SHIV RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Judgment of mine would dispose of regular first appeals No. 1871 of 1987 to 1880 of 1987 and 1710 of 1987 as they arise out of common award of the Additional Distt. Judge dated 30. 1. 1987. The State of Haryana by issuance of a notification dated 11. 5. 1981 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') sought to acquire land measuring 1872 Kanals 8 marlas equivalent to 243 acres 8 marlas, situated in village Ramgarh Sawai, district Ambala, for a public purpose, namely, 'social aforestation project etc. for forest department. ' The Land Acquisition Collector by his award dated 6. 3. 1986 determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per acre. While maintaining the award of Rs. 3,000/ per acre, the Additional Distt Judge on reference under Section 18 of the Act, determined the market value of about 200 acres of land at Rs. 3,500/-per acre. This land comprised of that area which was Gair Mumkin Jangal. Gair Mumkin Jangal land is that land where trees etc are grown.

(2.) BEFORE the Additional Distt. Judge, the claimants relied upon following registered sale deeds : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------S. Exhibit Area Sale con- Date of Village to Average price No. sideration sale which it per acre calrelates culated by the cl for claimants 1. Ex. A. 5 18,000/- 5. 11. 80 Alisherpur 19,444/7k-8m Majra 2. Ex. A. 6 3k 6,000/- 3. 11. 78 Alisherpur 16,000/majra 3 Ex A 78k 14. 000/- 7 10 74 Chhalaur 14,000/4 Ex. A. 8 6,000/- 28 6. 79 -do- 18,720/ 2k-IIM Apart from the above mentioned registered sale deeds, the claimants also placed reliance upon an award Exhibit A-13. It relates to the acquisition of an area measuring 12 kanals 12 Marlas, though wrongly noticed in paragraph 14 of the award under challenge as measuring 0. 72 acres. The Additional Distt. Judge has discarded the sale transactions on the ground that the sale deeds pertain to the land in different villages. The kind of land was not revealed from the sale deeds and since the kind of land covered by the sale instances was not known they were not held to be proper guide for determination of correct compensation of the acquired land which was either Gair Munakin Choe or Gair Mumkin Jangal As regards Exhibit A. 13, the award given for the acquisition of 12 Kanals 12 Marlas of land, it was not related upon by the Additional Distt. Judge on the ground that the area acquired and which was evaluated vide Exhibit A-13 was either Nehri or Barrani whereas the area acquired in the present case was Gair Mumkin Jangal and Gair Mumkin Choe. It was further observed that the perusal of the award Exhibit A-13 clearly pointed out that the Distt Collector, Ambala, in the previous award recommended the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per acre for Gair Mutt kin land and this is the precise rate which has been adopted by the Collector in the present case.

(3.) THE unquenched claimants have preferred the present appeals for claiming enhanced compensation. Mr. M. L. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellants, has at the outset argued that the sale deeds Exhibits A-5, A-6, A 7 and A-8 should have been relied upon for determining the market value of the acquired land as there are no other sale instances brought on the record of the case. It has further been argued that by virtue of sale instance Exhibits A-5 to A-8. 7 Kanals 8 Marlas, 3 Kanals, 8 Marlas and 2 Kanals 1 Marias respectively were sold and, therefore, the sale deeds deserved credence. Having given thoughtful consideration to the argument, the same deserves to be replied It has not been brought in the evidence on the record as to what was the distance of the villages which pertain to sale deeds, Exhibits A 5 to A-8 and the acquired land. These Instances of sale relate to land in different villages, the distance of which has not been proved. Moreover, the kind of land in the sale instances was not given and, therefore the acquired land cannot be said to be comparable vis-a-vis the land forming part of sale deeds, Exhibits A-5 to A-8 Faced with this situation, the learned counsel has banked upon the Award of the Collector, Exhibit A-13. As has been observed above, Award Exhibit A-13 was not relied upon by the Additional Distt. Judge and cannot be held by this Court as correct safeguard f or determining the market value of the acquired land as vide Exhibit A-13, only Chahi and Barani lands were evaluated whereas the land in the present case is either Gair Mumkin Choe or Gair Mumkin Jungle. In view thereof the land forming part of valuation, vide Exhibit A-13 cannot be said to be comparable vis-a-vis the acquired land. Moreover, the location of the acquired land vis-a-vis the land forming part of Exhibit A 13 is also not comparable. In this view of the matter ; neither sale instances, Exhibits A-5 to A-8 can be held to be safeguard nor Exhibits A-13 can be held to be relevant for determining the market value of the acquired land and, therefore, Exhibits A-5 to A-8 and A-13 deserves to be discarded.