BACHINT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of mine would dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 185 to 188 of 1983 as they arose from a common award rendered by the District Judg Ropar on September 18, 1982. Land measuring 8.8 acres situated in village Moroli Kalan, tehsil and district Ropar adjoin ing to Morinda town, were acquired by issuance of a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated July 9, 1979. The purpose of the acquisition was the need of the land for augmentation of water supply project to Chandigarh. The award was rendered by the Collector on 28-3-80. The land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of 'Chahi','Gair mumkin', Tubewell and Chahi, at the rate of Rs. 18,200/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Court under the award which is subject matter of challenge before, this Court on reference under section 18 of the Act, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 25,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against this award of the District Judge, the claimants have preferred the appeals which are being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) The learned District Judge while determining the market-value of the acquired Chahi land at Rs. 25,000/- has placed reliance upon Exhibit P-6 a copy of the mutation. Before examining the legality and validity of the findings recorded by the District Judge, it is necessary to observe that the claimants produced mutations Exhibit P-1 to P-8. The counsel for the claimants filed an application for additional evidence for producing seven sale-deeds corresponding to all the mutations except Exhibit P-3. In that application notice was issued by this court on 15.10.1989 and it was ordered that the application would be decided along with the main appeal. Since it has been ruled by a full Bench of this court that mutations are inadmissible in evidence, and since in other judicial pronouncements sale-deeds were allowed to be' produced in First Appeals, I hereby allow the application for additional evidence: and axhibit the sale-deeds as Exhibits P-l/A, P-2/A, P-4/A to Exhibit P. 8/A These sales-deed which have been exhibited by me today correspond to. mutation Exhibits P-1, P-2, P-4 to P-8, respectively.

(3.) At the time of hearing of these appeals Mr. R.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the claimants has vehemently argued that the learned District Judge while placing reliance upon Exhibit P-6/A corresponding to mutation Exhibit P-6 has committed an error in holding that land forming part of saledeed Exhibit P. 6/A was better situated and that some discount was to be allowed for better situation of the land forming part of Exhibit P-6/A. It has further been argued that the acquired land of the claimants was better situated and in any case, both the acquired land and the land forming part of mutation Exhibit P-6/A had similar advantages as regards situation and therefore, sale-deed Exhibit P-61A deserves to be relied upon as a safe guide for determining the market value of the acquired land. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of evidence I had a look at the Aks Shajra of the village marked R/l. The acquired land is depicted in red colour. Abadi is shown in yellow colour. Adjacent to the Abadi of the village, there is National High way Chandigarh-Ludhidna Main road. Thereafter, the land forming part of Exhibit P6/A is, situated. The acquired land apparently is near the Abadi if not very close by. The land forming part of Exhibit P-61A is across the main Chandigarh-Ludhiana road, away from Abadi. If the land forming part of Exhibit P-6/A has got the advantages as regards situation, being located across the main Chandigarh-Ludhiana road, the acquired land had got the advantages near the Abadi of the village. The exact distance between Abadi of the village and the acquired land is not given. Similarly no distance between the main Chandigarh-Ludhiana road and the land forming part of Exhibit P-6. has been given. In the Aks Shajra the distance between Exhibit P-6 and acquired land has been stated as 730 Karams. This does not lead the Court an where. The perusal of Exhibit P-1 has. left an impression upon this Court that the distance between Exhibit P-6/A and the main road which is adjacent to Abadi and the distance between village Abadi and the acquired land is by and large all the same. The two witnesses who stepped into witnessbox, one behalf of the claimants and the other on, behalf of State, have not stated in their statements as to which land is better situated. Onthe se premises, if can safely be concluded by applying all guess work that both the lands are similarly situated. No other conclusion in my view is possible. Once this court has come to a definite conclusion that the situation of both the acquired land and the land forming part of Exhibit P-6 is having equal advantages, there is no difficulty in determining the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification. Exhibit P-6/A was executed and registered on 1010-1977 Whereas notification under section 4 of the Act in the instant case was issued on 9-7-1979 i.e. after a period of 21 months. The land was sold vide Exhibit P-6/A at the rate of Rs. 24,368/- per acre. After giving necessary increase of 12% per annum for the price rise as has been laid down in Inder Singh v. State of Punjab,1988 2 PunLR 190 the market value of the land acquired stands determined at Rs. 29,485/- can be rounded off at Rs. 29,500/-.