Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Jyoti Housing Private Limited vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 3 July, 2009
RFA No. 4658 of 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA No. 4658 of 2001
Date of Decision: 3.07.2009
Vijay Jyoti Housing Private Limited. ..Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors. ..Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma
Present: Mr.Hemant Sarin, Advocate,
Mr.S.S.Narula, Advocate,
Mr.B.R.Vohra, Advocate,
Mr.Gorakh Nath, Advocate,
Mr.Hawa Singh Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana,
with Mr.Rajiv Kataria, DAG, Haryana,
for State.
Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate,
Mr.Ashish Bansal, Advocate,
---
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
RFA No. 4658 of 2001 2
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
Digest?
Vinod K.Sharma,J.
This common judgment shall dispose of RFA No.4658 of 2001 titled Vijay Jyoti Housing Private Limited Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.; and other connected RFA Nos.3825, 3827, 3832, 3833, 3834, 3835, 3836, 3837, 4289, 4290; 4312, 4313, 4314, 4315, 4316, 4431, 5174 of 2001; 763 and 945 of 2002 and 699 of 2008, titled Kalawati Vs. The State of Haryana, Rameshwar & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Shmt.Bhateri & Anr. Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Hari Ram & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Har Sarup Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Shanti Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Ramesh Chand Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Mahesh Chander Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Kali Charan Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Rudraraj Pankaj Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Rajesh Marwaha Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Deen Dayal Sharma Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Harsh Rani Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Tilak Raj Broota Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Ashish Broota Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Vitul Kumar & Anr.Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Vijay Laxmi Sharma Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Kumari alias Kunti Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., Sham Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana and Ors., and Parma Nand & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana, respectively, as these appeals have arisen out of the common RFA No. 4658 of 2001 3 judgment/award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat.
For the sake of brevity facts are being taken from RFA No.4658 of 2001.
This regular first appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat awarding compensation for the acquired land at the rate of 2 lac per acre for chahi/nehri; Rs.1.30 lac per acre for Barani land; Rs.1 lac per acre for Banjar Kadeem land and Rs.200/- per square yard for plots. The appellant has further been granted solatium at the rate of 30 per cent of the compensation amount under section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) and additional amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the compensation amount from the date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of award or for taking over possession of the land which ever was earlier. The appellant was further held entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for the period of one year from the date of taking over the possession and at the rate of 15 per cent per annum for subsequent period till payment of aforesaid amount less the amount already paid along with costs.
The State of Haryana vide Notification No.32/7/92-41B-II dated 19.6.1992 published in the Haryana Government Gazette (Extra- ordinary) issued under section 4 of the Act notified that the land measuring 745 kanals 10 marlas was needed on public expenses for public purposes namely for development and utilization of land as Industrial Estate in village Kundli District Sonepat. Subsequently, vide notification issued RFA No. 4658 of 2001 4 under section 6 of the Act dated 17.6.1993 the Government declared that the land measuring 705 kanals 02 marlas was needed for aforesaid public purpose.
The Land Acquisition Collector was further directed to take steps for acquisition of the land notified under section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector classified the land under acquisition as under:-
Sr.No. Class of land acquired Area under acquisition
1. Chahi 681 K. 11 M
2. Banjar Kadim 11 K. 14 M
3. Gair Mumkin 11 K 17 M Total 705K 02 M Notices under section 9 of the Act were also issued.
The land owners and the persons interested filed their claims before the Collector claiming compensation ranging from Rs.1000/- to Rs.1200/- per square yard.
The Land Acquisition Collector after taking into consideration the location and potentiality fixed the rate at Rs.1.50 lacs per acre for Chahi/Nehri land; Rs.1 lac per acre for Barani/Rasoli land; Rs.80,000/- per acre for banjar land and Rs.150/- per sq yard for plots.
