ANAND SARUP Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of C.W.Ps Nos 1962 and 2148 of 1985 filed by the land owners, and 2895 and 2896 of 1985 filed by the Improvement Trust, Sangrur. All these Writ petitions are directed against the award dated 24.12.1984 made by the President, Tribunal, Improvement Trust, Sangrur (for short, the Tribunal'). While the former petitions have been filed by the land owners. The latter have been instituted by the Sangrur Improvement Trust, Sangrur (for short 'the Trust').

(2.) Land measuring 9.81 acres outside Patiala gate within the municipal limits of Sangrur was acquired for implementation of development scheme known as "Commercial-cum-Residential Scheme" which was published on 28.1.1978 by a notice under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for short 'the Act'). The Collector made his award dated 10.9.1979 determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 53,000/- per acre. The land owners being not satisfied with the same applied for references to the Tribunal under Sections 54 of the Act, which have been decided by the learned Tribunal through the impugned award Annexure P.2. It has determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 96,000/- per acre. The land-owners as well as the Trust are aggrieved against the market value so determined and that is why they have filed the present writ petitions.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the land owners is that mutations of sale Exs. R.2, R.3, R.4 and R.7 adduced in evidenced the trust were inadmissible as they do not constitute evidence of sale consideration paid in respect of the sales which are represented by these mutations. In support of this submission, he relies on The State of Punjab v. Pohu and another, 1985 PunLJ 583. It has been authoritatively held therein by Full Bench of this Court that mutation of a sale is neither primary nor secondary evidence of terms conditions of sale. It is, therefore, not admissible apart from the factum of sale to prove any of the terms and conditions of the contract including the sale consideration. This consitention of the learned counsel for the landowners is unassailable and could not be resisted by the learned counsel for the Trust. I, therefore, hold that these mutations being inadmissible in evidence, the learned Tribunal fell in error in taking the same into consideration for determining the market value of the acquired land.