JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal:- Challenge in the Appeal Nos. 2453 to 2460 of 2000, 2477 to 2524 of 2000, 2557 of 2000, 2575 to 2577 of 2000, 2579 of 2000, 2584 to 2602 of 2000, 2151 of 2000, 2170 to 2192 of 2000, 2213 to 2215 of 2000, 2224 & 2225 of 2000, 2254 & 2255 of 2000, 190 to 192 of 2001, 270 to 273 of2001, 830 to 832 of 2001, 928 & 929 of 2001, 1070 of 2001, 2571 to 2574 of 2001 and 4875 of 2001, and Civil Revisions No.5592 of 2002, 5692 of 2002, 5785 of 2002 and 5836 of 2002, is to the award dated 2.6.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, whereby he treated the total acquired land measuring 2103 K and 16 M (262.98 acres) as agricultural land, classified it into four varieties and awarded compensation to the claimants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the claimants’) as under (i) (ii) (iii) Type of land Land measuring Compensation awarded@ Chahi 1630 K 12 M Rs. 100/- per square yards Nehri 49 K 15 M Rs. 100/- per square yards Banjer 218 K 3 M Rs. 70/- per square yards Gair Mumkin 205 K 6 M Rs. 75/- per square yards 2. Besides the aforesaid compensation, the claimants were awarded solatium @ 30% under Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and were also declared entitled to additional amount @ 12% per annum of the compensation amount from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of the award or taking over the possession of the land which ever may be earlier. They were further held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the period of one year from the date of taking over the possession of the land and @ 10% per annum for the subsequent period till the payment of the aforesaid amount less the amount already paid. The main questions raised in the appeals are: (1) Whether the agricultural land having been acquired for commercial, industrial and residential purpose and over which substantial construction has been raised could be treated as agricultural land for the purpose of awarding compensation? The main questions raised in the appeals are: (1) Whether the agricultural land having been acquired for commercial, industrial and residential purpose and over which substantial construction has been raised could be treated as agricultural land for the purpose of awarding compensation? (2) Whether such land could be classified in different categories for the purpose of awarding compensation when the purpose to acquire the land is particular and categorically uniform? By deleting the Fundamental Right to own the property from the array of Article 19 of the Fundamental Rights, Indian citizens were bestowed upon a legal right to hold property and dispose of the same according to their own wish and choice, by way of addition of Article 300­A, according to which no person could be deprived of his property saved by authority of law. In view of the interpretation given to the word “law” in Article 21 in Menka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 S.C. 547 and some subsequent cases that “law” must be fair, reasonable and just law. The Bombay High Court invalidated certain provisions of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, under Article 300-A because according to it the law was not just and fair in so far as it provides less compensation then provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to the Court, the adequate compensation was the essential ingredient of “law”. Progressive laws regarding compulsory acquisition were brought on the statue book but still the owners of the property were given liberty to challenge the same for claiming just compensation of the property acquired, keeping in view the nature location, quality, potentiality, advantageous situation and its yielding capacity. The sale of property by way of acquisition unlike in other cases, was no more left as buyer’s market, therefore, even with the induction of the compulsory acquisition of land, in order to save the owners of the property from the exploitation at the hands of the private entrepreneurs or the government so that their lands may not be snatched for too meager a rate i.e. less than that of a cloth per yard, the Act provided for assessing the adequate compensation in case of acquisition of land for the public purpose at state expense. 3. 3. Haryana Government (Urban Estate Department) vide notification No. LAC (F)-92/NTL-A/170 dated 9.11.1992 published in Haryana Government Gazette (Extraordinary) on the same day under Section 4 (1) of the Act, acquired 2103 kanal and 16 marlas of the land of village Raipur for development and utilization of the land for residential, commercial and industrial development purpose by way of carving Sector 3 and 7, HUDA Sonepat, under Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. 4. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was published vide No. LAC (F)-93 NTL A/236 on 6.11.1993, necessary objections were called for. The land owners raised multifold objections demanding compensation of their lands ranging from Rs.800/- to Rs.1000/- per square yard. The Land Acquisition Collector after due consideration of the objections, vide his award dated 5.11.1995, assessed the market value of the property as Rs.1,80,000/- per acre for Chahi/Nehri; Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for Barani; and Rs.90,000/- per acre for Banjer land. When appealed against, the learned District Judge, Sonepat, vide award dated 2.6.2000 while accepting the reference under Section 18 of the Act, enhanced the award in the terms as referred to above. Still dissatisfied, the claimants have preferred appeals and at the same time, Government of Haryana has also preferred the Appeal Nos. 2477 to 2524 of 2000 and 2584 to 2602 of 2000 for setting aside the award dated 2.6.2000 with a prayer to reduce the compensation amount. 