Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Thereafter, for village Pehaladpur, Hadbast No.117, which is the adjoining village, vide Award dated 27.11.2012, the same amount was granted, keeping in view the amount of Rampal's case (supra) and on 24.12.2014 for village Murtezapur, Hadbast No.97 the same amount was granted.

10. However, on 12.03.2015 for village Bhatola, Hadbast No.115, in view of the better evidence being produced in the form of sale deed dated 27.04.2006 (Ex.P5) in favour of M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Company Ltd., which was for 57 kanals 19 marlas of land for the said revenue estate, whereby the land was sold @ Rs.1797 per square yard, a 50% cut was applied and Rs.900/- per square yard (Rs.43,56,000/- per acre) was granted.

43. For village Bhatola argument raised was that Rs.900/- per square yard had been granted on the basis of the sale deed Ex.P5 dated 27.04.2006 for 57 kanals 19 marlas and which was executed in favour of M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Company Limited. The same principle should also be followed and value could not be less than Rs.900/- per square yard, as admittedly the State had also chosen not to file appeal against the said award. It was submitted that 50% cut which was applied on Rs.1797/- was not justified. It is further submitted that the Reference Court itself had recorded that the sale deed was bonafide and if one has to examine Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 dated 08.02.2006 and 22.02.2006, which have been executed for Rs.1446/- and Rs.1136/- per square yard, respectively, it would go on to show that the market value was increasing phenomenally within a period of 2 months. Reliance was placed upon Ex.P12 site plan and the statement of PW2- that the builders were coming behind in the sectors and carrying on their activities. Similarly, Ex.P26, the site plan was also relied upon to show that PW-3, Ashok Sharma, Assistant Draftsman, DTP, Faridabad stated that the area fell within the controlled area for development and, therefore, the potentiality of growth was immense.

44. For village Sihi, Hadbast No.80, the abadi area of which falls 24 of 116 RFA No.7108 of 2012 & other connected appeals -25- across the Agra and Gurgaon canal towards the main Faridabad town and land fell within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad Rs.1415 had been granted, keeping in view the judgment in Rampal's case (supra). Reliance was, accordingly, placed upon sale deed dated 27.04.2006 (Ex.P12) which was for land measuring 44 kanals 6 marlas, sold @ Rs.2458/- per square yard and Ex.P13 dated 26.04.2006 for 48 kanals 16 marlas for the same value. It was submitted that the said sale deeds were for the land which was outside the municipal limits and had been sold to M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Company Pvt. Ltd. and the same should have been kept into consideration. Reliance was placed upon Ex.R4 dated 10.02.2006 produced by the State itself wherein land measuring 18 kanals 8 marlas had been sold @ Rs.1570/- per square yard in favour of M/s Meenush Collection Pvt. Ltd., which was within municipal limits. It was submitted that once the State itself had admitted by producing the said sale deed that the prices were increasing, the market value is liable to be enhanced to the said rate. It was submitted that the sale deed (Ex.P20) dated 02.05.2006 though post dated by one day was for 14 kanals of village Pehladpur which was the adjoining village and, therefore, the same could also be taken into consideration.

29 of 116 RFA No.7108 of 2012 & other connected appeals -30-

51. It is, accordingly, pointed out that sale deeds Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P12 and Ex.P15 have been executed in favour of M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Company Ltd. and the market value from April, 2006 to 05.05.2007 had also moved up to Rs.2271/- per square yard from Rs.1798/- per square yard. It is also pointed out that by the said four sale deeds total amount of land in favour of development company would come to 80 kanals 6 marlas (10 acres) and, therefore, it was a reasonably large chunk of land and cut on account of smallness should not be applied.