COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION Vs. DALIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been preferred by the State against the award made by the learned Reference Court enhancing compensation awarded to the claimants in all these appeals, which arise out of a common judgment rendered by the Reference Court. It is undisputed and admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as also the purpose of acquisition is also same. These appeals are, therefore, being decided by a common judgment.

(2.) Learned Additional Advocate General challenges the correctness of award on the grounds that: (i) the Reference Court was incorrect in awarding interest from the date of taking over of possession. Under the provisions of the Act, interest can only be awarded from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (ii) basis on which the learned Court has based its assessment for the compensation is not correct and that sale deeds Ext.RA, Ext.RC and Ext.RE produced by the appellant have not been considered.

(3.) Taking up the second submission first, I find that the learned Reference Court has rightly rejected this evidence by holding that these sale deeds have merely been tendered without in any manner proving the quality of the land subject matter of sale or the fact that these lands are situated in or near the vicinity of the acquired land. It is now well settled that merely tendering sale deeds in evidence is not a correct way of proving the value of land in acquisition proceedings and what is required is to show that the land which is subject matter of acquisition and that of sale deeds is identical or same and its advantages/disadvantages are also same or similar.