JUDGMENT
Viney Mittal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of three regular first appeals being RFA Nos. 1081 of 1990, 2329 of 1990 and 2403 of 1990.
2. Vide notification dated March 4, 1980 the land belonging to the claimant land owner situated within the municipal limits of Gurgaon was acquired for a public purpose. The learned Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 53,240/- per acre. The claimant-land owner remained dis-satistied and claimed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act). The matter was duly referred. 3. During the course of reference proceedings, both the parties led their evidence.
4. The learned Additional District Judge relied upon an earlier award dated May 24, 1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon with regard to some land acquired situated within the municipal limits and accordingly as such the market value of the acquired land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 25/- per square yard. Additionally the land owner was also held entitled to all the statutory benefits of the amended provisions of the Act.
5. The claimant-land owners have still felt dis-satisfied and has approached this Court through the present regular first appeals.
6. I have heard Shri C.B. Goel, the lea ned counsel for the appellant and Shri C.R. Dahiya, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case.
7. Shri C.B.Goel, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance upon a judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 367 of 1987 decided on May 20, 1988. Chandgi Ram and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr.. In fact, the said judgment was also placed before the learned Additional District Judge as Ex.P4 on the record. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, Shri Goel has maintained that the assessment made by the learned Additional District Judge was highly inadequate inasmuch as there was absolutely no warrant for ignoring this judgment and giving a precedence to the judgment dated May 24, 1985 Ex.P1 passed by the learned Additional District Judge. According to Shri Goel, the claimant-land owners were not only entitled to the assessment at the rate of Rs. 48/- per square yard on the basis of Chandgi Ram’s case (supra) but were also additionally entitled to an increase for two years inasmuch as the notification in Chandgi Ram’s case (supra) was issued on March 20, 1978 whereas notification in the present case was issued on March 4, 1980.
8. On the other hand, Shri C.R,Dahiya, the learned Deputy Advocate Genera), Hary-ana has with equal vehemence argued that reliance placed on the judgment of Additional District Judge Ex.P1 was wholly proper and there was no scope for further enhancement. According to Shri Dahiya, the judgment Ex.P1 was well reasoned and as such had been rightly followed by the learned Additional District Judge.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival pleas of the learned counsel for the parties.
10. At the outset, it may be relevant to notice here that the judgment Ex.Pl dated May 24, 1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon pertained to acquisition of land through a notification dated November 23, 1979. In this view of the matter, the observations made by the learned Additional District Judge in her award that Ex.Pl pertained to the same notification are factually incorrect and as such cannot be sustained.
11. From the perusal of the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, it is apparent that the claimant-land owner has also relied upon Chandgi Ram’s case (supra) and had made the claim on the basis of the aforesaid judgment. However, no reasoning has been given by the learned Additional District Judge to ignore the assessment made in Chandgi Ram’s case (supra).
12. It is not in dispute that the acquired land in Chandgi Ram’s case (supra) was also situated within the municipal limits of Gurgaon. The acquired land in the present case was also situated within the municipal limits of Gurgaon. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to ignore the assessment made in Chandgi Ram’s case (supra) and to adopt a different yardstick with regard to the acquired land. This brings me to the next limb of the argument raised by Shri Goel. Shri Goel has maintained that the notification in Chandgi Ram’s case (supra) was dated March 20, 1978 whereas the notification in the present case had been issued on March 4, 1980. According to learned counsel, there was a general increase in the prices and a judicial notice for that was required to be taken.
13. As for as the assessment of the market value of the acquired land in the present appeal is concerned, it is not in dispute that the same is liable to be assessed, keeping in view the judgment of this Court in Chandgi Ram’s case (supra). In Chandgi Ram’s case (supra), the market value of the acquired land situated in the municipal limits of Gurgaon was assessed as Rs. 48/- per square yard. The only controversy which remains to be adjudicated is as to whether the claimant land owner is still liable to have any further increase over and above the assessment made in Chandgi Ram’s case (supra).
14. It is not in dispute that notification under Section 4 of the Act in Chandgi Ram’s case (supra) was issued on March 20, 1978. However, the notification in the present case has been issued on March, 4, 1980 i.e. after the expiry of two years. It is matter of common knowledge that the city of Gurgaon has undergone tremendous growth. The proximity of the acquired land to the Capital of Delhi also cannot be ignored. In almost identical circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in A.I.R..2002 Supreme Court 1558, Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot v. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib, has observed as under:
“13. After due deliberations on the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that on the given facts and circumstances of the present case the appreciation of 10% per annum given for the subsequent years is neither excessive nor unreasonable so as to call for our interference. Counsel for the parties did not dispute that after the submersion of the old township area of Bagalkot in water a new township was being built up. For this lot of developmental activities are taking place. This is evident from the fact that number of acquisitions have been made for the developmental of the new township of Bagalkot. In this order, reference has been made to the earlier acquisition of 1979. In Civil Appeal Nos. 1552-54 of 2000 as well acquisition of the land was made for formation of a link road to the new town. We agree with the counsel for the appellant that the reference court wrongly valued the land at Rs. 6,85 per sq.ft. for the year 1985 taking the base price of the land at Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. for the year 1979 on an appreciation of 10% per annum for every subsequent years The appreciation of value of land at 10% per annum on the base price of Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. would increase the value of the land @ 0.30 paise per year. 0.30 paise multiplied by “/ would come to Rs. 2 10 paise. If the appreciation in value of the land for the next seven years is taken at Rs. 2.10 paise and added to the base value of Rs. 3/-, the market value of the land under acquisition in the year 1985 would come to Rs. 5.10 paise. We agree with the counsel for the respondents that deduction on account of development charges from the price fixed cannot be made as the base price of Rs. 3/- had been determined in the earlier cases after taking into account the development charges.”
15. From the perusal of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohd. Hanif’s case (supra), it is apparent that the Courts are bound to take into consideration the rising trend in the prices and the general developmental activities taking place in the town. As noticed above, the city of Gurgaon has grown tremendously in the last two decades. That fact itself has to be kept in view while assessing the market value of the acquired land.
16. In view of the aforesaid fact, adopting the formula, which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohd. Hanif’s case (supra), I deem it proper that the claimant land owner in the present appeal be also entitled to 10% increase per annum over and above the assessment of Rs. 48/- per square yard made in the Chandgi Ram’s case (supra).
17. Accordingly, the claimant land owner shall be entitled to the market value of Rs. 58/- per square yard for the acquired land. In addition, the claimant land owner shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits of the amended provisions of the Act, as admissible to him. No costs.