GULZAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common questions of law arose for decision in these appeals hence they are disposed of together. Notification under Section 4 (1 of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 was published in the Punjab State Gazette on 27/01/1978 acquiring 89 acres 4 canals and 12 marlas of land situated in Dhuri village for public purpose, namely to set up new Mandi Township. The appellants claimed at the rate of Rs. 30,000. 00 per Bigha but the Land Acquisition Officer after classifying the lands into six blocks A to F, awarded market value ranging between Rs. 30,000. 00 to Rs. 6,000. 00 per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the District Judge, Sangrur in his judgment dated 13/05/1981 disagreed with the classification and found that all the lands are possessed of the same quality. Relying on sale deeds, Ex. P-3 dated 4/09/1972, P-5 dated 14/06/1976, P-2 dated 23/02/1977 and P-4 dated 15/07/1977, all small extents, he calculated at an average of Rs. 1,300. 00 per Biswa and awarded to the lands belonging to Jaswant Kaur, Baldev Singh and Gurdev Singh at the rate of Rs. 1,000. 00 per Biswa finding that their lands are abutting abadi (village) and for the rest awarded at the rate of Rs. 800. 00 per Biswa with statutory solatium at 15% and interest of 6% per annum on enhanced compensation. Dissatisfied therewith the State filed the appeals and against disallowed claims, the claimants in one batch filed appeals and in another batch filed cross-objections. The learned Single Judge relied on Ex. P-3 and P-5 filed by the claimants and Ex. R-4 and R-6 filed by the State as comparable instances and calculated the average which worked out at Rs. 750. 00 per Biswa. He found that the lands arepossessed of potential value for future building purposes. Therefore, he carved out belting at a depth of 100 ft. from the main road to those lands, deducted l/3rd towards developmental charges and awarded the market value at the rate of Rs. 750. 00 to the land situated abutting the main road to the depth of 100 ft. and for the balance lands at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 per Biswa. The State appeals were allowed and those of the claimants and cross-objections were dismissed. The division bench confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The claimants filed these appeals by special leave. In the first batch no witness has been examined, but in the second batch witnesses were said to have been examined in proof of these documents but their evidence was not made part of the record. Equally of the sale deeds.

(2.) It is seen that the documents in the second batch P-4 to P-10 include those filed in the first batch. Ex. P-5 is dated 4/09/1972, in which 20 Biswas of land was sold for Ice Factory. It was situated in the town itself. The price fetched therein was Rs. 20,000. 00. Therefore, it worked out at the rate of Rs. 1,000. 00 per Biswa. Ex. P-IO is dated 25/08/1975, 7 Biswas of land in Dhula village was sold for Rs. 75,000. 00 which works out at the rate of Rs. 1,071. 00 per Biswa. Ex. P-7 is dated 14/06/1976, 3 Bighas 16 Biswas of land situated at Dhula roadside was sold for Rs. 4,500. 00 which works out at the rate of Rs. 1,285. 00 per Biswa. Ex. P-8 dated 15/06/1977 is for 4 Biswas of land at Dhula road sold for Rs. 4,000. 00 which works out at Rs. 1,000. 00 per Biswa. Ex. P-4 is dated 23/02/1977, 3 Biswas of land in the heart of the town Dhuri was sold for Rs. 6,000. 00, which works out to Rs. 2,000. 00 per Biswa. Ex. P-6 is dated 18/05/1977, one Bigha 7 Biswas were sold for Rs. 1,000. 00 which works out to Rs. 370. 00 per Biswa. This land is away from the town and also from the acquired land. Ex. P-9 is dated 12/07/1977, 15 Biswas of land were sold for Rs. 24,000. 00 working out at the rate of Rs. 1,600. 00 per Biswa. Based thereon it was contended that Ex. P-9 fetches the highest market value and is nearer to the date of notification and would offer comparable price. The High court ought to have fixed market value rt that rate. The High court committed illegality in relying on two sale deeds of the claimants and two mutation entries on behalf of the State in working out the average. Therefore, fixation of the market value is illegal. The mutations are not admissible as neither sale deeds were filed nor anybody connected with them are examined.

(3.) The question, therefore, is whether these sale transactions would reflect the prevailing market value of the land of the total extent of 90 acres. It is seen that in the first batch no one was examined to prove the documents. In the second batch though witnesses were said to have been examined, the evidence is not on record. Neither the reference court nor the High court discussed the evidence and no finding was given. So we do not have the advantage of any findings in that behalf. The State filed 5mutation entries which were marked. The sale entries Ex. R-6 is of 4/10/1977 and Ex. R- 5/11/1977. The rates of lands in sale deeds executed between 7/03/197 7/11/1977, i. e. R 2/03/1977, R- 3/06/1977, R- 4/08/1977 and R- 5/11/1977 work out between Rs. 83. 00 to Rs. 450. 00 per Biswa. It is settled law that to determine the market value of the land under Section 23 (1 of the Act the sales of the land under requisition, if any, or the sales in the neighbourhood lands that possessed of same or similar potentialities or fertility or other advantageous features would furnish basis to determine just and fair market value on the premise of a hypothetical willing vendor and willing vendee. The willing vendor who would offer the land and willing vendee who would agree to purchase the land as a prudent man in normal market conditions as on the date of the notification or near about the date of the notification is the acid test. It is also settled law that the sale and purchase of lands at a throw away price at arm's length or depressed sales or facade of sales brought into existence in quick succession to inflate the market value would not offer any basis to determine just market value. In order to adjudge whether sales are bona fide sales between willing vendor and willing vendee and whether the consideration mentioned in the deed was, in fact and really passed on under transaction; whether the lands covered by sale deeds and relied on, possessed of same or similar potentialities or fertilities or advantageous features would be brought on record only by examining the vendor or the vendee or if neither of them is available, the attesting witness who has personal knowledge of the bargain and passing of the consideration are mandatory (Vide Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala wherein this court surveyed the entire case-law in that respect). Since none has been examined in the first batch the sale transactions referred to either by the State or by the claimants cannot be relied upon. In the second batch since the evidence has not been referred to by the courts below nor discussed by them nor we have the advantage to go through the same, we cannot rely on the same to further enhance the market value. Therefore, we are left with no option, but to reject those sale deeds. Moreover, except Ex. P-9 all other sale deeds are of very small extents. This court consistently has taken the view in Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta , Mirza Nausherwan Khan v. Collector (Land Acquisition) , Hyderabad ; Ram Rattan v. State of U. P. , Smt Kaushalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad ; Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab ; Administrator General of W. B. v. Collector, Varanasi ; and Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition v. A. Mangala Gowri that sale deeds of small extents being retail price do not offer comparable basis to fix compensation when large block of land is acquired. To an intending bona fide purchaser if such block of 90 acre is offered for sale, would he agree to purchase at retail price or far less value Under no circumstance he would agree to purchase at retail prices mentioned above. In view of the settled legal position the sale deeds, sought to be relied upon, do not give us any basis to determine the market value. Every endeavour would be made to fix fair and reasonable market value. If sale transactions relate to the lands under acquisition and if found to be genuine and bona fide transactions between willing vendor and vendee then it may be considered but reasonable margin must be given in fixing wholesale price. Therefore, all the documents except P-9 are rejected.