Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Rajwant Singh vs State Of Haryana on 5 October, 2007
Equivalent citations: (2008)149PLR511, AIR 2008 (NOC) 1091 (P. & H.)
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J.
1. These appeals arising out of various awards passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal i.e. the reference Court deciding various references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), have been placed before me pursuant to remand order dated 16.12.2004 passed by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 441 of 1985.
2. Earlier these appeals were decided by a Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 28.11.1984 passed in R.F.A. No. 890 of 1983 and other connected matters. An L.P.A. being L.P.A. No. 44l of 1985 came to be preferred by the claimants/land owners challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge claiming higher rate of compensation than allowed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of this Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
3. The circumstances that persuaded the Hon'ble Division Bench to remand the matter and relevant observations in the order of remand are being noticed here under:
...We have given serious thought to the respective arguments. A careful reading of judgment dated 28.11.1984 passed by the learned Single Judge in relation to the land acquired for Sector 6 shows that while fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 33/- per square yard, he had taken into consideration the market rate fixed for the land of Sector 13 and 14. He noted that the market price of the land acquired for Sector 14 had been fixed at a flat rate of Rs. 30/- per square yard in R.F.A. No. 991 of 1984 - Dalip Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. and held that the claimants are entitled to the benefit of rise of prices of the land between 1973 when the land was acquired for Sector 13 and 1977 when the land was acquired for Sector 14 and the notifications issued in 1980 for acquisition of land for Sector 6. The respondents did not challenge that judgment of the learned Single Judge in R.F.A. No. 876 of 1983 and connected appeals. Therefore, they will be deemed to have accepted the principle that the claimants are entitled to some increase in the price of the land keeping in view the time-gap between different acquisitions.
In respect of the land acquired for Sector 3, the learned Single Judge, vide his judgment dated 21.10.1993 rendered in R.F.A. No. 1197 of 1988 fixed the market price of the land at Rs. 42/- per square yard. That judgment has also not been challenged by the respondent. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that their clients are entitled to benefit of some increase in the market price keeping in view the fact that the market price of the land acquired for Sector 14 vide notification dated 24.3.1977 was determined by the learned Single Judge at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square yard and in respect of the acquisition made for Sector 6, the learned Single Judge fixed the market price at a flat rate of Rs. 33/- by taking into consideration the market price fixed for the land of Sectors 13 and 14 and that for the land of Sector 3, the learned Single Judge fixed the market price at the rate of Rs. 42/- per square yard. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan v. Bipin Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court approved the judgment of the Allahabad High Court to the extent of granting 15% increase in the price of the land keeping in view the time gap between different notifications.
However, as the point pressed before us was not projected before the learned Single Judges in a correct perspective, we feel that it will be proper to remand the cases to the learned Single Bench for re-determination of the market value of the acquired land by granting reasonable increase in the context of the awards passed in relation to the acquisitions made in 1973 and 1977 for Sector 13 and 14 and the fact that in respect of Sector 3, the learned Single Judge himself fixed the market price at the rate of Rs. 42/- per square yard. The claim of the appellants for grant of higher compensation on the basis of sale instances produced by them also deserves to be considered by the learned Single Judge because this point does not appear to have been properly addressed and dealt with in the judgments under appeal.
For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgments are set aside and the cases are remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication of the regular first appeals. The parties shall be free to raise all legally permissible points before the learned Single Judge. The Registry is directed to list the appeals for hearing before the Single Bench on 8.2.2005.
4. This Court has accordingly been called upon to determine the market value of the acquired land in the light of the observations made by Hon'ble Division Bench noticed hereinabove. It may be convenient to briefly refer to the relevant facts on record.
