Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1345 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Bhim Sain

2003-09-24

V.K.BALI

body2003
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. (Oral) - State of Haryana, through present regular first appeal filed by it, seeks setting aside of order dated 30.4.1986, passed by learned Additional District Judge, vide which, market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition, has been evaluated at Rs. 30,000/- per acre, whereas the same was assessed at Rs. 18,000/- per acre by Land Acquisition Collector, vide his award dated 30.7.1983. The only question that needs to be determined in this case is, thus, as to whether learned Additional District Judge has granted just and fair compensation for the land acquired or whether the same needs to be reduced. 2. The relevant discussion made by learned Additional District Judge, while evaluating the market value of the land at Rs. 30,000/- per acre, reads thus :- "About the location of the area in dispute there is Ex.P.1 copy of aks-shajra. The disputed khasra No. is 25/2 on the northern side of which there is a rasta and towards southern side thereof at a distance of 3 killas there is pucca road leading to Sonepat. Towards western side only at a distance of 2 killas there is village abadi deh. The relevant date is 2.5.1983. Ex.P.2 is copy of sale deed dated 10.5.1983. According to the same 31 kanal 13 marlas area of this village was sold for Rs. 1,20,000/-. Vide Ex.P.3 on 9.8.1982 one plot of 9 marlas of Sandal Kalan as sold for Rs. 16,000/-. Further vide Ex.P.4 on 16.7.1980, 230 square yard plot of Sandal Kalan was sold for Rs. 35,000/-, vide Ex.P.5 on 3.5.1985, 149 kanals 13 marlas area of this village was sold for Rs. 6,80,000/-. Ex.P.6 is copy of sale deed dated 17.5.85 vide which 28 kanals 17 marlas of this village was sold for Rs. 1,50,000/-. On the other hand on behalf of the State reference has been made to Ex.DA mutation dated 21.5.1983, vide which 48 kanals land of this village was sold on 17.5.1983 for Rs. 23,300/-. In the same manner vide Ex.DB on 10.6.1983, 19 kanal 11 marlas area of this village was sold for Rs. 40,000/-. Out of the sales relied upon by the parties, the most relevant appears to be dated 30.5.83, copy of which is Ex.P.2. According to the same 31 kanals 13 marlas area of this village was sold for Rs. 23,300/-. In the same manner vide Ex.DB on 10.6.1983, 19 kanal 11 marlas area of this village was sold for Rs. 40,000/-. Out of the sales relied upon by the parties, the most relevant appears to be dated 30.5.83, copy of which is Ex.P.2. According to the same 31 kanals 13 marlas area of this village was sold for Rs. 1,20,000/- and to easy calculation I take this area as 32 kanals calculation the price of 8 kanals come to Rs. 30,000/- and this on the face of it is correct approach. Accordingly, I enhance the amount of compensation to Rs. 30,000/- per 8 kanals (acre). This issue is decided accordingly." 3. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, learned Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, contends that sale instance dated 30.5.1983, Ex.P2, which is post notification instance, could not be taken into consideration while evaluating the market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition. The only contention of learned counsel, as mentioned above, in the context of the facts of the present case, has no substance and, thus, needs to be repelled. It is significant to mention here that claimants relied upon number of sale instances. Vide the sale instance Ex.P2, dated 30.5.1983, land measuring 31 kanals, 13 marlas was sold for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-, whereas sale instance, Ex.P.3, dated 9.8.1982, pertains to a plot of 9 marlas of Sandal Kalan, which was sold for Rs. 16,000/-, Ex.P4, dated 16.7.1980, shows that land measuring 230 square yards was sold for a sum of Rs. 35,000/-. The claimants also relied upon sale instances Exs.P5 and P6. 4. No doubt, insofar as, sale instance Ex.P2, relied upon by learned Additional District Judge, is concerned, the same pertains to about 28 days after the notification had been issued Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). But the land, subject matter of sale instance aforesaid, is situate in so close vicinity of the land, subject of the present acquisition, that, in considered view of this Court, it cannot be totally ignored. It is too well settled by now that if a post sale instance may be relevant and a genuine transaction it cannot be ignored altogether. That apart, the claimants also relied upon sale instance, Ex.P-4. The price fetched with regard to the said sale instance would come at Rs. It is too well settled by now that if a post sale instance may be relevant and a genuine transaction it cannot be ignored altogether. That apart, the claimants also relied upon sale instance, Ex.P-4. The price fetched with regard to the said sale instance would come at Rs. 5,60,000/- per acre approximately and the same pertains to the year 1980, i.e., almost three years prior to the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in the present case. It is true that sale instance Ex.P-4 pertains to a small piece of land measuring 230 square yards but, as mentioned above, the same pertains to three years prior to the date of notification and if any reasonable cut is applied on the price fetched by the said sale, value of the land cannot be determined less than Rs. 30,000/- per acre. 5. It totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that sale instance, Ex.P.2 could not be said to be wholly irrelevant. It appears to this Court that learned Additional District Judge has assessed the fair market rate of the and in dispute and the same needs no interference in the appeal preferred by the State. Finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed, leaving however, the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.