THE STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of R.F.As. Nos. 229 to 238 and 254 to 259 of 1970, filed on behalf of the State of Haryana challenging the decision of the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, dated May 25, 1970 on a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be called the Act), as all the appeals arise out of the same judgment.

(2.) THE brief facts, having a bearing on the decision of these appeals may be enumerated. Land measuring 138 acres situated in village Ballabgarh was acquired by the State of Haryana through a notification dated September 8, 1965, under section 4 of the Act. The purpose of acquisition of land was the planned development in the area of sector 25 in Ballabgarh -Faridabad controlled area Notification under section 6 of the Act was published on December 26, 1967. I hereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector, proceeded with the determination of compensation treating the land us agricultural land. The entire land under acquisition was divided into six categories keeping. In view the quality of the land for the purpose of agriculture. According to the landowners, the acquired land had a great building potential. Hence the Award of the Collector was challenged and applications were made under section 18 of the Act which are referred to the District Judge it has been held is the impugned judgment by the learned Additional District Judge that Faridabad -Ballabgarh controlled area was a highly industrially developed area in the northern India and the acquired land was also intended to be utilised for the purpose of Industrial Development Relying on the ratio of the decision in Vyricherla Narayana Gojapatirafu v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam, A.I.R. 1930 P.C. 98 and Raghudans Narain Singh v. The Uttar Pradesh Government, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 467, the entire land was rightly held to be a potential building site and the market alue was, therefore, assessed and determined as such Factually, the conclusion was reached that the land under acquisition is situated adjacent to the Ballabgarh Railway Station and that two roads, namely, Ballabgarh -Sohana road and Gaunchhi road also passed through the same. Notice was also taken of the undisputed facta that according to the sale deed, Exhibit P. 2, executed on December 2, 1961, the land had been sold to M/s A.K. Wire Products for a consideration which worked out to about Rs. 200/ - par marla. According to same other sale transactions, with regard to which mutations, Exhibits P. 4, P. 6 and P. 7 had been entered in February, 1962, the lands near the Ballabgarh Railway Station had been sold at the rate of Rs. 160/ -, 196/ - and 192/ - per marla, respectively. In these land transfers and execution of sale deeds, the purchasers had also borne the expenditure regarding the affixation of stamp duty and registration charges. The impugned notification having been issued four years after, the potential value of the adjoining land had obviously increased. Keeping all these factors and circumstances into view, the land from the point of view of its potentiality for industrial purposes was valued in three categories. The market value of the land which abutted on two roads and was situated just adjacent to the Railway Station was valued at Rs. 230/ - per marla. The other category of land was one which had the benefit of being adjacent to one road and the same was assessed at Rs. 200/ - per marla. The remaining land which did not enjoy the benefit of being served by any road and had thus a different potential value for industrial purpose till the communication through construction of road was opened, was evaluated at Rs. 120/ - per marla. A close perusal of the impugned judgment leaves no manner of doubt that the land acquired by the aforesaid notification had clearly a potential for the purpose of industrial development as a number of industries had come into existence in other sectors of Faridabad The existence of the railway station and two roads adjacent to these lands went a long way in increasing its value for industrial purposes. Thus, the learned Additional District Judge had no alternative but to assess the land keeping this potentiality in view. In view of the sale transactions having taken place four years prior to the notification, in hand, the valuation of the land was determined quite reasonably and in the best interests of the parties concerned. This conclusion was challenged by Mr. Mohunta, the learned Advocate -General, Haryana, only on one ground that the judgment of the District Judge, a copy of which is R. 24, had not been taken into consideration while determining the market value. This is a judgment by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, in which the market value of the land situated in village Ballabgarh acquired on August 10, 1965, was determined holding it as agricultural, its perusal does not show that the land referred to therein, was situated near the Ballabgarh Railway Station and was served by any road whatsoever. In any case, no demand appears to have been made by the right holders concerned therein that the land ought to have been valuated as having building or industrial development potential. The judgment, therefore, is of no avail for the purpose of leading any support to the contention of the learned counsel. As this judgment had no bearing on the issue Involved in the present case, the same was rightly not relied upon by the State before the learned Additional District Judge In my considered opinion, the compensation for the land has been rightly assessed and the conclusions reached by the Additional District Judge do not warrant any modification.

(3.) I agree.