SURENDER SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

                         [2018] 1 S.C.R. 581                             581


                        SURENDER SINGH                                   A
                                  v.
                  STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 885 of 2018)
                        JANUARY 25, 2018                                 B
  [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
       Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Acquisition of
large chunk of land measuring around 520 acres 02 Kanals and
13.5 Marlas situated in 15 villages – Compensation determined at
                                                                         C
uniform rate applicable to entire acquired land – On appeals by
land owners for seeking further enhancement and by the State
seeking restoration of order of LAO, held: High Court erred in
determining one flat market rate of the acquired land without
considering the potentiality and the quality of acquired land situated
in each village, its nature and the basis, the market rate of the land   D
situated in each village prior to the date of acquisition or its near
proximity, the size of the land, the actual distance of each village
qua any other nearby big developed city, town or areas – Fair market
value of acquired land cannot be decided in isolation on the basis
of only one factor – Matter remanded to reference court for fresh
                                                                         E
adjudication – Since matter is remanded for fresh adjudication,
landowners are held entitled to refund of court fee paid by them –
Court Fees Act, 1870 – s.13.
       Disposing of the appeals and remanding the matter to
Reference Court, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 In the impugned judgment, the High Court                F
essentially based its decision or, proceeded to decide the appeals
by making the decision of this Court in Pran Sukh case to be the
basis to examine the question as to whether the rate of acquired
land fixed by the LAO and Reference Court was fair or not. The
High Court, however, noticed from the facts involved in the case         G
of Pran Sukh that the land situated in one village-Kasan along
with its some adjoining villages was acquired on 15.11.1994 by
the State and this Court determined the compensation payable
to the landowners of Kasan village at the rate of Rs.20,00,000/-
per acre. The High Court felt that Rs.20,000,00/- per acre should
                                                                         H
                                 581
582            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A     be taken as the base price for determining the rate of acquired
      land in question. The High Court perhaps did this after having
      noticed that some part of the acquired land in these appeals was
      situated in Kasan village and, therefore, took the rate of Kasan
      village land as basis for determining the rate of acquired land
      also. The High Court accordingly gave annual increase of 8% to
B
      Rs.20,00,000/- and worked out the rate at Rs.62,11,700/- per acre
      for the entire acquired land in question by applying one uniform
      rate. [Paras 31 to 33] [590-C-G]
             Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v.
             Pran Sukh & Others (2010) 11 SCC 175 – referred to.
C            1.2 The approach of the High Court in the facts of these
      cases does not appear to be right inasmuch as the High Court
      failed to take into consideration that the acquired land, in these
      cases, was a huge chunk of land measuring around 520 acres, 2
      kanals and 13.5.marlas. Second, the entire acquired land was not
D     situated in village Kasan but it was spread over in 15 villages.
      Third, there was no evidence to show much less any finding of
      the High Court as to what was the actual distance among the 15
      villages against one another, the location, situation/area of each
      village, whether any development had taken place and, if so, its
      type, nature and when it took place in any of these villages, the
E     potentiality and the quality of the acquired land situated in each
      village, its nature and the basis, the market rate of the land
      situated in each village prior to the date of acquisition or in its
      near proximity, whether small piece of land or preferably big chunk
      of land, the actual distance of each village qua any other nearby
F     big developed city, town or a place, whether any activity is being
      carried on in the nearby areas, their details. Fourth, whether the
      acquired land in the case of Pran Sukh in village Kasan and the
      acquired land in question are similar in nature or different and, if
      so, how and on what basis, their total distance etc. These were
      the issues which had material bearing while determining the rate
G     of the acquired land in question. [Paras 34 to 36] [590-G-H; 591-
      A-D]
             1.3 The High Court, in the absence of any evidence on any
      of these issues, could not have determined one flat market rate
      of the acquired land in question by applying one isolated rate of
H     one land situated in one village Kasan and adding 8% annual
     SURENDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                         583