5. State of Haryana with a view to develop the Urban Estate at Karnal initiated process for compulsory acquisition of the land in and around the municipal limits of Karnal. First Notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of the land came to be issued in the year 1973 precisely on 2.5.1973. At the relevant time, the reference court i.e. Additional District Judge, Karnal awarded the compensation of the land at the rate of Rs. 20A per square yard which was enhanced to Rs. 22/- per square yard by this Court. This land was converted into, Sector 13. In its drive to develop more and more areas for annexing with the Urban areas, another Notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be issued on 4.6.1980 which was followed by Notifications dated 13.5.1981, 22.6.1982 and 5.7.1982. On completion of the acquisition proceedings, various patches of land around Karnal were acquired and consequential awards made and published in terms of Section 11 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the rate of compensation at Rs. 28,512/- per acre for Chhahi Nehri Land, Rs. 22,080/- per acre for Barani, Rs. 14,200/- per acre for Banjar Qadim land and Rs. 13,440/- per acre for Ghair Mumkin land, in respect to land acquired under Notification dated 4.6.1980, at Rs. 80,000/- per acre for Nehri/Chahi Land and Rs. 50,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land in respect to land acquired under Notification dated 13.3.1981, at Rs. 86,000/- per acre in respect of land acquired under Notification dated 22.6.1982 and Rs. 86,000/- in respect to land acquired under Notification dated 5.7.1982. Dissatisfied with the rates determined by the Collector, land owners sought Reference under Section 18 of the Act from the Collector who made various References to the Additional District Judge, Karnal. These References were decided by the said court on different dates. The Reference Court, after the evidence of the parties, determined the rate of compensation in the following manner:
Date of Notification Sector Rate of compensation 4.6.1980 6 Rs. 20 per square yard 13.3.1981 3 Rs. 33 per square yard 22.6.1982 9 Rs. 35 per square yard 5.7.1982 7 Rs. 35 per square yard
6. The land owners continued to remain dissatisfied with the rates determined by the Reference Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Karnal as they had demanded/claimed much more compensation than determined. They accordingly approached this Court by filing present appeals. State of Haryana also filed appeals against the awards challenging the rates determined by the Reference Court and asked for reduction of rates of compensation. All these appeals were heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court who passed a common judgment dated 28.11.1984 in R.F.A. No. 876 of 1983 and other connected matters and determined the rate of land acquired against Notification dated 4.6.1980 and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 20/- per square yard to Rs. 33/- per square yard. In another appeal, compensation in respect to the land acquired for Sector 3, determined by the Collector at Rs. 337- was enhanced by the learned Single Judge to Rs. 41.28 per square yard and rounded up the same at Rs. 42/- per square-yard. For the land acquired for Sector 6, the rate was determined by the learned Single Judge at Rs. 33/- per square yard. Similarly for the land acquired for Sector 7, the learned Single Judge determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 41 per square yard vide its judgment dated 9.5.1989 passed in R.F.A. No. 1278 of 1988. In respect to land acquired for Sector 8 and 9, the market value was also determined at Rs. 41 per square yard. It is useful to mention that when this Court passed the judgment dated 28.11.1984 in R.F.A. No. 876 of 1983, the appeals preferred by the State against the award passed by the Reference Court were dismissed vide judgment of the even date. It is also pertinent to notice that L.P.A.s were preferred by the claimants/ land owners against the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in R.F.A. No. 876 of 1983 and R.F.A. No. 890 of 1983 and State chose not to assail the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court. The remand order referred to herein above has been passed in the appeals preferred by the claimants/land owners.
7. Mr. Hooda, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana contended that while considering the appeals of the claimants/land owners for enhancement of compensation, State's appeals against the order of Reference court be also considered by this Court. It is not in dispute that when these appeals were disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 28.11.1984, State's appeals were simultaneously dismissed by the same judgment. State of Haryana chose not to prefer any appeal before the L.P.A. Bench and the order of dismissal of State's appeals remained intact. This position is, however, not accepted by the learned Advocate General. According to him, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 441 of 1985, State's appeals also stand revived. He has referred to the following observations in the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench:
For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgments are set aside and the cases are remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication of the Regular First Appeals. The parties shall be free to raise all legally permissible points before the learned Single Judge.
The Registry is directed to list the appeals for hearing before the Single Bench on 8.2.2005.
