- (1.) THESE are appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisi tion Act.
(2.) ON basis of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act published on 11-6-1985, 105-06 dismal which is equivalent to 168 bighas of land in village Dantal were proposed to be acquired for Sardhan Puri Housing Scheme of Meerut Development Authority. A part of the area proposed to be acquired was under challenge in writ jurisdiction and Supreme Court has directed stay of the acquisition proceeding. Accordingly, award was made under Section 11 of the Act in respect of 53 acres 51 dismal which is equiva lent to 85 bighas land. Land owners who were claiming market value at the rate ranging from 150 to 200 rupees per sq. yard not being satisfied with the belting of the land into two parts and offer of compensation at the rate of Rs. 37. 50 for roadside land to with of 100 mtrs. and 28. 13 for rest of the land, requested for references. Accordingly, references were made by the Land Acquisition Collector for determination of market value of land. References were heard in several batches. First batch was decided on 2-7-1990 where market value involved thereunder was determined Rs. 70 per sq. yard. In the second batch decided on 31-10-1990, the learned District Judge divided the land into two belts and held mat market value of road side land would be Rs. 75 per sq. yard and the other area would have market value of Rs. 56-35. A single case was decided on 28-8-1991 where market value of the land involv ed was determined at Rs. 70 per sq. yard. Fourth batch of references was decided on 8-1-1992 where market value was determined at Rs. 70 per sq. yard. In the last batch which was decided on 20-4- 1992 the area was divided into two belts and market value of road side laud of the determined at Rs. 75 per sq. yard and market value of rest of the land was determined at 56. 35 per sq. yard. Aggrieved by these decisions MDA has filed 22 appeals. Land owners have also filed independent appeals in some cases for enhancement of market value, in some of the appeals filed by land owners court fee had been paid by reducing enhanced claim and in rest of such appeals no court fee has yet been paid. Although filing of an appeal by MDA requires leave of this Court and such leave was not applied for at the time of hearing, a prayer was made to grant leave and taking into consideration the peculiar situation we have granted leave to MDA to continue the appeals. Claimant under the reference under Section 18 of the Act stands in position of plaintiff in a suit. Onus lies upon him to prove that compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Collector is low and also to prove the market value at which he is entitled to compensation. To satisfy the same claimants have proved various sale deeds. They have also examined-witnesses to prove the nature of land. Added to it they have proved tae award in respect of land in village Nagla Kashi, and adjoining village where in April, 1980 land was acquired for purpose of National Highway bypass, by the side of the acquired land in these references. MDA has filed three sale-deeds In support of market value as determined by Land Acquisition Collector. To give us a clear idea about the land acquired, certain maps of the area acquired were filed for consideration as additional evidence.
(3.) MR. Sudhir Chandra learned counsel for the appellant (MDA) sub mitted that the awards where no belting had been made and compensation has been awarded at uniform rate at Rs. 70 per sq. yard are vulnerable since the entire area does not consist of land having similar advantage as some of the acquired land are adjacent to the road passing through the acquired land and others are beyond the same. Those awards where the land is divided into two categories will be the acceptable mode to determine the market value. MR. Sudhir Chandra relying upon the maps submitted that land adjacent to road lying in the area upto 100 metres wide will have more importance and land beyond those for another 100 metres width will have importance and rate would be lesser. For other land far beyond there would be third rate which would be lesser than the first two, MR. Sudhir Chandra submitted that system of belting in correct mode for determination of compensation for 85 bighas land which are subject-matter of these appeals, He submitted that for this purpose area which belongs to land owners have been subject-mat ter for determination of market value but the entire area covering the scheme is to be taken into consideration. MR. Surohi learned counsel for some of the land owners, MR. Goel, learned counsel for some other land owners and MR. P. K. Jain, learned counsel for some other land owners have submitted that belting method is not appropriate to be adopted in the present case since there is clear oral evidence that land acquired in the entire area have similar advantages. They have relied upon the map produced by the appellant MDA to show that there are various roads by the side as well as within the acquired area. Oral evidence was brought to our notice to show that on all four sides of the acquired area, there are roads. Both the parties relied upon the decision reported in 1993 Vol. IV SCC 245, Gulzara Singh and On. v. State of Punjab and Ors. , in support of their respective cases on the principle of belting. This decision lays down that the principle of belting is perfectly legal but the same would depend on facts and circumstances each case. In 1993 Vol IV SCC 245 (supra) the existence of road within the area acquired and other circumstances were taken into consideration to hold that the principle of belting would not be appropriate. This is relied upon by learned counsel for land owners to submit that the principle of belting adopted in some of the awards was not correct. We agree with submission of learned counsel for land owners that the principle of belting would not be applicable in the present case as the map filed by MDA clearly indicates that land in the entire area have similar advantage. Oral evidence in this respect has not been effectively demolished by cross examination. Thus, we are of the view that one rate would be available for entire area acquired.;