STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BALDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') challenges the order dated 29.4.1985 passed by the ld. Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra enhancing the compensation of the acquired land from Rs. 8,000/- for the nehri land and Rs. 7040/- for the barani land to and a flat rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre. Reliance has been placed by the Addl. District Judge on the post notification sale instances Ex.P.1 dated 20.6.1984 and Ex.P.2 dated 24.9.1984.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 18.3.1982 for acquiring 96 kanals 2 marlas of land for the purpose of extension of Kachhana Minor from RD No. 19527 to 28280. The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on 5.8.1983 awarding compensation @ Rs. 8000/- for the nehri land and @ Rs. 7040/- per acre for the barani land. Over 91 kanals of land was Nehri and 4 kanals 8 marlas of land was barani; Solatium @ 15 percent was also allowed. However, no interest was allowed as possession of the land was sought to be taken after offering compensation which infact was taken on 5.8.1983. The claimant-respondents sought reference under section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation alleging that market value of the land was Rs. 33,000/- per acre and also sought solatium and interest on the enhanced amount. The ld. Addl. District Judge while deciding the reference came to the conclusion that Exs. P.1 and P.2, copies of the sale deeds which are later in point of the time than the notification under Section 4 of the Act could be taken into consideration and proceeded to assess the market value by imposing a cut of 25 percent at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre. The views of the ld. Additional District Judge in this regard read as under :

(3.) SHRI S.S. Dalal, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents has placed reliance on a judgement of this Court rendered in R.F.A. No. 621 of 1983 (Fateh Chand and another v. State of Haryana and others, 2004(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 123) decided on 17.9.2003 and argued that there is nothing wrong in placing reliance on the post notification sale instances as long as the same are bona fide representing that willing purchaser has sold the land to a willing seller at the market value.