DAYA RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals (RFA Nos. 476, 477 and 479 of 1983) arise from the common judgment delivered by District Judge, Faridabad. They were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) BY notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") dated 22.11.1977 published on 6.12.1977, land was acquired for the purpose of constructing Delhi Highway road. Vide Award dated 21.6.1979, Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the land @ Rs. 5440/- per acre and accordingly awarded compensation. The claimants filed a reference and by the judgment of the learned District Judge, the award was enhanced to Rs. 4 per Sq. yard. (Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it comes to Rs. 19,360 per acre). The claimants have filed appeals Nos. 476 of 1983 and 477 of 1983 for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 70,000/-. State has filed RFA 479 of 1983 against one of the claimants Krishna Devi.

(3.) MR . Tewatia has taken me through the judgment/Award of the learned District Judge. Learned District Judge has not considered the evidence of certain lands, which were small plots measuring 166-1/2 sq. yards to 222 sq. yards. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned District Judge has erred in ignoring the evidence on the price of these lands. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that this land could not be said to be comparable in view of the fact that they were small in area and therefore, the price of these lands could not be compared with the price of the lands in question. Out of sale instances produced on record, Ex. A/7 is relating to the land measuring 9 kanals 7 marlas. When different prices of the land have been mentioned in different documents, there appears to be nothing wrong when the learned District Judge has discarded the price of the small plots and has relied on the value of the bigger plot. I, therefore, find nothing wrong when the learned District Judge has not relied on the sale price of other lands. However, it can be seen that the District Judge had himself mentioned that the sale price of land sold vide Ex. A/7 comes to Rs. 6.35 per sq. yard. Therefore, he has awarded compensation @ Rs. 4 per sq. yard. He has not stated any reason for considering the price lesser than Rs. 6.35 per sq. yard. Mr. Tewatia vehemently argued that the value of the land fixed by the District Judge is, therefore, erroneous and if it is held that the value cannot be equated with the price of lands of smaller sizes at least value should have been considered @ Rs. 6.35 per sq. yard. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show as to why the price has been fixed at a lesser rate than Rs. 6.35 per sq. yard. Consequently, I find that the appeals of the claimants deserve to be allowed to the extent that the price of the land should be enhanced to Rs. 6.35 per sq. yard.