BINKAL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 1850 of 1988 to 1862 of 1988, 1941 of 1988 and 1942 of 1988 as they arise out of a common award given by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, dated 27.7.1988. The land situated in Village Ahmedpur, Tehsil and District Sirsa measuring 71 acres, 4 kanals and 7 marlas was sought to the acquired by issuance of a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 9.5.1986 and published in Haryana Government Gazette dated 15.7.1986, for construction of 8 additional blast plans in Air Force Station, Sirsa. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 42080/- per acre for Nehri, Chahi and gair mumkin land. All the references under section 18 of the Act have been dismissed by the Additional District Judge by his award which has been subjected to challenge by land owners before this Court. During the references under section 18 of the Act, the claimants produced as many as 3 sale deeds exhibits P-1 to P-3 and are award in support of their claim for compensation between Rs. 3 lacs and Rs. 5 lacs per acre whereas the State of Haryana produced 7 sale deeds in order to prove that the market value of the acquired land according to the sale deeds was much below the amount awarded by the Collector. Besides, other documentary evidence in the shape of site plan and Aksh Shajra etc. was produced in addition to oral evidence.

(2.) After analysing the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, the Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land fixed by the Collector was correct. It has been found by the Additional District Judge that the sale deeds exhibits P-1, P-2 and P-3 were not relevant as they pertained to the sales of small pieces of land and the acquired land is situated at a distance of 4000 to 5000 feetstat and that the land forming part of these sale deeds is between 4000 and 5000 feet from boundary of the Air Force Station whereas the land acquired is adjoining the boundary of existing Air Force areas. The lands vide exhibit P-1 to P-3 according to Additional District Judge were purchased by the Vandees for the purposes other than agricultural purposes. As regards sale deeds produced by the State of Haryana, the learned Additional District Judge while dealing with each sale deed has tried to make someone or the other comparable but ultimately did not rely upon the sale price fetched by either a single sale deed or by the sale deeds collectively. In the ultimate decision, the Additional District Judge has relied upon the award of the Collector who in turn considered 10 sale deeds executed between 7.2.1986 and 16.10.1986.

(3.) Mr. P.C. Mehta, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the claimants has vehemently argued that the sale deeds exhibit P-1 to P-3 are relevant for determining the market value of the acquired land and that in any case an award P-6 should have been relied upon by the Additional District6 Judge for determining the market value of the acquired land. It has further been argued by the learned counsel that the sale deeds produced by the State could not be a safe guide for determination of the market value of the acquired land. The learned counsel has argued that his clients lost possession of the disputed land in view of the emergency provisions having been in evoked on 15.11.1986 and, therefore, they were entitled to the grant of interest from the date of their dispossession and not from the date of pronouncement of the award. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has argued that sale deeds produced by the State pertained to the sale of lands in the vicinity of the acquired land. Not only that in the sale deeds produced by the State, sizable pieces of land were sold and, therefore, the sale deeds are comparable vis-a-vis acquired land.