8. Before I take up other issues, it is necessary to consider this contention of learned Advocate General, Haryana. The moot question is whether the order dated 16.12.2004 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench setting aside the impugned judgment dated 28.11.1984 would amount to revival of the State's appeals (RFAs). The significant part of the order of Hon'ble Division Bench is "the appeals are allowed"; "the impugned judgments are set aside" and "the cases are remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication of the Regular First Appeals". These expressions used by the Hon'ble Division Bench are meant only for the judgments subject matter of appeals filed by the claimants/land owners before the Hon'ble Division Bench. By allowing the appeals of the claimants/landlords and setting aside the judgments impugned therein, the Hon'ble Division Bench never meant to set aside the judgments of learned Single Judge in the appeals preferred by the State of Haryana before learned Single Judge; firstly because the order of dismissal of State's appeals was never impugned before the Hon'ble Division Bench; and secondly the observations made in the judgment relate only to the claim of the landlords for enhancement of compensation. In the entire Division Bench judgment, there is absolutely no reference to the State's plea of dismissal of their appeals or the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is excessive. What is deemed to be set aside is only the part of the judgment which deals with the compensation payable to the landlords, The part of the judgment whereby State's appeals were dismissed, cannot be said to be set aside and thus remand order cannot be construed to revive the State's appeals. The order of Hon'ble Division Bench is thus qua the claimant's appeals. In this regard, I am fortified by a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.V. Rajendran v. N.M. Mohammed Kunhi (2002)7 S.C.C. 447 wherein it observed as under:
7. In the light of the above discussion we hold that as the question whether Section 15 of the Act bars the present eviction petition, was decided against the appellants by the appellate authority at the earlier stage of suit and it was allowed to become final, it is not open to the appellants to re-agitate the same at the subsequent stage of the suit. In this view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the order under appeal to warrant any interference.
9. Again in the case of Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade (1999)5 S.C.C. 590, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
23. ...Again once an issue has been finally determined, parties cannot subsequently in the same suit advance arguments or adduce further evidence directed to showing that issue was wrongly determined. Their only remedy is to approach the higher forum if available. The determination of the issue between the parties gives rise to, as noted above, an issue estoppel. It operates in any subsequent proceedings in the same suit in which the issue had been determined....
10. In view of the above position and my opinion that the State's appeals cannot be considered, the judgment of dismissal by this Court having attained finality, I take the issue of determination of compensation payable to the landlords-appellants for the acquired land.
11. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act provides the parameters for determination of compensation. Section 23 of the Act reads as under:
23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation - (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration - first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the [notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1);] Secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking the Collector's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land form his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land.
(1A) In addition to the market Value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1) in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
Explanation-In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded) (2) In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of (thirty per centum) on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.
12. None of the parties/appellants have lodged a claim for damages on any count. Therefore, the only question needs to be examined is the market value of the land on the date of publication of the Notifications under Section 4 of the Act.
13. With a view to determine the fair market price of the acquired land as on the dates, Notifications under Section 4 of the Act were issued. It is necessary to scan the relevant material/evidence on record.
14. It is admitted case of the parties that for the land acquired vide Notification dated 2.5.1973 for Sector 13 which culminated into passing of the award dated 22.10.1980, the rate determined by the Collector was enhanced by this Court to Rs. 22/- per square yard. In the second phase, land was acquired for Sector 6. Appellants have placed on record a certified copy of the sale deed dated 22.2.1980 (Ex.P3) for the sale of a plot of land measuring 25 marlas for a sum of Rs. 1.00 lac. This lot was purchased for establishing a factory. It has also come on record that this land is situated towards the city side from G.T. Road Bypass and is located opposite to K.R. Cinema, Karnal. The price per square yard at the above amount comes, to Rs. 132.96. There is another sale deed dated 9.4.1980 (Ex.P6) which relates to purchase of land measuring 15 bighas for Gurudwara at the rate of Rs. 35,000/-. This land is also near Bypass and the price per square yard on the basis of sale deed comes to Rs. 46.54. Claimants/land owners also relied upon site plan Ex.P5 to demonstrate the location of the land acquired for Sector 6 which is on the Bypass G.T. Road. Sector 13 in this plan is on the opposite side of Sector 6 across Ambala-Karnal Bypass. Sector 13 is said to be fully developed and Sector 14 which is also exactly on the opposite side adjoining Sector 13 across the road is also in the process of. development. This site plan has been proved by PW7 Chaman Lal Sethi, Draftsman (Retired Municipal Engineer). It is stated that Sector 6 is located within municipal limit of Karnal and has been developed as a residential and commercial area. It has also come in evidence even through the witnesses of the State, namely, Jaipal, Patwari RW1, PW6 - Darshan Singh, Junior Engineer, PWD, Karnal, PW10 Ram Kumar, Chief Engineer that Sector 13 is fully populated. Jaipal, Patwari further stated that when land for Sector 6 was acquired, Sector 13 was fully developed.
