KULBHUSHAN JAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against the award of the Learned Reference Court dated 6.5.1982 whereby a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per acre was determined as market value of the acquired land.

(2.) THE land measuring 4.55 acres, situated in Village Tosham Tehsil and District Bhiwani, was acquired for public purposes i.e. for the construction of PWD stores, vide notification under Section 4 of the Act, published in the Haryana Government Gazette dated 15.1.1976. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 29.6.1976. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide award dated 9.3.1979 allowed the compensation for the acquired land @ Rs. 3200/- per acre for the Tal i.e. Tibba type of land and @ Rs. 2720/- per acre for the Gair Mumkin land.

(3.) BEFORE the learned Reference Court, apart from the oral evidence, the appellants have relied upon the mutation, Exhibit P-2, sanctioned on 5.6.1976, in respect of the land measuring 5 kanals 15 marlas, purchased by the Haryana Government for Rs. 13,750/-. The appellants also relied upon the sale deed, Exhibit P-3, whereby the land measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas was sold for Rs. 13,000/- in the month of March, 1968. PW-2 Tara Chand has deposed that the adjoining land to the land comprised in Exhibit P-3, was acquired for construction of P.W.D. Rest House in the year 1974 and compensation was allowed @ Rs. 11,200/- per acre including solatium. From a perusal of the copy of award, Exhibit R W 6/A, it was found that the land was acquired for construction of P.W.D. (B&R) godown @ Rs. 9,000/- per acre. The Court found that Exhibit P-3 is the transaction of a small area which cannot be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the large tract of the land. It was further found that there is no evidence that the nature of the land, as sold by means of sale deed, Exhibit P-3, was the same as of the acquired land. Similarly, it was found that there is also no evidence that the nature and quality of land, as mentioned in mutation Exhibit P-2, is the same that of the acquired land. Thus, the Court found that the best evidence to award the compensation in respect of the acquired land, is the land acquired for PWD Rest House @ Rs. 9000/- per acre and by giving the benefit of rising trend in the prices, determined @ Rs. 10,000/- per acre as market value of the acquired land. Before proceeding further on the merits of the contention raised, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon Civil Misc. No. 6200-CI of 2003 for permission to adduce additional evidence i.e. to produce on record the Aks Sajra. In reply, it is pointed out that, no doubt, this document is a revenue document and has been issued by the Halqa Patwari, but the appellants ought to have produced the said document at the time of trial of the case before the Reference Court, therefore, now the appellants cannot be permitted to lead such document in evidence.