The land owners being dissatisfied from the award sought reference under section 18 of the Act for determination of the market value. It was claimed by the land owners that the land in dispute was situated in RFA No. 4658 of 2001 5 the revenue estate of village Kundli District Sonepat which is situated in the vicinity of National Highway No.1. It was also claimed that the acquired land was fertile one and capable of giving 3 crops per year and having a very high potential value. It was also pleaded that the land had high potential value as it was acquired for setting up Industrial Estate. It was further the case of the land owners that the Learned Collector did not take into consideration the sale instances relied upon by the claimants for fixing the market value.
References were contested by the State as well as Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (for short HSIDC) on the plea that due compensation has been paid to the land owners. The award was said to be fair and reasonable, depicting the correct market value of the land. It was further pleaded that all factors necessary for determination of the market value were taken into consideration and besides this, the Land Acquisition Collector has also taken into consideration the trend of sudden rise in the prices of the land.
On the pleadings of the parties learned trial court was pleased to frame the following issues:-
1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the Collector vide award No.1 dated 2.12.1994. If so to what amount and RFA No. 4658 of 2001 6 from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
In order to prove and establish the market value of the suit land at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act the appellants led both oral and documentary evidence. The evidence was also brought to prove that the land was situated near Delhi Border which is in the vicinity of Lakhmi Piau, and that there was a market near G.T.Road, Delhi. It was also the case set up that Industrial Estate of Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation had already been developed as number of industrial units including paper mills, Gadore Tools Industrial, Amritsar Transport Company and HSEB Office were in existence near the acquired land. It was also claimed that at the time of acquisition of land in the year 1992 prevalent rate of acquired piece of land was Rs.42 lacs per acre. The oral evidence was led to prove the location and market value. Location of land was duly proved.
The land owners also proved on record sale deed Ex.P.7 dated 13.12.1991 vide which PW 7 Mahesh Chand had purchased the land measuring 900 square yards at the rate of Rs.133/- per square yard for a total consideration of Rs.1,20,000/-. PW 9 P.C.Jain proved sale deed Ex.P.9 dated 15.5.1990 vide which he had purchased 13 kanals 7 marlas of land at the rate of Rs.55/- per square yard for a total sale consideration of Rs,4,50,560/-. Daya Nand PW 10 proved the sale deed Ex.P.10 dated 30.10.1991 vide which he had purchased 1 kanal 17 marlas of land at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq.yard for a total consideration of Rs.1,68,000/-. Sale RFA No. 4658 of 2001 7 deed Ex.P.5 was proved by Randhir Singh PW 11 vide which he had sold 10 kanals 10 marlas of land at the rate of Rs.200/- per square yard for a total sale consideration of Rs.12 lacs. Ashok Kumar PW 12 proved sale deed Ex.P.13 dated 6.6.1992 vide which his father had sold 4 kanals 10 marlas of land situated in village Kundli at the rate of Rs.225/- per square yard for a total sale consideration of Rs.6.93,000/-. PW 15 Ravi Tripathi proved sale deed Ex.P.14 dated 17.2.1992 vide which he purchased 200 square yard of land from M/s Balaji Promoters at the rate of Rs.80/- per sq. yard for a total sale consideration of Rs.16,000/-.
PW 4 Sudhil Kumar, Assistant Registration Clerk from the office of Sub Registrar, Sonepat in his statement proved certified copies of sale deeds Ex.P.3 to P.6. Vide sale deed Ex.P.3 dated 22.3.1993 land measuring 8 kanals 11 marlas was sold at the rate of Rs.180/- per square yard for a total sale consideration of Rs.9 lacs, whereas vide sale deed Ex.P.4, dated 7.10.1994, land measuring 15 marlas was sold for a consideration of Rs.5 lacs. PW 13 Rajesh Kumar Marwaha led evidence to show that he had purchased a plot measuring 100 square yard from M/s Balaji Promoters in the year 1989 for a sum of Rs.25000/- and had spent an amount of Rs.45,000/- on the construction.