increase from 1994 in such rate and made it applicable to the          A
entire lands situated in 15 different villages. It is only when the
evidence had been adduced by the parties to the lis on these
issues, the Court would have been in a position to apply its mind
objectively as to which method should be applied for
determination of the rate, i.e., whether belting system or flat rate
                                                                       B
system or different rates for different lands depending upon the
quality of land situated in different villages etc. [Paras 37, 38]
[591-E-F]
      2. The fair market value of the acquired land cannot be
decided in isolation on the basis of only one factor. There are
several other factors, which govern the determination of the rate.     C
These factors need to be proved with sufficient evidence. The
Courts have made sincere endeavor to determine the fair market
rate of the acquired land and while determining has taken into
account all relevant aspects of the case. It is the duty of the
landowners and the State to adduce proper and sufficient evidence      D
to enable the Courts to arrive at a reasonable and fair market
rate of the acquired land prevalent on the date of acquisition.
[Para 39] [591-G-H; 592-A]
      3. Both the parties failed to adduce sufficient evidence on
several material issues, as a result, both the Courts below did
not record any finding on any of the material issues arising in the    E
case. The fair market rate of the acquired land can be determined
for want of sufficient evidence. The Reference Court will
accordingly decide the rate of land as prevalent on the date of
acquisition on the merits. [Paras 41, 42 and 44] [592-C-D, F]
      4. Since these cases are remanded to the Reference Court         F
for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law, the
appellants (landowners) are entitled to get back the amount of
court fee paid by each appellant (landowner) on his appeal memo
before the High Court as also before this Court as provided under
Section 13 of the Court Fees Act. The Registry is accordingly
                                                                       G
directed to issue necessary certificate of refund of Court Fee
amount, if paid by any of the landowner on his memo of appeal in
the High Court and in this Court under the Court Fees Act to
enable the landowners to claim the refund of the court fee amount
from the concerned State Treasury. [Paras 46, 47] [592-H; 593-
A-B]                                                                   H
584             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A                             Case Law Reference
              (2010) 11 SCC 175       referred to              Para 31
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 885 of
      2018.
B           From the Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2016 of the High Court
      of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No. 1854 of 2012.
                                      WITH
            Civil Appeal Nos. 890, 896, 888, 889, 886, 887, 897-900, 909-
      912, 904, 891-895, 901-903, 905, 984-985, 1028-1034, 1140-1146,
C     920-952, 1035-1043, 914-915, 906-907, 1182, 987-992, 1049-1053,
      908, 972-981, 916-919, 913, 1057-1058, 953-971, 1012-1027, 986,
      1001-1002, 1180-1181, 1003-1009, 1055-1056, 982, 983, 1075, 1079,
      1078, 1010, 1011, 1138-1139, 1048, 1044-1047, 1068, 1066-1067, 1170-
      1179, 1059-1065, 1054, 1072, 1074, 1076, 1077, 1195-1196, 1073,
D     1081, 1069, 1070-1071, 1150, 1080, 1132-1133, 1082-1131, 1134,
      1183, 1186, 1184, 1185, 1187, 1190, 1197, 1188, 1189, 1169, 1136, 1135,
      1149, 1137, 1147-1148, 1151-1153, 1154-1158, 1191-1194, 1159-1168
      and 993-1000 2018.
            Alok Sangwan, AAG, Brijender Chahar, Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.
      Ms. Jyoti Chahar, Karan Chahar, Shashi Bhushan, Vinay Garg, Jasbir
E
      Singh Malik, Ms. Usha Nandini. V, Sunny Kadiyan, Dr. Monika Gusain,
      Ms. Arun K. Sinha, Mohinder Singh, Rakesh Singh, Sinha Shrey Nikhilesh,
      Ashwini Kumar, Raghav Kakar, Praveen Agrawal, Aditya Singh,
      Siddharth Mittal, Nayan Nepal, Ankit Swarup, Ms. Tanya Swarup, Ms.
      Shobha, Satyam Jyoti Saikia, Sandeep Kumar Lala, S.K. Sinha, Rattan
F     Lal, Ms. Seema Kashyap, Dr. M.S. Verma, N.N. Jha, Ms. Ranjana
      Vohra, Mrs. Santosh Singh, Naresh Kaushik, Vardhman Kaushik, Devik
      Singh, Manoj Joshi, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, Himanshu Gupta, Anil Kumar
      Tandale, Siddharth Jain, Gaurav Aggarwal, Umang Shankar, Gagan Gupta,
      Akshat Shrivastava, Inderjeet Yadav, Ms. Savita Devi, Shushant Mittal,
      Dr. Kailash Chand, Vijay K. Jain, Dr. Dinesh Rattan Bhardwaj, Dr.
G
      Ashutosh Garg, Siddharth Batra, Ravinder Kumar, Ajit Sharma, R.K.
      Shokeen, Roopansh Purohit, Siddharth Yadav, Ms. Madhumita
      Bhattacharjee, Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Anshuman Ashok, Swetank
      Shantanu, Pratap Shankar, Ms. A. Shivani, Ms. Surabhi, Ram Kishor
      Singh Yadav, Ankit Swarup, Ajit Sharma, Dr. Kailash Chand, Ms. Usha
H
      SURENDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                               585