5. I have heard Mr. Satya Pal Khatri, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Hawa Singh Hooda, learned Advocate General, Haryana and have scrutinized the records of the case with their able assistance. 6. Before I lay my hands for determination of the market value of the land, it would be essential to re-appreciate the evidence already produced on the record. 7. PW-1 Ram Lal Patwari (Retd.) proved the site plan Ex.P1. He has stated that the acquired land is situated between National Highway No.1 and Sonepat Bahalgarh Road. The latter road is directly connected with the National Highway. He also testified that village Kamaspur, Raipur, Sultanpur and Fazilpur adjoin each other. The land of village Jamalpura was acquired for settling Phase II of Sector 15, Sonepat. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation @ Rs.250/- per square yard for the land of village Jamalpura and the said land was banjer qadim. The land of village Fazilpur adjoins the land of village Jamalpura. The land of village Jamalpura was acquired for settling Phase II of Sector 15, Sonepat. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation @ Rs.250/- per square yard for the land of village Jamalpura and the said land was banjer qadim. The land of village Fazilpur adjoins the land of village Jamalpura. He further deposed that the acquired piece of land is bounded by fully developed area. Civil Hospital, Sonepat is at a distance of 2 kms from the acquired land and the acquired land of village Fazilpur is adjacent to Sector 12 and 15 of Phase II. He has also referred to the sale transactions in site plan Ex.P1. He has made clean breast of the facts by stating that many important centers/institutions like Engineering College, Rice Mill, Industrial Estate, Haryana Steel Alloys are situated within the radius 2 to 4 kms from the acquired land. 8. PW-2 Rattan Singh has proved the sale deed Ex.P2, vide which the land measuring 4 marla situated in the area village Raipur was sold by him to Jagbir son of Surat Singh for Rs.20,000/-. 9. PW-3 Surjit Singh has consistently deposed that the acquired land is quite near the National Highway No.1 and could be sold @ Rs.800/­ per square yard. It is situated between National Highway No.1, Sonepat­ Bahalgarh Road and Sonepat-Murthal Road. There are many established industrial units located near the vicinity of the land. 10. PW-4 Ram Chander, Naib Tehsildar (Retd.) also made the statement on the similar lines. 11. PW-5 Parvinder Rohilla, Draftsman Railway Road, Sonepat has proved the construction raised over the area of the acquired land. He has proved various documents i.e. site plan Ex.P3, estimates of different tubewells, kothas and other construction Ex. P4 to Ex.P14. 12. The claimants also tendered into evidence State Electricity Bills Ex.P15 to Ex.P17 and aks-shajra Ex.P18. The copy of the award dated 17.11.1995 Ex.P19, copy of aks shajra of village Jamalpura Kalan Ex.P20, aks-shajra of village Asamabad Ex.P21, aks-shajra of village Raipur Ex.P22 and aks-shajra of village Kamaspur Ex.P23. 13. PW-6 Ashok Sharma, who was the owner of 10-½ acres out of the acquired property, while giving description of the construction raised by him in the acquired land, stated that his land is of better quality than the land of village Kamaspur. Bahalgarh-Sonepat road abuts his land. 13. PW-6 Ashok Sharma, who was the owner of 10-½ acres out of the acquired property, while giving description of the construction raised by him in the acquired land, stated that his land is of better quality than the land of village Kamaspur. Bahalgarh-Sonepat road abuts his land. G.T. Road is fully developed on both sides with various heavy industries and other commercial establishments like Toy and Toy, Vakson Ceramics, Jasch Chemical Industries, Singla Rolling Mills, E.C.E. Vimlesh Electrical and Hindustan Rolling Mills etc. On the other side of the road, there is a State Engineering College Murthal, HSIDC Industrial Area, Haryana Breweries and Haryana Steel Alloys. He further testified that revenue area of the village Jamalpur Kalan already acquired by the State Government adjoins the acquired land of village Fazilpur and Raipur. The land of village Jamalpur was acquired @ Rs.10 lakhs per acre even before acquisition of the acquired land. The acquired land is near to the project of Government of India and the State Government regarding development of Horticulture market on the GT road. At the time of acquisition of the land, the market value of the land was Rs.28-30 lacs per acres. 14. PW -7 Parvinder Rohilla Architect and Industrial Designer and Planner and Valuer, Railway Road, Sonepat proved his evaluation report Ex.P25 and Ex.P26. 15. To the contrary, State of Haryana examined Bijender Singh Patwari, Land Acquisition Collector Faridabad (RW1) who proved the site plan Ex.R-1, sale deeds Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5 and the details of Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5 as Ex.R-6. During cross examination, he admitted that some land was acquired for the development of Sector 3 and 7 from the land of village Fazilpur and the same was acquired for the development of Sector 12. The land of Sector 3, 7 and 12 adjoin each other. He further deposed that some land of village Kamaspur adjoins the GT Road and the land of village Raipur abuts Kamaspur. He further admitted that the land of this village was acquired for the development of Sector 3 and 7. No separate award was given for the constructions, tubewells and other affixures. 