The respondents examined RW 3 Yashpal, Architect of HSIDC, Kundli who proved site plan pertaining to acquired land. He also proved on record Ex.R.4, the award passed by the court of Shri Virender Singh, the then Additional District Judge, Sonepat.
RW 1 Prem Singh proved on record sale deed Ex.R.1 vide RFA No. 4658 of 2001 8 which he along with his brother Lichha Ram had sold land measuring 1 kanal 17 marlas at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.yard for a total consideration of Rs.1.05 lacs. RW 2 Dharampal proved on record sale deed Ex.R. 2 dated 17.9.1991 vide which he sold land measuring 6 kanals 14 marlas at the rate of Rs.18/- per square yard for a total sale consideration of Rs.72,000/-. He also proved on record sale deed Ex.R.3 which was dated 17.9.1991 vide which land measuring 8 kanals 2 marlas was sold at the rate of Rs.18/- per square yard for a total sale consideration of Rs.88,000/-. Ex.R.5, the award dated 15.9.1999 passed by Shri Virender Singh the then Additional District Judge, Sonepat was also placed on record, along with sale deeds which were not proved but marked showing the rate of land between Rs.17 to Rs.31/- per square yard. However, subsequently, those sale deeds were also got exhibited.
On the basis of evidence led, learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat was pleased to enhance the compensation as referred to above.
Mr.Hemant Sarin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has challenged the findings of the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat on issues No.1 and 2 by claiming that the market value of the land has not been properly fixed as the sale deeds proved on record have been ignored.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Additional District Judge placed reliance on Ex.R.5 to fix the market value and therefore, by giving benefit of location of land fixed the market value, RFA No. 4658 of 2001 9 but ignored the material evidence proved on record by way of sale deeds. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the award Ex.R.5 has not attained finality as the same is the subject-matter of challenge in this court and therefore, c could not be the sole basis in fixing the market value.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had purchased land measuring 13 kanals 7 marlas vide Ex.P.9 dated 15.5.1990 for a sum of Rs.4,50,560/- much before the issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Act. The market value fixed by the learned Additional District Judge is even lower than the one at which the appellant purchased the land. The contention of the leaned counsel for the appellant was that by ignoring Ex.P.9 the learned Additional District Judge has ignored the best evidence available for fixing the market value.
In support of this contention learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Dollar Company, Madras Vs. Collector of Madras (1975) 2 SCC 730, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under:-
"5. It is true that compensation for compulsory acquisition, as governed by s. 23, gives high priority to the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under s. 4, sub-s. (1). But what is market value ? It is a common place of this branch of jurisprudence that the main criterion is what a willing purchaser would pay RFA No. 4658 of 2001 10 a willing vendor. Ordinarily a party will be entitled to get the amount that he actually and willingly paid for a particular property, provided the transaction be bona fide and entered into with due regard to the prevalent market conditions and is proximate in time to the relevant date under S. 23. We may even say that the best evidence of the value of property is the sale of the very property to which the claimant is a party. If the sale is of recent date, then all that need normally be proved is that the sale was between a willing purchaser and willing seller, that there has not been any appreciable rise or fall since and that nothing has been done on the land during the short interval to raise its value (See Parks 'Principles & practice of Valuations' p. 29-Eastern Law House- Calcutta,-IV Edition1970). But if the sale was long ago, may be the Court would examine more recent sales of comparable lands as throwing better light on current land value. We emphasize this facet because the appellant himself purchased the land in question just ten months before the notification under s. 4(1), at a price of Rs. 410 per ground. There was a pond in the plot, the filling up of which is alleged to have cost some extra money according to the appellant, but he gave no evidence before the court on this matter with the result that we are left with the estimate made by the Public Works Department for the filling up of the pond which works RFA No. 4658 of 2001 11 out at a much lesser figure. In short, less than a year before the date of commencement of acquisition proceedings, the appellant himself had purchased this land at a price around Rs. 450 (making allowance for the pond which he had filled up) and he has been awarded Rs. 1,800 per ground by the High Court. Instead of wandering around neighboring lands or guessing as to what the price of the disputed land might have been, we have before us the actual purchase of the suit property by the appellant himself and he has not set up any case of. special features or circumstances depressing the land value or affecting the particular transaction so that one could ignore that sale as the product of artificial circumstances.
