MANOHAR LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are disposed of by a common judgment to the extent of 26 acres 6 kanals and 7 marlas of the land situated in Nawan Shahar and karyam Villages of District Jullundur were notified under Section 4 (1 on 18/4/196969 for public purpose for construction of a grain market. The Land acquisition Collector in his award dated 22/1/1977 determined the compensation at Rs. 220. 00 per maria to the plain lands and Rs. 50. 00 per maria to the land covered with pits. Dissatisfied thereof the appellants sought reference claiming for Rs. 9,000. 00 per maria. The Additional District Judge in his award enhanced the market value of Rs. 600. 00 per maria to the plain lands and confirmed the award of the Acquisition Officer of Rs. 50. 00 for the lands covered with pits. On appeal by the State the division bench in its judgment dated 8/9/1979 in rfa No. 527/1975 held that the sale deeds (Exhibits P-l and P-2 were brought-up documents to boost up the market value and they cannot be relied upon. It held. that in the absence of any other reliable and acceptable evidence the offer made by the Collector in his award is just and reasonable. While concluding the High court relied upon the second award made by the Collector on 26/12/1974 in which the Collector made further division of the plain lands into high level lands and low level lands awarding compensation of Rs. 220. 00 and rs 120. 00 per maria respectively while retaining the market value to the lands covered with pits at Rs. 50. 00. Thus these appeals by special leave.

(2.) Shri K Madhava Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, raised two contentions. It is contended firstly that Exhibits P-l and p-2 dated 20/4/1968 and 23/7/1968 respectively sold by the vendor, Bimla from the same land under acquisition of Rs. 600. 00 per maria which worked out rs 600. 00 per maria. The documents having been marked by consent, the High court is not justified in coming to the conclusion that Exhibits P-l and P-2 were brought-up documents to boost up the claim for higher compensation. It is also contended that the Land Acquisition Collector having determined the compensation to the lands treating them as plain land and offered Rs. 220. 00 per maria the High court has illegally reduced the market value from Rs. 220. 00 to rs 120. 00 to the low level lands.

(3.) With regard to the first contention we find that there is no force. The courts could draw from the common experience, while considering the nature of the documents, the circumstances in which the documents came to be brought into existence and whether they are true and bona fide transaction or otherwise to boost up the claim for higher compensation. It is not in dispute that the sale deeds and Exhibits P-l and P-2 are from the same land. But the question is whether the transactions are genuine transactions between willing vendor and willing vendee though consideration had been paid before Registrars. It is true that the documents were marked by consent. That does not mean that the proof of passing of the consideration and genuineness of the transactions have been dispensed with or admitted. Once a claim has been made on reference under section 18 the burden is on the claimant to prove the prevailing market value ofthe lands by adducing acceptable evidence. The court has to consider the evidence on the touch of human conduct of prudent person acting in business- like manner or human probability and the evidence on record whether vendee would agree to purchase the lands in similar circumstances. Therefore, it is for the claimants to adduce reliable and acceptable evidence. It is seen that though the lands are situated within the municipal limit, there are no developmental activities in the same land under acquisition or in the neighbouring area. Therefore, when sale transactions of small extent of 5 marlas each have been executed in favour of some persons would it be probable and reasonable to believe that small bits of lands for building purpose would be purchased from the large tracts of agricultural land Obviously the answer is no unless there is any evidence of developmental activities in and around the area, in the absence of such an evidence the necessary conclusion is that the claimants had knowledge of a proposed requisition and appears to have brought these documents by setting up two spurious persons as vendee and had the documents registered paying the consideration before the Registrar. Under those circumstances the High court is well justified in coming to the conclusion that these two documents were brought-up documents to inflate the market value. There is no other evidence acceptable to the court to enhance the market value. Under those circumstances the High court is well justified in coming to the conclusion that the offer made by the Collector in his award of Rs. 220. 00 and rs 50. 00 per maria for plain and lands with pits is the only value which should be confirmed. Section 25 of the Act provides that the amount of compensation awarded by the court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. It is seen that the Collector classified the land as the plain land and the lands covered with pits. For the entire plain lands he awarded of Rs. 220. 00 per maria and to the lands covered by pits Rs. 50. 00 per maria. It is also further not in dispute that in the subsequent award the Collector classified the plain lands into high level land and low level land and awarded of Rs. 220. 00 and Rs. 120. 00 respectively. It does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the High court that the lands in question are covered by the first award and that, therefore, the High court should not reduce the amount, awarded by the collector under Section 11. Obviously due to this mistake the High court had interfered with and determined the market value to the low level lands Rs 120. 00 per marla. In view of the mandate of Section 25 of the Act, the court has no jurisdiction to reduce the amount less than the amount offered by the collector in his award under Section 11. Therefore, the appeals are only allowed to the extent of reducing the market value of the plain lands from Rs. 220. 00 per maria to Rs. 120. 00 per maria. The appeals are accordingly allowed to the extent and the appellants are entitled to the solatium of 15 per cent and interest of 6 per cent on the enhanced market value from the date of taking possession till date of payment of amount. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.