MALKHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the award of the District Judge, Faridabad, dated 18.3.1985 by which the learned District Judge upheld the award of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 25.9.1981 and maintained the compensation at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per acre awarded to the claimants.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that in pursuance of notification dated 25.7.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the State of Haryana intended to acquire land of the claimants for planned development at village Hathin. A Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also issued immediately after the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector by his award dated 25.9.1981 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per acre. The appellants feeling dissatisfied with the award of the compensation filed references under Section 18 of the Act before the District Judge, Faridabad, in which they claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per square yard for their acquired land. However, the District Judge, Faridabad, vide his judgment dated 18.3.1985 upheld the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector and maintained the compensation at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per acre. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) THE averments of Shri Hooda have been controverted by the counsel appearing for the State. Surprisingly, the State has led absolutely no evidence at all, to show as to what was the price of the acquired land on the date of its acquisition. It has, however, been argued that Exs. P2 and P3 relate to sale of land which took place on 7.1.1983 and 28.10.1980 respectively i.e. after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It has also been argued that these sale transactions cannot be relied upon for determining the market value of the land. It has further been argued by the State counsel that as far as Ex.P1 is concerned it relates to a very small piece of land i.e. 2 marlas only and, thus, this piece of evidence would also not be relevant for determining the actual market value of the land acquired.