We have thus a situation where the law should express a judgment from the experience of the appellant himself as against a judgment from speculation based on other transactions.
6. Clinching evidence to correct uncertain prophesy is furnished here by the claimant's conduct. An actual transaction with respect to the specific land of recent date is a guide-book that courts may not neglect when called upon to fix the precise compensation. Viewed from a slightly different aspect it is but fair that compulsory land- acquisition while assuring a just equivalent should not be converted into an RFA No. 4658 of 2001 12 avaricious windfall. Can an owner who bought the land at Rs. 400 per ground and laid out a little more money on it, grouse:
on the score of inadequate or unjust recompense, if within a year after his own purchase he is paid by the State 400 per cent of what he spent for the identical land? Neither morality nor legality is violated in such a case; for even a black marketeer's bosom may not be uneasy at the prospect of such a fortune which he could not have bargained for when he became the owner of the land some months before. 'It is the duty of the state or federal government, in the conduct of the inquest by which compensation is ascertained, to see that it is just, not merely to the individual whose property is taken, but to the public which is to pay for it' (See 27 Am Jur 2nd paragraph 66, p. 53 of Vol.
27). All things considered, the appellant stands self-
condemned by his own deed of purchase.
7. Property. valuation as a practiced art is greatly influenced by legal and economic constraints. But, in this case, we do not have any complex considerations since helpful indicators are available. Price paid-by the owner recently represents an expression of market value, as bona fide evidence of value, subject,to such matters as (a) the relationship of the parties; (b) the market conditions and the terms of sale and (c) the date of gale. It may not end the RFA No. 4658 of 2001 13 inquiry but goes a long way to solve the problem. In this collection it may be useful to refer to the decision of this Court in S. L. A. Officer v. T.A. Setty(1) where it was observed :
"It is not disputed that the function of the court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of the notification under S. 4(1) and the methods of valuation may be (1) opinion of experts, (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bone fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired".
Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Subrahmanya Rao Vs. Land Acquisition Zone Officer (2004) 10 SCC 640, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court was again pleased to reiterate that the sale deed in favour of the parties was a best piece of evidence to fix the market value. Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case was pleased to lay down as under:-
"6. There is no doubt that what has to be paid is the market value of the land. As has been held by this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector V.Kurra Sambasiva Rao the best RFA No. 4658 of 2001 14 evidence of market value would be the sale transactions in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party; the time at which the property came to be sold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out, these are the relevant factors. If those are not available then the sale transactions relating to the neighbouring lands in the vicinity of the acquired land have to be taken into consideration. As seen from the deposition of the appellant, extracted hereinabove, certified copies of sale instances were tendered before the Reference Court. The Reference Court has not referred to or dealt with those sale instances and they do not appear to have been shown to the High Court. Even when we asked the appellant's counsel what those sale instances were, he was not in a position to answer. It will,therefore, have to be presumed that they are not helpful to the appellant.; It was fairly admitted that the appellant is now not relying on them."