16. RW-2 Ashok Sharma, Advocate proved the sale deed Ex.R-4. He deposed that the sale deed Ex.R-4 was actually executed for a lessor rate but the actual sale consideration was Rs.6 lacs per acre. 17. No separate award was given for the constructions, tubewells and other affixures. 16. RW-2 Ashok Sharma, Advocate proved the sale deed Ex.R-4. He deposed that the sale deed Ex.R-4 was actually executed for a lessor rate but the actual sale consideration was Rs.6 lacs per acre. 17. Similarly, Kartar Singh (RW3) and Risala (RW4) who appeared in the witness box to prove sale deed Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4 also stated that the land was actually sold @ Rs.6 lacs per acre. 18. On close scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence, on the touch stone of proper administration of justice for the purpose of determining the market value of the land, it would be apposite to mention here that the land of six villages i.e. Kamaspur, Fazilpur, Raipur, Jamalpur Kalan, Asamabad, Sultanpur and Shahjahanpur was acquired for commercial, industrial and residential purpose for developing a big residential colony in the vicinity of Sonepat by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, for the uplift of the town Sonepat. After acquisition of the land, various sectors were carved out and in these sectors, the plots for residences, shops and for establishment of industry were carved and allotted to the people. The land of village Rajpur and some portion of village Fazilpur was acquired for the purpose of carving out Sectors 3 and 7 by the HUDA, Sonepat. It has also come in evidence that Sector 12 adjoins to the aforesaid two sectors, had been fully developed. The site plan Ex.P1 as proved by PW-1 Ram Lal (Retd. Patwari), has also confirmed this fact that Sector 12 is fully developed area. Ex.P 1, authenticity of which has not been challenged by the State in any manner reveals that the village Raipur is closest to the Panipat-Delhi Highway which is at 3-½ kms and it is 5-7 acres from Sonepat-Bahalgarh Road. Many educational institutes, industries and rice mills are already in existence quite near the acquired land. The Rice Mills, Haryana Steel Alloys, HSIDC Industrial Area and Engineering College have been shown within a radius of 1-½ kms from the acquired land. A lot of construction appears to have been shown by Ram Lal (PW1) who disclosed the location of power house, petrol pump, truck union near the acquired land. He further disclosed that the following transactions took place between the parties prior to the notification dated 9.11.1992:- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. A lot of construction appears to have been shown by Ram Lal (PW1) who disclosed the location of power house, petrol pump, truck union near the acquired land. He further disclosed that the following transactions took place between the parties prior to the notification dated 9.11.1992:- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. Registered Date Seller’s Purchaser’s Area Amount Average No. deed name name (K-M) (Rs.) Price per Acre (Rs.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 4733 30.1.1989 Rajmal Gulab Singh 0-2½ 12,000/- 7,68,000/- 2. 2400 06/08/92 Daya Ishwar Singh 0-10 60,000/- 9,60,000/- 3. 5997 21.7.1990 Prem Raj Kamla Devi 0-4 9,000/- 3,60,000/- 4. 1509 21.7.1990 Raghbir 200sq. 50,000/- 12,10,000/- yards 5. 1991 15.7.1988 Kundan 100sq. 7,000/- 3,38,000/- yards 6. 3506 07/11/88 Jugti Balraj 0-10 18,000/- 2,88,000/- 7. 2578 29/09/1989 Kundan Kailesh Devi 0-10 22,000/- 3,52,000/- 8. 2139 10/07/90 Atam Dev Jarnail Kaur 0-10 74,112/- 11,88,792/- 9. 184 11/04/89 Siri Pal Ramesh 0-9 30,000/- 5,23,333-32 10. 1806 03/07/71 0-4 20,000/- 8,00,000/- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19. No doubt, the small sale transactions, as depicted above, may not provide safe and dependable evidence for determining the market value, but, at the same time, in the absence of any better evidence, even transactions involving conveyance of smaller tracts of land or blocks of land which are comparable in terms of point of time and the locus would become relevant. This Court in case Parveen Kumar and another vs. Haryana State, [2007(1) Law Herald (P&H) 664]: 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 41, observed as under: “………….Valuation of property is not a science and that valuation cannot be made by merely applying algebraic formulae for it quite often abounds in uncertainties and imponderable and, therefore, no exact reasons for the conclusion arrived at is possible on all occasions. Some room has to be allowed for conjectures and guess works, though the Court should be reluctant to venture too far in that direction because there is a danger of being misled in the decision making. The Court while determining the market value should take into consideration the evidence adduced as to the nature, situation, income and potential value of the land. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions over the past four and half decades and more have evolved principles and norms for determination of compensation of the lands compulsorily acquired by the State in exercise of its eminent domain power under the Act or under any other enabling statute. