Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1744 (PNJ)

Ram Singh v. State Of Haryana

2006-04-26

H.S.BHALLA

body2006
Judgment H.S.Bhalla, J. 1. By this common judgment, I shall be deciding Regular First Appeal Nos. 2121, 2122, 2191, 2866, 2346 of 1992 and 806 of 1995 filed by the claimants/land-owners against the judgment dated 4.4.1992 passed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat, whereby the petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the claimants for enhancement of compensation against the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat, was dismissed. All these appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment passed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from Regular First Appeal No. 2121 of 1992. 2. The facts required to be noticed for disposal of the aforementioned appeals are that vide notification dated 16.6.1986 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), land measuring 17.53 acres of land in village Lehrana and 16.68 acres of land in village Bayanpur of district Sonepat was acquired. After the acquisition of the land, award dated 2.7.1988 was passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector. By virtue of this award, compensation at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre for the land situated in both the villages was awarded to the claimants/land-owners. 3. The claimants/land-owners felt dissatisfied. They claimed reference for further enhancement of the market price and the matter was accordingly, referred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Sonepat. 4. Learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide his award dated 4.4.1992, upheld the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and recorded a finding that compensation at the rate more than Rs. 80,000/- per are already given by the Land Acquisition Collector is justified and the petitions filed by the claimants, were dismissed. 5. On account of the dismissal order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, the appellants had no other option but to knock the door of this Court for enhancement of the rate of the land acquired. 6. I have heard counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the State and with his assistance, have gone through the record of the case. 7. It is an admitted case of the parties that learned Additional District Judge, while passing his award, recorded a finding that the appellant is not entitled to get compensation at a rate more than Rs. 7. It is an admitted case of the parties that learned Additional District Judge, while passing his award, recorded a finding that the appellant is not entitled to get compensation at a rate more than Rs. 80,000/- per acre already given by the Land Acquisition Collector, in addition to other benefits, granted by him. Learned Counsel for the appellant rightly pointed out that the sale deed Ex. A-2, showing four Marlas pertaining to the acquired land, was produced, but the same was ignored by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, without assigning any reason and as per the sale deed, the land sold at the rate of Rs. 95/- per sq. yard, and the sale deed, Ex. A-2, was executed at the rate of Rs. 8,400/- for 120 sq. yards. 8. After having gone through the award of the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, I find that he did not place reliance on the sale deed, Ex. A-2, and the same was ignored by him merely on the ground that this sale deed pertains to a small piece of land situated on a rasta and this small piece of land cannot provide a guideline for determining market value of the acquired land, which is a very large in area. To my mind this reasoning of the learned Additional District Judge did not give any importance to the sale deed, Ex. A-1. In my view, when the appellant had produced the sale deed pertaining to the acquired land, which should not have been ignored merely on the ground that the sale deed pertains to a small piece of land because this sale deed would be the most relevant piece of evidence for fixing the market price of the land, as it reflects the market price of the acquired land. I am conscious of the fact that by fixing the market price of land under acquisition when the sale instances are for a small piece of land, then an appropriate reduction is required to be made by fixing the market price of the land under acquisition. It is also an admitted fact that after a lapse of a number of years, there is an increase in the market price of land during the relevant years, therefore, considering the increasing trend of the market price and the sale deed, Ex. It is also an admitted fact that after a lapse of a number of years, there is an increase in the market price of land during the relevant years, therefore, considering the increasing trend of the market price and the sale deed, Ex. A-2, mentioned above, particularly when nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court, as to why this sale deed does not reflect the correct value for the purpose of determining the extent of compensation payable to the claimants, to my mind, it is a fit case for the enhancement of compensation already fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector. 9. In this view of the matter and also considering appropriate reduction, I fix market price of the land under acquisition at the rate of Rs. 1,40,000/- per acre. I, accordingly, modify the judgment dated 4.4.1992 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat. The appeals bearing Nos. 2121, 2122, 2191, 2866, 2346 of 1992 and 806 of 1995 are allowed accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.