- (1.)In pursuance of a notification published under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 24th May, 1976, the appellant-State acquired 7 Kanals and 12 Marlas of land falling within the revenue estate of village Kheri Nangal for purposes of allotment of residential plots to landless/homeless Harijans and members of Backward Classes. Though the Collector evaluated this land at the rate of Rs. 6,400/- per acre yet as a result of the reference sought by the landowner/claimants the lower court has enhanced this rate to Rs. 2,500/- per Kanal. Both the sides impugn, this award. Whereas the State authorities make a grouse of this enhancement, the claimants, vide their X-objections No. 115-C of 1980, still clamour for a higher rate of compensation. In view of the identity of facts and contentions raised therein, the appeal and the X-objections are disposed of through this common judgment.
(2.)It is the undisputed position that for pronouncing its award, the lower court has primarily depended upon sale instance P1 which pertains to the sale of 1903-4/9 square yards of land for a sum of Rs. 20,938/- on 23rd September, 1974. The parties again do not dispute that this was undoubtedly the most relevant sale instance on which the lower court could place reliance. To this extent, the learned counsel for the parties do not criticise the approach of the lower court. The grouse of the claimants, however, is that in spite of the very advantageous location of the suit land, the lower court has, through a queer process of reasoning, reduced the market rate as disclosed by Ex. P I by one-half for evaluating their land. This, according to their learned counsel, is not, sustainable.
(3.)So far as the location of the land is concerned, the lower court has observed as under :-
"...the land comprised in Rect. No. 42, in question, is at a distance of two killas from land comprised in Rect. No. 31. It also shows that both these lands abut on the G.T. Road. We have also the unchallenged and unrebutted testimony of Ram, Diya PW 2, one of the petitioners, who stated that the Octroi post of Panipat Municipality on the G.T. Road, towards Delhi side, adjoins the acquired land. Similarly the land comprised in Rect. No. 31 is also adjacent to the said Octroi post. It would, therefore, be seen that the acquired lands and the one comprised in Rect, No. 31, are just on the edge of the Municipal limits of the town of Panipat."

While evaluating it in the light of Ex. P1, the court has observed as follows :-

"The second contention of the learned Government Pleader was that the land covered by Exhibit P. I was much too small in area as compared to the acquired land. This contention again is not wholly correct. The land covered by Exhibit P.1 is practically half of the acquired land. At any rate proportionate reduction of the price can be made by the Court, as was done in the case of Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, 1971 AIR(SC) 2015.

I am thus of opinion that by reducing proportionately the price of the land on the basis of the/sale deed Exhibit P. 1, the fair market value of the acquired land is Rs. 2500/- per Kanal."

It is difficult to appreciate as to what the learned Additional District Judge (Sh. R.K Gupta) actually meant by "proportionate reduction". It is all the more astonishing that he has done it in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in Bhuban Chandra Dutta's case . He appears to have completely misconstrued or misinterpreted the judgment, if one is to read the following relevant part of it :

"4. In our opinion, the High Court over looked the fact that the plots which were the subject matter of the sale deeds Exhibits 1 to 4 were comparatively of small areas and it is well known that when a large area like the one which was the subject matter of acquisition has to be sold it cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots can be sold. It is significant that the respondent himself had originally claimed, before the Collector, compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per Bigha. We see no reason for the High Court awarding compensation at a rate higher than Rs. 10,000/- which would also be consistent with the evidence furnished by the four sale deeds. Although the average price of these sales came to Rs. 15,000/- per Bigha but when it is considered, as has already been observed, that they were of comparatively much smaller area they would constitute good evidence for fixing the rate at a figure which was originally claimed by the respondent, namely Rs. 10,000/- per Bigha. In other words, if the plots covered by the sale had been sold in larger parcels the price likely to be fetched would not have exceeded Rs. 10,000/- per Bigha."