MANGAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 12 cross appeals (Nos. 349 to 354 of 1982 filed by the land owner-claimants and 435 to 440 of 1982 filed by the State of Haryana) are directed against the same judgment of the Land Acquisition Court vide which the rate of compensation for an area measuring 3.09 acres of land acquired in pursuance of a notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) on January 25, 1977 for the construction of Dhurali minor was raised from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 8000/- per acre. This purports to have been done on the basis of sale deed Ex. A.1 vide which 7 Kanals 8 Marlas of land situated at a distance of about 2 killas from the suit land was sold on May 12, 1975 (wrongly recorded as December 22, 1975) for a sum of Rs. 10640/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 11500/- per acre.

(2.) The sole claim of the land owner-claimants now is that there was absolutely no justification with the lower Court for not allowing compensation to the appellants at least at the rate disclosed by this transition i.e. Rs. 11,500/- per acre. On the other hand, the claim of the appellant-State is that the lower Court should have relied upon Ex. R. 2 vide which 18 Marlas of land was sold on May 14, 1973 for Rs. 500/- i.e at the rate of Rs. 4444.44/- per acre. This transaction has been discarded by the lower Court for the reason that firstly the area covered by the same did not bear any comparison to the suit land in matters of location and secondly the transaction was too distant to indicate the market price on January 25, 1977. I wholly concur with this approach and conclusion of the lower Court.

(3.) The reason for not awarding compensation to the land owner-claimants at the rate disclosed by Ex. A.1 is that Lajja Singh A.W. 2 vedee of this transaction failed to produce evidence with regard to the payment of Rs. 2000/- as advance money. Firstly, I find that there are no suspicious circumstances to doubt the genuineness of this transaction or the veracity of the statement made by Lajja Singh and secondly, even if for arguments sake, the advance money (Rs. 2000/-) has to be excluded from the ostensible sale consideration of Rs. 10640/- still the claimants are entitled to compensation at a higher rate. If the sale price of 7 kanals 8 Marlas of land on May, 12, 1975, i.e. about two years prior to the publication of the recent notification under Section 4 of the Act was Rs. 8640/- then obviously the claimants are entitled to an increase on the said rate on the basis of the general upward trends of the price of the land, particularly near about bigger towns such as Ambala City. It is the admitted case that the land lies within a distance of 6-7 miles from this town and is just close to the village Abadi.