(1.) This judgment of mine would dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 670 to 672 of 1981 filed by the appellant-landowners and R.F.A. Nos. 1126 to 1129 of 1981 preferred by the State of Haryana as they arise out of the common Award of the learned Additional District Judge dated January 5, 1981.
(2.) Land measuring 297 Kanals 4 Marlas was acquired by the State of Haryana by virtue of issuance of a notification dated February 25, 1977 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). The land is situated in village Kutail in Karnal and it has been acquired for the Haryana Armed Police Complex, Madhuban. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 13,200/- per acre for Nehri land and Rs. 5440/- per acre for Banjar Jadid and Banjar Kadim Thur land. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 24000/- per acre irrespective of the nature of the land. For arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Additional District Judge took into consideration the sale deed Exhibit P.9 by which land measuring 1 Kanal 13 Marlas was sold for a sum of Rs. 7500/- bringing out the average market value at Rs. 36,320/- per acre. The learned Additional District Judge after evaluating the land at the aforesaid rate applied a cut of 1/3rd because the acquired land measures 297 Kanals 4 Marlas.
(3.) During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the claimants have filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for producing additional evidence by which notification dated 19.2.1973 is sought to be brought on the record of the case by way of additional evidence. By this notification the land was declared to be a controlled area within the meaning and ambit of Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. In the application it has been stated that the claimants did plead in reply to notice under Section 9 of the Act that the acquired land was declared to be a controlled area under the provisions of Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act but inadvertantly this matter could not be proved before the learned Additional District Judge. It was further stated that all these facts are patent and proved from the notification issued in this behalf, which has been attached with the application as Annexure P.1. The plan which came into being in pursuance of the notification is also annexed as annexure P.2. Both these documents are ordered to be exhibited by me as Annexures P.1/A and P.2/A. On a perusal of the plan it has become clear that upto Khakrali the land was been declared to be an unbuilt and controlled area within the meaning of the Act. Village Khakrali is situated farther away from the acquired land. This plan, as has been pleaded, can come into being in pursuance of the notification and, therefore, I do not doubt its genuiness. In view thereof, I do not think it necessary that the petitioner be put to stricter proof regarding the location of the acquired land particularly when the counsel for the claimants filed yet another application supported by an affidavit and complete plan, after the cases were ordered to be fixed for rehearing, making it more clear that the acquired land falls within the land which was notified to be a controlled area. Notice of the Civil Misc. application No. 1054-CI of 1989 in R.F.A. No. 670 of 1981 was given to the Advocate General, Haryana for May 23, 1989 and he was required to file a reply on June 1, 1989. No reply was filed to the aforesaid Civil Misc. application. In this Civil Misc. application supported by an affidavit it has been clearly stated that the subject matter of acquisition comes within the boundary described in the notification dated 19.2.1973 and as such the same is a part and parcel of the controlled area so declared by the same notification. The averment made in the affidavit attached with the aforesaid application is supported by a plan filed along with the aforesaid application. In view thereof, no doubt is left in my mind that the acquired land is an unbuilt area and comes within the mischief of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Area Restriction of Unregulated Development Act. Once these facts are proved, the ratio of law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Khushi Ram and another v. State of Haryana, L.P.A. No. 747 of 1985 decided on May 19, 1988, comes into play according to which no deduction has to be made in the market price even if the acquisition is of a larger area and the sale instance sought to be relied upon by the claimants pertains to the smaller area. In view thereof, there is merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the claimants that the sale instance Exhibit P. 9 should be relied upon in its entirety. Consequently, the market value of the acquired land would be adjudged at Rs. 36420/-. Since the sale deed Exhibit P. 9 was executed and registered on 19.4.1976, the necessary enhancement in the amount of compensation by giving a premium of 10 per cent has to be given to the claimants to which they are definitely entitled to in view of the law laid down by this Court in Inder Singh v. State of Punjab,1988 94 PunLR 190. And by adding a premium of 10 per cent the market value of the acquired land on the date of the notification stands adjudged at Rs. 39864/- which can be rounded off to Rs. 40,000/- per acre.