DHANBATI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuance of a notification issued on 27-6-1972 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), 35 acres, 2 kanals, 11 marlas of land was acquired by the State of Haryana. The land is situated in Sunari Kalan tehsil and district Rohtak. To give the exact location of the land, it is situated in between Railway line on the Rohtak Jhajjar Road. The Land Acquisition Collector, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 11,000/- per acre. The reference under section 18 of the Act was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The claimants have filed the present Regular First Appeals No. 270 to 274, 391 and 392 of 1982, which are being disposed of together as all the appeals were disposed of by a common award. The claimants produced the photo-stat copies of sale deeds Exs. P.1. P. 2 and P. 3. Exhibit P. I was executed and registered on 5.12.74, Exhibit P 2 is dated 25-11-75 and Exhibit P. 3 is dated 19-9-1975. By virtue of Exhibit P. 1, a plot measuring 500 square yards has been sold bringing out the average price per squire yard at Rs. 11/-. By Exhibit P. 2, 160 square yards was sold bringing out the price at Rs. 9 40 per square yard. By virtue of Exhibit P. 3, 158 square yards was sold at Rs. 11/- per square yard. All these sale deeds have rightly fifty been rejected by the Additional District Judge. Apart from the fact that these sale deeds are post dated notifications, the sales cannot be said to be comparable as they pertained to small sizes of Plots. In view thereof, no benefit can possibly be derived by the claimants from the sales instances produced by them.

(2.) The order to hold that the Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the acquired land correctly, the Additional District Judge drew support from the sales instances evidenced by the mutation Exhibits R. 2 to R. 4 The mutations have been held to be inadmissible by this Court in a Full Bench decision in State of Punjab v. Pohu Ram, 1986 RRR 228 . In view thereof the finding recorded by the Additional District Judge, cannot be upheld in view of the ratio of the Full Bench.

(3.) Once neither the sale instances produced by the claimants nor produced by the State can be held to be helpful for determining the market value of the acquired land this Court has to fall back upon the potentialities of the acquired land and a decided case which is reported in 1979 PLJ 416, Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana and, another. In Balbir Singh's case 278.13 acres of land in village Bohar was acquired for the planned development of a residential colony at Rohtak. This Court on the basis of an agreement between the counsel for the parties determined the market value of the acquired land in Balbir Singh's case at Rs. 140/- per marla although as has been stated by Mr. S.C. Kapur the learned counsel for the claimants at the bar, the instances of sale for a higher amount were available. It is not only statement at the bar but the learned counsel is right in bringing to my notice the observation of the Division Bench in Balbir Singh's case in paragraph 4 that instances of sale between Rs. 11/- per square yard to Rs. 40/- per square yard were available. As regards the location of land in Balbir Singh's case , the land was located near Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. It has come in evidence of PW7 Bhagwana in this case that Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, is situated at a distance of 1000 Yards from the acquired land. In this manner only, this court can guess that the land in the present case and the land in Balbir Singh's case were located, if not very near to each other, the same were at least in the same vicinity. In the decided case this Court determined the market value of the acquired land in village Bohar at Rs. 140/- per marla which when converted into acre, it comes to Rs. 22,400/-. After applying the usual reduction of 1/3rd the market value of the acquired land stands determined at Rs. 14,924/- per acre which can be rounded off at Rs. 15,000/- per acre. This court at one stage was inclined to apply a heavier cut but there is a time lag between the two dates of notifications. In Balbir Singh's case notification under section 4 was issued on 11-11-1969 whereas in the present case, the notification under section 4 of the Act has been issued on 27-6-1972. The difference is of 2-1/2 years. Some benefit should be given to the land owners for the time lag between the two dates of notifications. There must have been some price rise between these two dates and, therefore, a heavier out of 40% need not be applied.