Nandini. V, Mrs. Amita Gupta, Ms. Priti Yadav, Vikas Verma, Shahid            A
Akhtar, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Advs. for the appearing parties.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
       2. These appeals are filed against the common final judgment and       B
order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
at Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 1854 of 2012 etc.etc. whereby the High
Court partly allowed the appeals filed by the appellants herein and thereby
enhanced the compensation @ Rs.62,11,700/- per acre and other
statutory benefits under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred
to as “the Act”) and accordingly modified the Award dated 27.02.2012          C
passed by the Reference Court, Gurgaon in LAC No. 551 of 2009/2011
and other connected matters and, in consequence, dismissed the appeals
filed by the State.
     3. In order to appreciate the entire controversy involved in this
bunch of appeals, it is necessary to set out the facts in detail.             D
       4. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Act,
the State of Haryana issued a Notification on 11.01.2005 for acquisition
of large chunk of land totaling around 520 acres 02 Kanals and 13.5
Marlas situated in 15 villages in the State of Haryana. The acquisition in
question was for the public purpose, namely, construction of Express          E
Highway known as “KMP”. It was followed by another notification
issued on 17.11.2005 by the State under Section 4 of the Act for the
same public purpose in relation to the land situated in 4 villages.
       5. The details of the acquisition, such as name of the villages and
the area of the land situated in each village are setout hereinbelow          F
      S.No.     Name of Village       Area acquired (per acre)
      1.        Kasan                 514 kanal 13 marla
      2.        Kukrola               97 kanal 04 marla
      3.        Khaintawas            99 kanal 14 marla                       G

      4.        Dhana                 241 kanal 00 marla
      5.        Path Hajipur          960 kanal 04 marla
      6.        Sultanpur             499 kanal 01 marla
                                                                              H
586             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A             7.       Fazilwas                11 kanal 13 marla
              8.       Mokalwas                185 kanal 18 marla
              9.       Bas Lambi               313 kanal 07 marla
              10.      Mubarikpur              242 kanal 13 marla
B
              11.      Jhanjhrola              J17 kanal 01 marla
              12.      Babra Bakipur           100 kanal 19 marla
              13.      Shed                    222 kanal 01 marla

C                      Mohammadpur
              14.      Kharkari                14 kanal 11 marla
              15.      Fakharpur               182 kanal 14 marla

             6. This was followed by two declarations published by the State
D     under Section 6 of the Act. One was published on 31.05.2005. It was in
      relation to first notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 11.01.2005
      whereas other declaration was published on 08.02.2006. It was in relation
      to second notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 17.11.2005.
            7. This was followed by the initiation of the proceedings for
E     determination of compensation payable by the State to the landowners
      whose lands were acquired in the acquisition proceedings in question.
      Notices to landowners were accordingly issued under Section 9 of the
      Act.
             8. The Land Acquisition Officer held an enquiry as required under
F     Section 11 of the Act and passed separate awards in relation to the lands
      situated in different villages on 10.05.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer
      determined the uniform rate applicable to entire acquired land payable
      to every landowner. In his opinion, all the landowners, whose lands
      were acquired in the aforementioned 15 villages, were entitled to get the
      compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.12,50,000/- per acre.
G
              9. Dissatisfied with the awards, the landowners filed their
      objections under Section 18 of the Act and prayed for making reference
      to the Civil Court for fresh determination of the compensation and the
      rate at which it was payable. As a consequence thereof, land references
      were accordingly made and forwarded to the Reference Court for re-
H
      SURENDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                                587
             [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

