STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAM DIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of mine would dispose of R.F.A. No. 230 and 231 of 1980 and Cross-objections No. 92-CI of 1990 in F.R.A. No. 230 of 1980 as they arise out of the common Award of the Additional District Judge, Sonepat.

(2.) The Haryana Government in pursuance of a notification dated 13/14.8.1973 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') acquired 15.5. acres of land instituted in village Murthal, Tehsil and District Sonepat for the construction of Water Works. The acquired land included the land of the claimant - respondents in these two cases. The Land Acquisition Collector by his Award dated 10.1.1975 granted compensation to the landowners at the rate of Rs. 6400/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Additional District judge assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 7/- per square yard. The State has filed appeals for reduction in the amount of compensation whereas in one appeal the claimants have filed Cross-objections for enhancement.

(3.) In the first instance, this Court proposes to deal with the appeals filed by the State. The State apart from bringing on record Akash Shajra Exh. Rule 1. Produced four transactions of sale Exhibits R.2 and R.5 but did not produce any sale deed. Only mutations were produced which have been held to be inadmissible in evidence in State of Punjab v. Rohu & another,1986 89 PunLR 109. The Additional District Judge has also given cogent and convincing reasoning while rejecting transactions of sale. it has been held that in Exh. R.1 Akash Shajra there was a reference to mutation Exh. Rule 3 only and that no other mutation was shown in the Akash Shajra. It has rightly been found that in the absence of the requisite data as to where the lands were situated and what was their condition at the time of their disposal, it was not possible for the Court to utilise the mutations for fixing up the market price of the acquired land. The land covered by mutation Exh. Rule 3 was owned by Shamilat Thola Chamal and not by any particular individual. The land was in possession of the vendee Radhya Sham as a lessee and, therefore, the same was sold at a throw away price. The Land Acqusition Court was, therefore, right in not placing reliance upon Exh. R.3. Consequenlty, there is no force in the State appeals which are ordered to be dismissed.