GOPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order, I propose to dispose of 4 connected Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 1844, 1944, 1945 and 1948 of 1988. Whereas, Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 1844, 1944 and 1945 of 1988 have been filed by the claimants, Regular First Appeal bearing No. 1948 of 1988 has been filed by the State. Since all these appeals have been filed against the common impugned judgment dated 19.8.1988 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, all these matters need to be decided by one order. Learned counsel representing the parties also suggest likewise. The bare minimum facts need a necessary mention have, however, been extracted from RFA No. 1944 of 1988.

(2.) THE only question which needs to be determined in the present case is what should be the market value of the land on 20.2.1986 when notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came into being. In the context of limited question for determination all that is required to be mentioned is that the Government issued notification under Section 4 of the Act on 20.2.1986 so as to acquire 6.69 acres of land for public purpose, namely, construction of Public Health Works of Chhotu Ram State College of Engineering at Murthal. Follow up declaration under Section 6 of the Act came into being on 26.2.1986. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 7.4.1986 assessed the market value of Chahi land at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre whereas, market value of Banjar Qadim land was assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per acre. On reference made by the claimants under Section 18 of the Act, learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 19.8.1988 assessed market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per acre. Before the Court might evaluate and give finding on the respective contentions raised by learned counsel representing the parties, it would be appropriate to mention that Chhotu Ram State College of Engineering had already come into existence adjacent to the acquired land. Learned Additional District Judge held that "when the land regardless of its kind was proved to have got potential for being used for commercial, residential and industrial purposes, then its kind had become irrelevant." Learned Additional District Judge basically relied upon Ex. P-8, a sale instance of 27.6.1985 vide which, land measuring 32 kanals 13 marlas was sold for an amount of Rs. 1,44,125/-. Learned Additional District Judge has stated that the land in the said sale instance was at a distance of 6 killas from G.T. Road and that he considered this sale instance a relevant piece of evidence for determining the market value of the land, subject-matter of acquisition. After hearing learned counsel representing the parties and examining the records of the case, it has to be held that learned Additional District Judge was incorrect in returning both the findings, as mentioned above. Sale instance, Ex. P-5, represents land measuring 32 kanals 13 marlas sold for a total consideration of Rs. 5,30,625/- and in terms of rate per acre, it would come to Rs. 1,30,014/- per acre. It was thus, not a sale for an amount of Rs. 1,44,125/-. Mr. Rana, learned counsel representing the claimant, in his all fairness, states that whereas at one place, distance of land of sale instance, Ex. P-8, has been mentioned to be 6 killas, at another place, it is mentioned as 1 killa and he further states that the distance mentioned at later point with regard to location of the land being 1 killa from the G.T. Road is correct. He, however, vehemently argues that there is no question to ignore sale instance, Ex. P-4 dated 28.6.1985 vide which, land measuring 7 kanals 8 marlas was sold for Rs. 1,25,000/-, which when converted into rate per acre, would work out at Rs. 1,35,134/- per acre. It is this price, learned counsel contends, which represents the correct market value of the land, subject-matter of acquisition.

(3.) ONCE , sale instance, Ex. P-4, of 26.8.1985 in close proximity of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in the present case is held to provide best guidance for determining the market value of the land, a question arises as to whether there should be a cut imposed upon the value of sale instance, Ex. P-4, in view of the fact that the same constituted a small piece of land whereas the land, subject-matter of acquisition, is a big chunk.