Bir Singh and Others vs State of Haryana

R.S. Mongia, J.—By this judgment we propose to dispose of 18 letters Patent Appeals (L.PA. Nos. 361, 355 to 360, 362 to 365 and 853 of 1987 ), as they arise out of the same judgment of the learned Single Judge, by which he had disposed of a number of Regular First Appeals.

Briefly, the facts are that in pursuance of a Notification dated 25th March, 1983, u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), land of villages Jhanj and Ahirka, Tehsil and District Jind, was acquired for the purpose of construction of a Cooperative Sugar Mill. The total land acquired was 1/2 Acres 7 Kanals 10 Marlas, out of which 11 Acres 2 Kanals 1 Marla was from the revenue estate of village Ahirka and the rest from the revenue estate of village Jhanj The entire land acquired formed one large chunk for establishing of Sugar Mill.

The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 13th July, 1984, determined the market value of the land as under: -

"Village Jhanj : Nehri/Chahi Rs. 21,000/- per acre. Barani Rs. 20,000/- per acre. Mukhluth Rs. 21,000/- per acre. Ghair Mumkin Rs. 30,000/- per acre. Village Ahirka: Nehri/Ghahi Rs. 30,000/- per acre. Barani Rs. 25,000/- per acre. Mukhluth Rs. 30,000/- per acre. Ghair Mumkin Rs. 12,500/- per acre.

The learned Additional District Judge, on reference u/s 18 of the Act, divided the land into two blocks. Block ''A'' consisted of the land contiguous to the Jind Narwana road upto a depth of 130 feet from the road on either side; whereas Block ''B'' was comprised of the remaining land. For the land in Block ''B'' the Additional District Judge determined the market value of the acquired land as under :-

"Nehri Rs. 30,000/- per acre Barani Rs. 25,000/- per acre Mukhluth Rs. 30,000/- per acre

For the land falling in Block ''A'' the market value was increased by 20% of the market value mentioned above.

The learned Single Judge, after perusing the entire record, observed that the State had failed to produce any documentary evidence, which could assist in determining the market value of the acquired land There was only oral evidence on its behalf. As far as the appellants were concerned, who were claiming Rs. 50/- per Square yard produced some instances of sales by bringing on record sale-deeds. Most of these sale-deeds were rejected by the Additional District Judge on the ground that either these were subsequent to the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act or the sale deeds were of the lands which were far away from the acquired land or the sale deeds were of the land as well as the construction therein, from which it was not discernible as to what was the price of the land alone. The learned Additional District Judge also rejected sale-deeds, Exhibits P. 9. P. 10, P. 12, P. 13 and P. 18, which were nearly one and a half year prior to the date of the notification u/s 4 of the Act, on the ground that the said instances of sale pertained to small pieces of land which ware purchased by vendees for construction of a shop or a house and therefore could not be made the basis for determining the market value of the land in dispute.

The learned Single Judge after noticing that though the abovementioned sale-deeds pertained to very small pieces of land, yet, according the learned Single Judge these could be made the basis for determination of the market value by slashing the market value as represented by the above mentioned sale instances. According to him, since the sale instances represented by the above-mentioned sale-deeds were of the land which was nearer to the road as compared to the acquired land therefore, it would be appropriate if the market value of the acquired land is determined by slashing the average value as determined by the above mentioned instances by one-half, which came to Rs. 10/- per square yard The learned counsel for the appellants by relying on Lal Chand v. State of Punjab 1989 96 P. L. R. 555 that in fact the value which should have been slashed should not have been more than one-third. According to the learned counsel in the judgment referred to above, the price which was slashed was one-fourth and in the present cafe it should be one-third by taking into consideration that the land acquired was further away from the road as compared to the land involved in the sale-deeds, refened to above. There is no force in this argument. Each case has to be decided on its facts and evidence on the record. The learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land would be Rs. 10/- per square yard by slashing the value by one half of the market value representated by the sale-deeds referred to above.

The learned Single Judge has already taken a view that the belting system resorted to by the Additional District Judge was not correct, and tharefore, the appellants have already received the same market value for the land even which is even further away from the road.

For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in these appeals, which are dismissed, with no order as to costs.