determination of the compensation under the Act. As many as 41 land            A
references were made to the Reference Court.
       10. By a common Award dated 27.02.2012, the Reference Court
(Civil Court) partly allowed all the reference cases and enhanced the
rate of compensation at Rs.43,17,841/- per acre. In other words, the
Reference Court enhanced the rate from Rs.12,50,000/- per acre to              B
Rs.43,17,841/- per acre.
       11. This determination gave rise to filing of first appeals by the
landowners as well as the State of Haryana in the High Court of Punjab
& Haryana under Section 54 of the Act. As stated at the bar, in all, 556
first appeals were filed in the High Court against the award of the            C
Reference Court out of which 258 appeals were filed by the landowners
and remaining 298 appeals by the State.
       12. So far as the appeals filed by the landowners were concerned,
the landowners prayed therein for grant of more compensation than
what was awarded by the Reference Court. In other words, the case of           D
the landowners in the High Court in support of their appeals was that the
Reference Court though was right in enhancing the rate of compensation
but was not right in awarding at the rate of Rs.43,17,841/- per acre.
According to them, the rate of land determined by the Reference Court
should have been much higher than Rs.43,17,841/- per acre because the
acquired land had immense potential.                                           E

      13. So far as the appeals filed by the State were concerned, the
case of the State in the appeals was that the Reference Court erred in
determining the market rate of the land at the rate of Rs.43,17,841/- per
acre. According to the State, it was on higher side as compared to what
was fixed by the LAO, i.e., Rs.12,50,000/- per acre which, in the facts        F
and circumstances of the case, was just, proper and adequate with no
scope of any further enhancement therein.
      14. By impugned judgment, the High Court partly allowed the
appeals filed by the landowners and as a consequence thereof dismissed
the appeals filed by the State. The High Court while partly allowing the       G
landowners’ appeals further enhanced the rate of acquired land from
Rs.43,17,841/- per acre to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.
       15. In other words, in the opinion of the High Court, the fair market
rate of acquired land should be at Rs.62,11,700/- per acre and, therefore,
                                                                               H
588             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A     the compensation be paid to each landowner for their acquired lands, at
      the rate of Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.
            16. Against this judgment of the High Court, the landowners as
      well as the State both felt aggrieved and filed these appeals by way of
      special leave in this Court.
B            17. So far as the appeals filed by the landowners are concerned,
      their common case in their appeals is that the High Court was right in
      enhancing the rate of acquired land but was not right in confining it to
      Rs.62,11,700/- per acre. According to them, the rate of acquired land
      should have been much more than what was determined by the High
C     Court, i.e., Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.
             18. So far as the appeals filed by the State are concerned, the
      case of the State was that the High Court erred in further enhancing the
      rate of acquired land to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre. According to the State,
      there was no case made out for any further enhancement in the rate of
D     the acquired land and on the other hand, the appeals filed by the State
      deserved to be allowed by the High Court by reducing the rate of acquired
      land fixed by the Reference Court and restoring the rate fixed by the
      LAO that being the fair market rate of the land rightly fixed by the
      LAO, i.e., Rs.12,50,000/- per acre.

E           19. It is essentially with this factual background, the entire
      controversy on the question of re-determination of the rate of acquired
      land payable to the landowners is made the subject-matter of these
      appeals at the instance of the landowners and the State.
              20. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration in this
F     bunch of appeals, is whether the High Court was right in partly allowing
      the landowners’ appeals and thereby was justified in further enhancing
      the rate of compensation from Rs.43,17,841/- per acre to Rs.62,11,700/
      - per acre. In other words, the question is whether the High Court was
      justified in dismissing the State’s appeals and thereby was justified in not
      reducing the rate of acquired land fixed by the Reference Court and
G     restoring the rate (Rs.12,50,000/- per acre) fixed by LAO.
            21. To put it in yet another words, what is the fair market value of
      the acquired land in question - (1) Rs.12,50,000/- per acre as fixed by
      the LAO; or (2) Rs.43,17,841/- per acre as fixed by the Reference
      Court; or (3) Rs.62,11,700/- per acre as fixed by the High Court or lastly
H
      SURENDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                               589
             [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

