land that forms part of village Sithana, which also adjoins village Bal Jattan, was assessed at Rs. 107 per square yard in relation to a notification, dated 25.05.1993, under Section 4 of the Act. Likewise, the land that was situated in village Baholi and Assan Kalan respectively was assessed at Rs. 127/- per square yard in relation to the notification, dated 12.12.1994, issued under Section 4 of the Act. In yet another acquisition, another chunk of land that also formed part of the revenue estate of village Bal Jattan, in relation to a notification dated 3.5.2005, issued under Section 4, was assessed @ Rs. 904/- per square yard, by this Court vide judgment dated 23.01.2017, rendered in RFA No. 1130 of 2012 (Veena Rani and others v. State of Haryana and others). Thus, a cumulative analysis of all these factors leads the matter to an irresistible conclusion that the acquired land and the area in its vicinity was under a transformation, and there was a study and gradually increase in the property prices or escalation in the value of the real estate. That being so, in my view, the ends of justice shall be served if the claimants-landowners are awarded 9% annual increase, but on cumulative basis. That being so, in my view, the ends of justice shall be served if the claimants-landowners are awarded 9% annual increase, but on cumulative basis. For, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ONGC (supra) held; percentage of increase is always with reference to the previous year's market value, the appropriate method is to calculate the increase cumulatively and not applying a flat rate. Indisputably, in the appeals filed against the awards Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 this Court vide order and judgment dated 06.09.2016, rendered in RFA No.4502 of 2013 (Sampuran Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others) and other connected matters had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 127/- per square yard. Thus, the claimants/landowners shall be entitled to compensation at Rs. 194.04 per square yard, as is being indicated hitherto below:- 127 (12.12.1994) 127 X 9/100=11.43+127= 138.43(12.12.1995) 138.43 X 9/100 = 12.45+138.43 = 150.88 (12.12.1996) 150.88 X 9/100 = 13.57+150.88 = 164.46 (12.12.1997) 164.46 X 9/100 = 14.80 + 164.46 = 179.26 (12.12.1998) 179.26 X 9/100 = 16.13-1.344 (for one month) = 14.78 (for 11 months) + 179.26= 194.04 (24.11.1999) Resultantly, the appeals preferred by the parties are disposed of in the above terms. RFA No. 3011 of 2008 10. In so far as RFA No. 3011 of 2008, learned counsel for the appellants submits that besides the issue as regards the true value of the acquired land the reference Court has also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- for the fish pond to the claimants. The case set out by the appellants themselves was that they had incurred Rs. 4,00,000/- to construct the said pond. No cogent or conclusive evidence was brought on record to show the actual expense that indeed was incurred by the claimants. Thus, the finding recorded by the reference Court can not be interfered with.