DAYA NAND, ADVOCATE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Haryana acquired 23 Acres, 3 Kanals and 8 Marlas of land situated in Village Kunjpura, Tehsil and District Karnal, for the development of a Mandi township. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on February 15, 1974 and was published on February 16, 1974 in the Official Gazette. The Land Acquisition Collector classified the land into three categories A, B and C. The compensation for category 'A' was assessed at Rs. 17,000/- per Acre, for category 'B' it was assessed at Rs. 8,000/- per Acre and for category 'C' it was assessed at Rs. 5,000/- per Acre. An application was made by the landowner to the Collector under section 18 of the Act, for higher compensation. The Collector referred the application to the Court for its determination. The learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, considered the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector to be adequate and, thus, did not interfere with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector. It is this judgment of the learned Additional District Judge which has been challenged by the appellant on the grounds, namely, (i) that the Additional District Judge has not correctly determined the market value of the land and has thus, awarded the compensation on a very lower side; (ii) that the sale comprised in Sale Deed, dated December 27, 1972 Exhibit A.2, vide which Krishan Lal (AW 2) purchased the land in the same Village Kunjpura at the rate of Rs. 11,200/- per Killa has been ignored simply on the ground that the sale transaction took place much prior to the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act; (iii) that the learned Additional District Judge has not taken into consideration the potentialities of the land for residential purposes while determining its market price; (iv) that the acquired land of the appellant adjoins the abadi of Village Kunjpura and also adjoins the Kunjpura-Meerut Road; and (v) that Sale Deeds Exhibits PW 6/1 and PW 6/2 dated August 10, 1971 executed by Daya Nand (PW 6) for two plots of land measuring 40' x 10' each for Rs. 300/each should also have not been ignored by the learned Additional District Judge, simply on the ground that they comprised a small area of land.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant has cited Anand Sarup v. State of Punjab, 1988 1 RRR 448 and Kanwarjit Singh v. Tribunal constituted under the Punjab Town Improvement Act,1989 1 RajdhaniLR 444 in defence of his plea the smaller plots cannot be ignored while determining the market value of the acquired land. In Anand Sarup's case it has been held that where no evidence of sale of larger pieces of land or of area comparable with the area of land acquired is available the sale transactions of smaller pieces of land can be taken into consideration and a reasonable cut is to be imposed on the consideration represented by them so as to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. The authority cited is not applicable to the facts of this case. In this case instance of sale transaction comprised in Exhibit A2 is available, though it pertains to the year 1972. In Kanwarjit Singh's case , it has been held that the Tribunal should not have discarded the sale transactions pertaining to the small pieces of lands ranging from one marla to ten marlas. This authority is also distinguishable on facts. In this, two sale transactions on which the appellant wanted the Court to rely for determination of its market value comprised of 40' x 10', which is too small an area.

(3.) After bearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that the learned Additional District Judge should not have ignored the sale instance comprised in Exhibit A2 simply on the ground that it related to the year 1972 and was much prior to the date of acquisition. This instance of sale can definitely be taken into consideration for determination of the market price of the land which was acquired vide Notification, dated February 15, 1974 under section 4 of the Act and published in the Official Gazette on February 16, 1974 as it gives a definite clue for determining the market price of the land in the year 1974. The learned Additional District Judge should have also taken into consideration the situation of the acquired land which adjoins the Kunjpura-Meerut Road. Potentialities of the land for residential purpose could also not be ignored by the Additional District Judge, simply by saying that the Collector had already taken the same into consideration at the time of determining of its market price by him. Thus, taking into consideration the overall circumstances including the sale transaction comprised in Exhibit A 2, the potentialities of the land for residential purposes and its situation, I enhance the compensation of category 'A' of the land from Rs. 17,000/- per Acre to Rs. 20,000/- per Acre. The appellant shall also be entitled to 15 per cent solatium and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum admissible under the Land Acquisition Act before its amendment in the year 1984, because the judgement of the learned Additional District Judge is dated January 3, 1979 and the award of the Collector was rendered prior to that. It may be noted that appellant has got only 'A' category of land in the acquired land.