any other rate between Rs.12,50,000/- per acre and Rs.62,11,700/- per         A
acre or more than Rs.62,11,700/- per acre prevailing on the date of
acquisition i.e. 11.01.2005 and 17.11.2005.
      22. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
       23. As mentioned above, the submission of learned counsel for
the different landowners in support of their respective appeals was more      B
or less common. According to them, there is overwhelming evidence
adduced by the landowners to prove the potentiality of the land on the
date of acquisition (11.01.2005 and 17.11.2005) which, in fact, found
acceptance to the High Court while enhancing the rate of acquired land.
       24. It was urged that having regard to the situation, proximity and    C
the surroundings of the acquired area which was already developed
much prior to the date of the acquisition coupled with the fact that at
least one sale deed out of the four exemplar sale deeds filed by the
landowners (Exs-P1, P-10, P-12, P-13 and P-14) to prove the real market
value of the acquired land as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act        D
should have been made basis by the High Court for fixing the rate of
acquired land and had it been done then the rate of acquired land would
have been more than Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.
       25. All the learned counsel for the landowners then took us through
the evidence with a view to show the potentiality in the acquired land, its   E
situation, location, proximity with the well developed areas and its
surrounding places and on that basis urged that a case for further
enhancement in the rate of the acquired land, i.e., more than Rs.62,11,700/
- per acre is made out and, therefore, this Court should allow the appeals
filed by the landowners and suitably enhance the rate of acquired land
for determining the compensation payable to each landowner.                   F
       26. In reply, learned counsel for the State of Haryana contended
that the High Court erred in allowing the landowners’ appeals and further
erred in dismissing the State’s appeals.
        27. According to learned counsel, the landowners’ appeals were
                                                                              G
liable to be dismissed whereas the State’s appeals deserved to be allowed
by the High Court by setting aside the award of the Reference Court.
      28. His submission was that the High Court cursorily disposed of
the appeals without deciding any issue though involved in the appeals
thereby causing prejudice to the rights of the State in particular.
                                                                              H
590            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A             29. Learned counsel then took us through the findings of the High
      Court and the issues raised by the State for proper determination of the
      rates of the acquired land and on that basis pointed out the prejudice
      caused due to casual approach of the High Court in deciding the appeals.
              30. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
B     of the entire record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeals
      filed by the State in part and set aside the impugned judgment of the
      High Court and also the award passed by the Reference Court and are
      inclined to remand the cases to the Reference Court (Civil Court) for
      deciding the reference cases afresh on merits in the light of our
      observations/directions made hereinbelow.
C             31. The need to remand these cases to the Reference Court has
      occasioned essentially for two reasons. First, it is clear from the perusal
      of the impugned judgment that the High Court essentially based its decision
      or, we may say, proceeded to decide the appeals by making the decision
      of this Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation
D     vs Pran Sukh & Others [2010 (11) SCC 175] to be the basis to examine
      the question as to whether the rate of acquired land fixed by the LAO
      and Reference Court is fair or not.
              32. The High Court, however, noticed from the facts involved in
      the case of Pran Sukh (supra) that the land situated in one village -
E     Kasan along with its some adjoining villages was acquired on 15.11.1994
      by the State and this Court determined the compensation payable to the
      landowners of Kasan village at the rate of Rs.20,00,000/- per acre.
              33. The High Court felt that Rs.20,000,00/- per acre should be
      taken as the base price for determining the rate of acquired land in
      question. The High Court perhaps did this after having noticed that some
F     part of the acquired land in these appeals is situated in Kasan village
      and, therefore, it is ideal to take the rate of Kasan village land as basis
      for determining the rate of acquired land also. The High Court accordingly
      gave annual increase of 8% to Rs.20,00,000/- and worked out the rate
      at Rs.62,11,700/- per acre for the entire acquired land in question by
G     applying one uniform rate.
              34. In our considered opinion, the approach of the High Court in
      the facts of these cases does not appear to be right inasmuch as the
      High Court failed to take into consideration several material issues which
      arose in these cases and had bearing on determination of the fair market
      rate of the land in question under Section 23 of the Act.
H
      SURENDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                                   591
             [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

