STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in all these appeals relates to the compensation awarded in respect of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (referred to briefly as 'the Act'). The acquisition was made by the State of Haryana for constructing the Shahbad feedar. The area acquired covered about 180 acres and cut through villages Garhi Banjaran, Telipura, Udhampur and Bhukri. For the purposes of the acquisition, a series of notifications under Section 4 followed by declarations under Section 6 of the Act were issued between 1986 to 1987.The Land Acquisition Collector awarded the same rate for all the four villages having regard to the nature of the land, namely, Rs. 29,000/- for Chahi or irrigated land, Rs. 20, 000/- for Barani or non-irrigated land and Rs. 5,000 /- per acre for Gairmumkin or non-cultivable land. The references under Section 18 were disposed of by the District Judges by passing widely differing awards. These awards were subsequently challenged by the land owners from villages Telipura and Garhi Banjaran before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The single Judge of the High Court adopting a uniform rate for all types of land in all the villages directed the State Government to pay each of the claimants compensation of Rs. 1,72,000/plus Rs. 30,000/- per acre, the latter sum being on account of potential value of the acquired land. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the State's appeals without giving separate reasons for upholding the decision of the learned single Judge.

(2.) The appeals before us have been preferred both by the State of Haryana and the claimants challenging the compensation granted by the High Court.

(3.) Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain appearing for the State of Haryana has contended that the High Court was wrong in determining the value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,72,000/per acre. The State had produced two sale deeds Exhibits R/2 and R/3 pertaining to a total area of 23 kanals and 4 marlas. The two deeds showed that the rate of land similar to the acquired land was Rs. 29, 000/and Rs.37,000/- per acre. It was contended that the learned single Judge had relying upon the decision of this Court in Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab through Collector, AIR 1996 SC 3498 excluded Exhibits R/2 and R/3 produced by the State from consideration on the ground that neither the vendor nor the purchaser had been examined. It is pointed out that Baldev Singh's case is no longer good law in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer vs. V. Narasaiah (2001) 3 SCC 530. Secondly, it was submitted by Mr. Jain that the learned Judge erred in relying upon Exhibit PC produced by the claimants which was a sale deed pertaining to an area of one kanal and 6-1/2 marlas only which was contiguous to a main road. It was argued that Exhibit PC could not be an exemplar relevant to the lands which had been acquired which not only covered a much larger area but were situated at some distance from any habitation or road. It was also submitted that in any event having determined the market value, the learned Judge erred in adding any further sum on account of the alleged potential value of the land and that the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre fixed by the learned Judge for determining such potential value was entirely speculative.