(1.) This judgment of mine will dispose of RFA Nos. 515 and 456 of 1981, the former preferred by the landowner-claimant whilst the latter filed by the State of Haryana as they arise out of the common Award of the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, dated 3.11.1980.
(2.) The State Haryana in pursuance of notification dated 24.5.1976 acquired a large area of land situated in the various revenue estates for allotment of residential plots to landless/homeless Harijans and members of the Backward Classes. The acquired land included 26 Kanals and 1 Marla of land comprising in Killa Nos. 4/10, 12, 13, 18/1 and 5/6 situated in the revenue estate of village Kabirpur which was owned and belonged to the appellant-landowner. The Land Acquisition Collector granted compensation amount to the various owners of land including the appellant at the uniform rate of Rs. 8000/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the Additional District Judge determined the market value of the acquired land with which the appellant is concerned at Rs. 4.25 per square yard. At the trial, a lot of documentary evidence was produced out of which the counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, has referred to the following sale deeds :
(3.) Mr. S.C. Kapur, learned counsel for the appellant has, in the first instance, argued that the Additional District Judge has erred in not placing reliance upon Exhibits P.1 and P.8 - the two transactions of sale. In both the sale deeds, the counsel points out that the land measuring 190 square yards and 200 square yards were sold as far back as in the year 1969 bringing out the average sale price at Rs. 7/- and 5/- respectively. The learned counsel has further argued that in the year 1969 the sale price per square yard was Rs. 5/- as evidence by sale deed Exhibit P. 8 and within no time of less than three months the price fetched by the sale of 190 square yards of land was Rs. 7/- per square yard. The precise argument of the learned counsel is that this Court should take into consideration the above mentioned sale transactions and thereafter apply a cut and give the necessary enhancement in view of the price rise during the period of 7 years. The argument is not acceptable. These two sale transactions relate to the sale of too small plots which cannot be said to be of comparable nature.