       35. First, the acquired land, in these cases, was a huge chunk of          A
land measuring around 520 acres, 2 kanals and 13.5.marlas. Second, the
entire acquired land was not situated in village Kasan but it was spread
over in 15 villages as detailed above. Third, there is no evidence to
show much less any finding of the High Court as to what was the
actual distance among the 15 villages against one another, the location,
                                                                                  B
situation/area of each village, whether any development had taken place
and, if so, its type, nature and when it took place in any of these villages,
the potentiality and the quality of the acquired land situated in each village,
its nature and the basis, the market rate of the land situated in each
village prior to the date of acquisition or in its near proximity, whether
small piece of land or preferably big chunk of land, the actual distance of       C
each village qua any other nearby big developed city, town or a place,
whether any activity is being carried on in the nearby areas, their details.
Fourth, whether the acquired land in the case of Pran Sukh (supra) in
village Kasan and the acquired land in question are similar in nature or
different and, if so, how and on what basis, their total distance etc.
                                                                                  D
      36. These were, in our view, the issues which had material bearing
while determining the rate of the acquired land in question.
       37. The High Court, in the absence of any evidence on any of
these issues, could not have determined one flat market rate of the acquired
land in question by applying one isolated rate of one land situated in one        E
village Kasan and adding 8% annual increase from 1994 in such rate
and made it applicable to the entire lands situated in 15 different villages.
        38. In our opinion, it is only when the evidence had been adduced
by the parties to the lis on the aforementioned issues, the Court would
have been in a position to apply its mind objectively as to which method          F
should be applied for determination of the rate, i.e., whether belting system
or flat rate system or different rates for different lands depending upon
the quality of land situated in different villages etc.
       39. The fair market value of the acquired land cannot be decided
in isolation on the basis of only one factor. There are several other factors,    G
which govern the determination of the rate. These factors need to be
proved with sufficient evidence. It must appear that the Courts have
made sincere endeavor to determine the fair market rate of the acquired
land and while determining has taken into account all relevant aspects of
the case. It is the duty of the landowners and the State to adduce proper
                                                                                  H
592             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A     and sufficient evidence to enable the Courts to arrive at a reasonable
      and fair market rate of the acquired land prevalent on the date of
      acquisition.
             40. Taking into consideration the aforesaid infirmities, which we
      have noticed, we have no hesitation in holding that the trial in these
B     cases has not been satisfactory. We cannot countenance the cursory
      manner in which both the Courts below proceeded to determine the
      market rate of the acquired land. It has certainly caused prejudice to
      both the parties.
             41. We do not blame any party for prosecuting their case in wholly
C     unsatisfactory manner but the fact remains that both the parties failed to
      adduce sufficient evidence on several material issues, as a result, both
      the Courts below did not record any finding on any of the material issues
      arising in the case.
              42. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find it difficult at
D     this stage to determine the fair market rate of the acquired land for want
      of sufficient evidence. If we do, it will cause prejudice to the parties.
      We, therefore, refrain from doing so.
            43. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeals filed
      by the State, set aside the impugned judgment and the award of the
E     Reference Court (Civil Courts) and remand the cases to the Reference
      Court for deciding all reference cases afresh on merits keeping in view
      our observations made supra.
             44. Parties would be at liberty to adduce additional evidence in
      support of their respective stand both oral and documentary. The
F     Reference Court will accordingly decide the rate of land as prevalent on
      the date of acquisition in the light of law laid down by this Court strictly
      in accordance with law uninfluenced by any finding of the High Court
      and this Court on the merits.
            45. Parties to appear before the Reference Court on 05.02.2018
      to enable the Reference Court to proceed in the cases and ensure its
G
      disposal within one year from the date of appearance of the parties as
      an outer limit. The original record of the case, if requisitioned here, be
      sent back forthwith to the concerned Reference Court.
             46. Since we have remanded these cases to the Reference Court
      for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law, the appellants
H
       SURENDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                                  593
              [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

(landowners) are entitled to get back the amount of court fee paid by             A
each appellant (landowner) on his appeal memo before the High Court
as also before this Court as provided under Section 13 of the Court Fees
Act.
       47. The Registry is accordingly directed to issue necessary
certificate of refund of Court Fee amount, if paid by any of the landowner        B
on his memo of appeal in the High Court and in this Court under the
Court Fees Act to enable the landowners to claim the refund of the
court fee amount from the concerned State Treasury.
      48. If for any reason, it is not possible for the Registry of this
Court to issue refund certificate of the Court Fee amount paid by the             C
landowners (appellants) on their memo of appeals filed in the High Court
on their respective appeal memo then the requisite certificate shall be
issued by the concerned High Court as per the Rules in favour of each
appellant (landowner) under the Court Fees Act.
                                                                                  D
Devika Gujral                               Matter remanded to Reference Court.




                                                                                  E




                                                                                  F




                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H