15. The State contended before the Reference Court that the land is agricultural and thus, its rate cannot be determined on the basis of price of Urban Land represented by the sale deeds Ex.P3 and Ex.P6. The reference Court has noticed the evidence of material witnesses i.e. PW7 who served as a Municipal Engineer in Municipal Committee, Karnal for 23 years and is a registered architect of the Municipal Committee and Improvement Trust, Karnal. This witness has clearly stated that Sector 6 is located on the G.T. Road Bypass across Sector 13 and 14. According to him, this bypass was completed in the year 1965. There is a government college in Sector 14 opposite Sector 6, one Petrol Pump, one Gurdwara and one Sugar Mill. Another witness PW2 Raj Rani, Accounts Clerk, Housing Board has referred to sale of a land in the Housing Board Colony in Sector 13 between Rs. 64,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- for an area of 150 square yards. It has come in evidence that the entire area where these sectors have been carved out, has been urbanized and the land under acquisition and adjoining areas has ceased to be agricultural land. There is lot of potential of this land for commercial and residential purposes. HUDA has also sold plots at the rate of Rs. 198 per square meter. Based upon above facts, it has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the rate determined by this Court for land acquired for different Sectors does not represent the fair market value thereof.
16. There are two acknowledged methods of determining the market value - firstly, the principle of "eminent domain" thereby the fair market value of property is the price that the property will bring when offered for sale by one desiring to purchase, but not obliged, to sell; and purchased by one desiring to purchase but under no necessity of buying. It is the price which piece of property will bring in the market when offered for sale and purchased by another, taking into consideration all the elements of the avail-ability of the property, its use, potential or prospective, and all other elements which combine to give a piece of property a market-value. Secondly the other method is capitalization of net annual value of the property. In the case of Hookiyar Singh v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Maradabad (1963)3 Supreme Court Cases 766, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain principles for determining the market value of the property. What has been said by the Supreme Court is noticed as under:
6. It is settled law that the burden of proof of market value prevailing as on the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification is always on the claimants. Though this Court has time and again pointed out the apathy and blatant lapse on the part of the acquiring officer to adduce evidence and also improper or ineffective or lack of interest on the part of the counsel for the State to cross-examine the witnesses on material facts, it is the duty of the Court to carefully scrutinize the evidence and determine just and adequate compensation. If the sale deeds are found to be genuine, the market value mentioned therein must be presumed to be correct. If the genuineness is doubted, it cannot be relied upon. Proper tests and principles laid down by this Court must be applied to determine compensation....
The Court must not indulge in feats of imagination but, sit in the armchair of a prudent purchaser it would offer the same price in the open market as is to be determined? This should be the acid test....
17. In the case of G. Narayan Rao v. Land Acquisition Officer (1996)10 Supreme Court Cases 607, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
3. The High Court elaborately considered the nature of the land, situation in the developed area to find out whether the lands were possessed of potential value. It was held that the layout sanction was, obtained three years after publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. There was no development in the neighborhood. It must be established, as a fact, that the potential purpose does exist, as on the date of the notification, the prevailing conditions in the market, the existence of the construction of building activities in the neighborhood and that other lands in the neighborhood possessed similar conditions....
