NAKHI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is commonly conceded position that all these cases relate to the acquisition of land from revenue estate of the same village and same notification dated 5.4.1990 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Upon inviting objections, the Collector had passed a common award being Award No. 15 of 1992-93 and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,16,000/-per acre to the claimants. The learned Additional District Judges dealing with the respective cases, vide three different judgments, awarded compensation in Nar Singh's case at the rate of Rs. 1,40,000/- per acre, while in the case of Nakli Ram and Lachhu Ram, vide judgment dated 27.11.1997 and 11.3.1998 respectively awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.4 lacs per acre.

(2.) During the course of hearing, a serious doubt was expressed as to whether as per the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad v. P. Venkaiah and Ors., A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2600 and Special Deputy Collector and Anr. etc. v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and Ors., A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2625, the sale instances produced on record by the respective parties i.e. State as well as the claimants are inadmissible or not. Besides this, there is no common substantive evidence which could help the Court in determining the just and fair market value of the acquired land as on the date of acquisition. In the case of Lachhu Ram, the court relied upon the judgment of Nakli Ram and in the case of Nakli Ram, the court relied upon Nar Singh's case for granting the aforestated compensation. The increase from Rs. 1,40,000/- to Rs. 4 lacs is primarily based upon the statement of PW6-Ramesh Chand, Kanoongo, who appeared in the witness box, unsupported by any record and stated that list submitted by the Patwari, Jagadhri shows the average price of the land of Jagadhri at Rs. 4 lacs per acre. There is also serious doubt whether in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Himalaya House Co. Limited v. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Anr., A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 899, the list prepared by the Collector or issued by the Secretariat of the State under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and under the Stamp Act, would be admissible in evidence as substantive evidence for determination of fair amount of compensation payable to the claimants for acquisition of their respective land or not.

(3.) Learned counsel for the parties commonly relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Puran Banti, (1999-2)122 P.L.R. 63, where the Court after discussing the judgments of the Supreme Court i.e. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad v. P. Venkaiah, A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2600 and Special Deputy Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao, A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2625 held as under:-