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions over the past four and half decades and more have evolved principles and norms for determination of compensation of the lands compulsorily acquired by the State in exercise of its eminent domain power under the Act or under any other enabling statute. One of the principles discernible from the pronouncements of the Apex Court is that while determining compensation for larger tract of land, price paid for or compensation determined by the Court for smaller parcels of land does not provide a safe and dependable base. At the same time, it is also discernible from the pronouncements of the Supreme Court that in the absence of any better evidence, even transactions involving conveyance of smaller tracts of land or blocks of land which are comparable in terms of point of time and the locus would become relevant. “ 20. Similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in case Harbans Singh and others vs. State of Punjab through the Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala, 2006 (1) RCR (Civil) 634, wherein it was observed as under : “It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge himself that all the sale instances relied upon pertained to the sale of land which was out of the acquired land. However, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on May 3, 1980 whereas all the three sale instances relied upon by the learned Single Judge are prior in time to the said notification. Since the said sale instances pertained to sale of land in municipal area itself, therefore, it could not be accepted that there would be any sale instance with regard to bigger chunk of land. The learned Single Judge in our considered view was not justified in applying any cut on the average price of the aforesaid sale instances. The proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in Bhagwathula Samanna’s case (supra) and by the Madras High Court in Abdul Reguman’s case (supra) is fully attracted.” 21. In Harbans Singh’s case (supra), it was observed in para No.12 of the judgment that it is clear that the acquired land was situated within the municipal limits. G.T. Road was situated on one side of the acquired land whereas on the other side of the acquired land a by-pass road connecting Sirhind town with the G.T. Road was situated. In Harbans Singh’s case (supra), it was observed in para No.12 of the judgment that it is clear that the acquired land was situated within the municipal limits. G.T. Road was situated on one side of the acquired land whereas on the other side of the acquired land a by-pass road connecting Sirhind town with the G.T. Road was situated. There were certain shops, workshops and petrol pumps near the acquired land. Certain observations were also made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhagwathula Samanna and others vs. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, 1992 (1) RRR 257: 1992 L.A.C.C. 314 may be noticed : “The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. If the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is not warranted. With regard to the nature of the plots involved in these two cases, it has been satisfactorily shown on the evidence on record that the land has facilities of road and other amenities and is adjacent to a developed colony and in such circumstances it is possible to utilise the entire area in question as house sites. In respect of the land acquired for the road, the same advantages are available and it did not require any further development. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has erred in applying the principle of deduction and reducing the fair market value of land from Rs.10/- per sq. yard to Rs.6.50 per sq. yard. In our opinion, no such deduction is justified in the facts and circumstances of these cases.” 22. Thus, even if a reasonable deduction is applied from the small instances of the sale and also the value of the adjoining land as determined by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat is also examined, then there is no reason to determine the acquired land at a rate less than Rs.200/­ per sq. yards. Thus, even if a reasonable deduction is applied from the small instances of the sale and also the value of the adjoining land as determined by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat is also examined, then there is no reason to determine the acquired land at a rate less than Rs.200/­ per sq. yards. No doubt, the aforesaid sale transactions relate to the small tracts of land but here in this case a small tracts of at least 90 persons have been acquired, therefore, in that situation also it would not be inappropriate to take into consideration the sale considerations relating to the small pieces of land after evolving some deduction on account of these sales being that of small pieces. Besides the aforesaid sale transactions proved through Ram Lal Patwari (PW1) the claimants have proved sale deed for 4 marlas of land which was sold vide sale deed No.1806 dated 3.7.1991 for Rs.20,000/. 23. To the contrary, while appreciating the sale deeds Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5, it may be observed that the witnesses i.e. Ashok Sharma Advocate (RW2), Kartar Singh (RW3) and Risala (RW4) also deposed that the actual sale consideration involved in the sale deeds was Rs.6.00 lacs per acre. The only vendor and the vendee while appearing in the witness box could tell as to under what circumstances the sale deeds were executed for a consideration at a lessor rate. It is a matter of common experience that some people in order to avoid stamp fee mention the value of the land at lessor rate. It is also admitted by Ashok Sharma (RW2) that the sale deeds were got registered on the basis of the rates fixed by the collector and the actual price of the land was higher. As regards the evidence with regard to situation of the acquired land, the site plan Ex. R-1 as proved on record by Bajinder Singh Patwari (RW1), the same is misleading. He does not disc!ose the locus and the distance of acquired land from Panipat-Delhi Highway and Sanepat-Bahalgarh Road. It also does not depict about the constructions existing at the spot. It does not even depict the distance of village Raipur or Fazilpur from the acquired land. R-1 as proved on record by Bajinder Singh Patwari (RW1), the same is misleading. He does not disc!ose the locus and the distance of acquired land from Panipat-Delhi Highway and Sanepat-Bahalgarh Road. It also does not depict about the constructions existing at the spot. It does not even depict the distance of village Raipur or Fazilpur from the acquired land. The site plan being silent about many factors is evident of the fact that testimony of Bajinder Singh Patwari was biased and he being the public servant could not displease his masters, therefore, there are good reasons not to place reliance on his testimony. 