18. Under the second method i.e. capitalization of net annual value, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 564 has observed as under:
Capitalisation of the net annual profit out of the property at a rate equal in normal cases to the return from gilt-edged securities. Ordinarily, value of the property may be determined by capitalizing the net annual value obtainable in the market at the date of the notice of acquisition.
19. In order to determine the market value, the best course available is the comparable price of the land for the area/vicinity at the time of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. Ex.P2 is the sale deed dated 4.2.1973 proved by PW4 Angad Singh whereby land measuring 1 bigha and 2 biswas was purchased for Rs. 36,765/- it's price per yard comes to Rs. 33.09. Sale Deed Ex.P6 dated 9.4.1980 is for the land measuring 15 biswas sold at the rate of Rs. 35,000/-. The rate per square yard comes to Rs. 46.30. This sale deed was proved by PW9 Jaswant Singh and PW13, Balkar Singh. Similarly, sale deed dated 22.12.1980 Ex.P3 pertains to land measuring 25 marlas sold at the rate of Rs. 132.96 per square yard. HUDA also sold plots at the rate of S.198 per square meter on 17.10.1980 and 31.8.1981. On the basis of the aforesaid sale deeds, the price of the land in the year 1973 is said to be Rs. 33/- per square yard: It is admitted position that when this land was acquired in the year 1973 for Sector 13, the rate of land per square yard was determined by the High Court at Rs. 22/-. Seven years later, second Notification was issued on 4.6.1980 and last Notification in the series was issued on 5.7.1982. The land acquired by four notifications issued during this period has been converted into. Sectors. 6, 3, 9 and 7. As per the sale deeds referred to above, the rates during that period are stated to be between Rs. 46.30 to Rs. 132.96 per square yard. Learned Single Judge determined the market value of the land at Rs. 41 per square yard. This judgment was under challenge before the LPA Bench and set aside by the Hon'ble Division Bench with the observations to consider the enhancement of the rates in the light of the observations made by L.P.A. Bench. The mode of determining compensation is also indicated by the Apex Court:
20. In the case of Mehta Ruvindraraj Ajitrai (deceased) through L.Rs v. State of Gujarat (1989)4 S.C.C. 250 : A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 2051, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that even post notification sale can provide comparable instance of rates at market value. It has been held as under:
4. ...It appears that under these circumstances, the High Court was not justified in not taking this instance into account at all as it has done on the ground that it was a post-acquisition sale and could not be regarded as a comparable instance at all. The market value of a piece of property for purposes of Section 23 of the land Acquisition Act is stated to be the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms length. Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual and indeed the best evidence of market value.
21. Apart from above, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants have also referred to the judgment rendered in the case Krishi Utpadam Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun through its Secretary v. Bipin Kumar (2004)2 Supreme Court Cases 283 wherein the Apex Court approved the increase of compensation at the rate of 15% per annum from the last acquisition of land in the same area. In the said judgment, it has been observed as under:
8. However, there is evidence of high potentiality. The increase of 15% given by the High Court cannot, therefore, be' said to be unreasonable. Of course, the 15% increase has to be on Rs. 15.40 which is the figure shown in the sale deed. It cannot be on Rs. 120 as wrongly taken by the High Court. The High Court also erred in considering only three years' increase whereas in fact there is four years' difference between the respondent's sale deed and the acquisition proceedings. Thus taking an increase of 60% over the price of Rs. 15.40 per sq. yard, the value comes to Rs. 24.64 per sq.yard. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the Reference Court and the High Court and fix the value at the rate of Rs. 24.64 per sq.yard. The respondent will also be entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
22. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, it has been contended on behalf of the appellants that taking into consideration the acquisition made in the year 1973 for Sector 13, the compensation be enhanced at the rate of 15% per year for new Sectors with 1973 as the base year. According to the learned Counsel, Sector 13 is just opposite the Sectors 6, 3, 9 and 7 across the road, it's acquisition price can safely be made the basis for determination of market value of the acquired land by applying the aforesaid yardstick.