Learned counsel for the appellant further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Shakuntalabai & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra JT 1995 (8) S.C.501, where again Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under:-
"4. The question, therefore, is whether the High Court has committed any manifest error of law or had applied any wrong principle of law in determining the compensation and whether RFA No. 4658 of 2001 15 its failure to consider Ex.38 and 44 does make any difference. Having given our consideration to the contention of Shri Mohta, we think that the High Court had not committed any manifest error of law or omitted to apply any correct principle of law. It is seen that if there is evidence or admission on behalf of the claimants as to the market value commanded by the acquired land itself, the need to travel beyond the boundary of the acquired land is obviated. The need to take into consideration the value of the lands adjacent to the acquired land or near about the area which possessed same potentiality to work out the prices fetched therein for determination of market value of the acquired land would arise only when there is no evidence of the value of the acquired land. In a case where evidence of the value of the acquired land itself is available on record, it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent lands. As stated earlier, though Ex.38 and 44 might command different market value to the land situated in approved lay- outs, since the appellant himself had purchased the self- same acquired lands in 1957 at Rs. 10,000/- for the entire 20 acres of land, the High Court was right in its view to consider the very same evidence to determine the compensation to the acquired land. RFA No. 4658 of 2001 16 On the assessment of the increase in the value by 10 times, the High Court had accepted that assessment of the appellant himself as PW-9 and upheld the award of the Land Acquisition Collector since it reflects the same price as granted in the award under Section 11."
Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, contended that the market value of the land could not be fixed at less than Rs.55/- per square yard. It was further the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that over this price increase of 12 per cent per annum was required to be added keeping in view the rising prices of the land.
To support this contention learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (Dead) by Lrs. And others Vs. Union of India and another (2004) 10 SCC 627, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under:-
"9. Interestingly, a perusal of the appeal memorandum of the Union of India shows that, even according to the Union of India the ascertainment of the fair market value of the lands in question should have proceeded on the basis of Rs.16,750/- per bigha as on 30.10.1963 with 12 % escalation per year. If this method is adopted, according to the Union of India, the fair market value of the land as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act would come to Rs.56,112/- per bigha, (see ground (e) in the appeals arising out of SLPs Nos. 21335, RFA No. 4658 of 2001 17 21343, 23385 of 2002 and 12968 of 2003 and ground (d) in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.1632 of 2003 and Civil Appeals Nos. 8591-92 of 2003.
10. xx xx xx
11. In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in working out the fair market value of the lands in question on the basis of Rs.16,750/- per bigha as on 30.10.1963. The High Court noticed that in several judgments of this Court escalation at different and varying rates i.e. 6% per annum from 1959 to 1965, @ 10% per annum for every year from 1966 to 1973 and @ 12% per annum from 1975 had been considered to be reasonable increase to arrive at the fair market value, assuming that the pace of escalation during this period was normal for the entire period from 1959 onwards. Since no material was placed on record to show that there was any abnormality during the period, the High Court applied the same principle to the facts and circumstances before it, and accepted increase of 10% every year progressively from 1963 to 1973 and thereafter @ 12% every year progressively up to the date of acquisition. The High Court noticed in the judgment that if escalation is allowed on this basis, the fair market value would be Rs.1,28,889/- per bigha. In case progressive increase is allowed @ 10% for the entire period, the amount will work out to Rs.1,08,397/- per bigha. Allowing appreciation @ 12% for every year, not RFA No. 4658 of 2001 18 cumulatively, but at a flat rate of 12% per annum from 1963 to 1983, the amount would work out to Rs.56112/- per bigha. The High Court in its judgment under appeal pointed out that the market value of Rs.16,750/- per bigha fixed in the case of Dharambir V. Union of India was not in respect of commercial land but only of agricultural land. That the market value of agricultural land is much lower than that of land suitable for commercial purposes, is trite. After having worked out the market value of the lands on various bases and keeping in view the fact that between 8.12.1982 and 2.6.1983, the lands in question had at least some commercial potentiality, the High Court decided that the fair market value of all categories of lands situated in the villages in question as on the date of acquisition should be fixed at Rs.82,255/- per bigha."
Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Gurbax Singh (Dead) by LRs. And another (2008) 11 SCC 65, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court was again pleased to reiterate as under:-
"8. The Division Bench has only marginally increased the compensation from Rs.99,668/- per acre to Rs.1,25,000/- per acre. The Division Bench has merely given the benefit of the two sale deeds being Exhibits P-8 and P-9 in a very limited manner by ordering the enhancement at the rate of 12% per annum for two years since the acquisition in this case had taken RFA No. 4658 of 2001 19 place in the year 1983 whereas those sale deeds were of January and March 1981. We do not find anything wrong in this approach. The Division Bench has also justified this increase by observing that there was continuous rise in the prices of land. It has further justified that though the two transactions were in respect of the small pieces of lands, however, the State had not challenged the action of the learned Single Judge in accepting those sales as a valid basis. It has also further observed that there was no evidence that the market value of the land was lesser than the one mentioned in the two sale deeds. All that the Division Bench, however, did was to marginally increase the quantum of compensation by adding 12% per annum for a period of two years and doing so, the Division Bench rounded off the market value for the year 1983 at Rs.1,25,000/-. We do not find any thing wrong in this and therefore, the appeals filed by the Government of Haryana (Civil Appeals Nos. 2461-65 of 2000) against this marginal increase would have to be dismissed. They are accordingly dismissed. However, the matters do not stop here."
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, was that other sale deed i.e. Ex.P.7 which was also in respect of acquired land showed that land measuring 900 sq. yard was purchased at the rate of Rs.133/-per sq. yard, whereas Ex.P.10 i.e. sale deed dated 30.10.1991 showed that the land was purchased at the rate of Rs.150/- per RFA No. 4658 of 2001 20 square yard, whereas the land vide Ex.P.11 was purchased at the rate of Rs.100/- per square yard, whereas sale deed Ex.P.3 showed that the land by way of sale deed dated 6.6.1992 was purchased at the rate of Rs.225/- per square yard.
The average sale market value, therefore, for the acquired land comes to Rs.123.80P which could be the market value. It was further the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the sale instances relied upon by the respondent i.e. sale deeds Exs.R.1 to R.3 and those exhibited with the award deserved to be ignored as these were not even accepted by the learned Collector while fixing the rate. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, claimed that the market value of the acquired land is required to be fixed at the rate of Rs.124/- (round off) per square yard.
Mr. H.S.Hooda, learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, however, contended that the market value of the land has already been fixed at higher rate, as the learned Additional District Judge relied upon the award qua adjoining land, but, enhanced the price without any basis or evidence on record as to how the land of the appellant was of higher quality.
It was also the contention of the learned state counsel that while determining the market value, development deductions up to 53 per cent under the Building Rules and further deduction of 33.5 per cent as development charges was required to be deducted out of the sale instances and if this principle is applied then it cannot be said that the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge suffers from any error. Reliance in RFA No. 4658 of 2001 21 support of this contention was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S.Shivadevamma and Ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and another 1996 LACC
326. The judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate General cannot advance the argument raised, as the sale deeds relied upon by the appellants are not qua developed plot but they area purchased by them.
On consideration of the matter, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned Additional District Judge could not have rejected the sale instances with respect to the land which was under acquisition as it was the best piece of evidence to determine the market value of the land.
However, keeping in view that the sale instances were with respect to small pieces of land, whereas 705 kanals 2 marlas of land has been acquired, therefore, a cut is required to be imposed to determine the market value of the acquired land.
Keeping in view the industrialization and commercial potential of the land it would not be fair to classify the land in different categories. The whole of the acquired land is to be treated one block carrying the same market value.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the potentiality of the land a cut of one third of the average rate of 124 would be just and fair estimation of the market value. Therefore, the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.79/- per square yard. RFA No. 4658 of 2001 22
For the reasons stated above, all the appeals are allowed. The compensation is enhanced to Rs.79/- per square yard. In addition thereto, the appellant shall also be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30 per cent on the compensation amount under section 23 (2) of the Act and additional amount of 12 per cent per annum on the assessed compensation, besides statutory interest. The appellant shall also be entitled to costs of appeal which are assessed at Rs.3000/-.
03.07.2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge