RAM NARAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT serial number 1017-B of the regular list of the Court there are 9 regular first appeals preferred by the State and 9 appeals preferred by the claimants, arising from the same award dated 11.3.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which he enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants to Rs. 2,70,000/- per acre than that of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The lead case in all these appeal is that of Ram Narain v. State of Haryana and another, RFA No. 1645 of 1995 and State of Haryana and another v. Ram Narain, RFA No. 1677 of 1995.

(2.) THE Government of State of Haryana issued P-2 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act, acquiring 137.05 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Patti Kaisth Seth, Had Bast No. 24, Tehsil and District Kaithal, for utilisation of the land for development of residential commercial and institutional area for Sector 20, Kaithal. As already noticed, the Land Acquisition Collector vide his award No. 16 dated 26.2.1992 awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre, which upon reference under Section 18 of the Act was enhanced to Rs. 2,70,000/- per acre. According to the claimants, on the basis of the evidence on record, they are entitled to further enhancement while on the other hand, the State prays for reduction of the amount of compensation.

(3.) THE basic question that falls for consideration in this case is whether the sale deeds produced by either party to the proceedings are admissible in evidence or not. So far as the sale deeds produced by the respondents are concerned, it is clear from the record that they were merely tendered in evidence and as such in accordance with the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2600 : JT 1997(5) SC 362 and Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2625, these sale instances cannot be taken into consideration as they are inadmissible and there is hardly any dispute in this regard even raised by the State. However, out of the various sale-deeds produced by the claimants it is an admitted case that vendee or vendor were not examined of any of the sale-deed. However, the learned senior counsel appearing for the claimants has contended that in most of the sale deeds and to the particular reference to Ex. P. 16 the entire sale consideration was proved by the very endorsement made on the sale deed by the Registrar. In other words, the passing of the consideration stands proved by endorsement and as such the sale-deed should be held to the admissible. The learned counsel in this regard referred to Section 51-A of the Act and Sections 58, 59 and 60(2) of the Indian Registration Act in support of his contention. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court afore-noticed I am unable to see any substance in the merit of the contention raised on behalf of the claimants. Even if there is some merit in this case, the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of Division Bench of this court are binding upon the Court and as such I would not like to discuss this contention in any great detail. As far as this Court is concerned, the question is no more res-integra.