23. Learned Advocate General has forcefully contended that the land acquired for these Sectors is away from the developed areas. Location is on by-pass road and not on G.T. road. He has further mentioned that sale deed (Annexure P-6) relates to purchase of land for Gurudwara and not for residential purposes. Same cannot be made the basis for determination of the market value. He has further submitted that it is a small piece of land and is not determinative factor for big chunk of land. According to him, small piece of land always fetches higher price, the same being fully developed whereas when the big chunk of land is acquired, a part of the land is to be utilized for carving out roads and other public utility services. Therefore, the price for a small plot of land cannot be made the basis for big chunk of land. His further contention is that there is no evidence of price rise since 1973 and thus in the absence of there being any evidence of price rise in the vicinity, the price of the acquired land cannot be determined by the court except on the basis of the material brought on record before the Reference Court. He has further stated that as a matter of fact, there is no material on the basis of which opinion can be formulated regarding price rise in the area. He has also contended that the 1973 acquisition cannot be the basis for enhancement of compensation.
24. On consideration of the judgments referred to hereinabove and the material on record and also taking into consideration the observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench, I am of the considered view that the rate determined by the Reference Court is not the fair market value of the land. There is abundance of evidence on record that the land acquired for Sectors 6, 3, 9 and 7 has the high potential for development. It is in the vicinity of land earlier acquired where Sector 13 has been carved out. Sector 13 and adjoining Sector 14 are fully developed areas and are across the road as is evident from the site plan Ex.P5 duly proved by PW7-Chaman Lal Sethi. 25. Now the question is what should be the market value of the land acquired. The land owners claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 200 per square yards before the Reference Court. The average rate of land as per sale deeds Ex.P3 and P6 comes to Rs. 88 per square yard. Price for the plots sold by HUDA on 17.10.1980 and 31.8.1981 is Rs. 198/- per square meter. However, this cannot form the basis for determination of the fair market value as the HUDA has sold fully developed plots with roads, parks and other public utility areas. Therefore, the price of the development has also been included in this price. Whereas the land acquired is yet to be developed and its final price cannot be equated with the developed area. The rate of fully developed area and that of the undeveloped land cannot be the same. If a residential or commercial areas is to be developed, not less than 1/3 of the land is required to be utilized for development purposes for providing roads, parks and other public utilities. Sale deeds Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P6 also cannot be considered to represent comparable price at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act even though these sale deeds relate to land in the vicinity rather in the same sectors and around the same period but these are isolated sale/purchase instances. In absence of sufficient material of comparable rates, the market price can be determined by periodical increase formula approved by the Apex Court in the case of Sahaswan, District Badaun (supra). If the formula approved by the Apex Court in Sahaswan, District Badaun (supra) is to be applied with 1973 year as the base, the market value of the land in the year 1980 comes to Rs. 58.45, in the year 1981 comes to Rs. 66.21 and in the year 1982 comes to Rs. 76.21. The land being big chunk, l/3rd of the price has to be reduced as at least this much land is required for development purposes, for roads, parks and public utilities. Therefore, the rate per square yard comes to Rs. 39.17 as on the date of notification dated 4.6.1980 and Rs. 44.37 per square yard as on the date of notification dated 13.3.1981 and at Rs. 51.07 per square yard as on the date of notifications dated 22.6.1982 and 5.7.1982. Accordingly, the market price of the land under different acquisition notifications is assessed at Rs. 39/- per square yard in respect to land acquired for Sector 6 (represented by Notification dated 4.6.1980), Rs. 44/- for Sector 3 (represented by Notification dated 13.3.1981) and Rs 5l/- for Sectors 9 & 7 (represented by the notifications dated 22.6.1982 and 5.7.1982).
25. These appeals arc accordingly allowed with costs and respondent are directed to calculate the compensation for the acquired land at the above rates. The appellants are also entitled to solatium and interest as determined by the Reference Court on the amount determined therein.
A copy of this judgment be placed on record of all above said connected cases.