24. Besides the aforesaid documents, which may be helpful in determining the market value of the land, I have another instance in the shape of the award dated 17.11.1994 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector in connection with the acquired land situated at village Jamalpur Kalan, Hadbast No.173, Tehsil and District Sonepat. This land was also acquired vide notification dated 6.5.1992 and the Land Acquisition Collector assessed the land @ Rs.250/- per sq. yard. This .acquisition of land under the Act is quite in close proximity to the time and area of the acquired land and the said land is situated in the same vicinity and it is for the same purpose i.e. for development of Sector 12. The land of village Jamalpur is located in the vicinity of the area of Sonepat but at a longer distance from Sonepat-Bahalgarh Road then that of acquired land. As such no reasons can be assigned to discard such evidence and why this piece of evidence (which has attained finality) cannot be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the land. These circumstances do not completely justify the discriminatory treatment for various parts of the acquired land and variation could not be made while viewing the uniform development in nearby area. 25. The other argument that Sector 12 had been completely developed in comparison to Sector 3 and 7 which are still to be developed and variation of Rs.50/-, if made, could be said to be justified. 25. The other argument that Sector 12 had been completely developed in comparison to Sector 3 and 7 which are still to be developed and variation of Rs.50/-, if made, could be said to be justified. The observations of the Tribunal that two sectors being developed out of acquired land are at a distance from Sector 12 or Phase-II of Sector 15 justify the deduction of one half of the price does not appeal to the human conscience and is in no way keeps the equalities particularly when the land has been acquired for the residential, commercial and industrial purposes and development was inevitable within a short passage of time. When there is a misreading, mis-appreciation of evidence, misapplication of law and the relevant evidence has not been dealt with properly, then this Court certainly has the jurisdiction to rectify the error. The present case is manifest with not only mis-appreciation of evidence in determining the compensation, but it has also ignored to assess the value of the abadi land. Nothing has also been recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, as to why he has not assessed the value of the construction existing at the spot. He has also not recorded the reasons for treating the land as agricultural that too of different qualities when the same has uniform potentiality and any part of it was not be used for agricultural purpose. Consequently, this classification or belting system was also without jurisdiction. 26. Since the entire land was acquired for one purpose and it was acquired for development of the town of Sonepat by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, the same is situated in between National Highway No.1 and Sonepat-Bahalgarh-Murthal Road and quite in the vicinity of Sonepat up to which the Municipal limits have been extended. Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate to observe that the reference Court was not justified in treating the land differently by making classification but it should have assessed the acquired land at uniform rate. A similar view was taken by this Court in case Gulzar Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 174. 27. As regards the value of the construction raised over the acquired land, no proper evidence has been led by the appellants to establish their claim for the same. A similar view was taken by this Court in case Gulzar Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 174. 27. As regards the value of the construction raised over the acquired land, no proper evidence has been led by the appellants to establish their claim for the same. At the same time, much stress has not been laid by the learned counsel for the appellants for claiming the value of the improvements over the acquired land, as such for want of proper evidence and proper assistance extended in assessing the value of the improvements, it is difficult to award any compensation qua the improvements. As a result of the above observations, while declining the appeals filed by the State and the civil revisions filed by the petitioners, I partly accept the appeals filed by the claimants and order that they shall be entitled to compensation for the entire acquired land at the uniform rate i.e. @ Rs.200/- per sq. yards. Besides the aforesaid market value, the claimants shall be entitled to the statutory benefits as per amended provisions of the Act. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ————————————