- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Even after 24 years of elevation of learned counsel for the respondent, Respondent did not engage any other counsel. Notices issued to the respondent to engage another counsel returned un-served Accordingly, only arguments of learned counsel for the appellant were heard. This appeal is directed against judgment, sward and decree dated 26. 5. 1979 given by Vth A. D. J, Saharanpur in L. A. Case No. 56 of 1973. It appears that 25 claimants, whose lands had been acquired under Land Acquisition Act being dissatisfied with the award of S. L. A. O. , applied for making reference under Section 18 of Land Acqui sition Act, Accordingly, references were made. It appears that all the references were registered as one case, i. e. L. A. Case No. 56 of 1973. This appeal is confined to the dam of the respondent Mohd. Ashik Khan.
(2.) A large area of land of about 33 Big has (a 1279 squire yards) was acquired Notification under Section A of Land Acquisition Act was issued/published on 20. 11. 1968. Land was situate in a village Pathan Pura, Saharanpur appurtenant to main Saharanpur-Delhi Road. Land was acquired for construction of residence for various categories of Government Servants at Saharanpur. Special Land Acquisition Officer for determining the market value of the land placed reliance upon sale deed dated 3. 11. 1968 in respect of 344 squire yards of land for Rs. 2500/-, situate in a residential colony called Vinay Nagar. The rate tomes to about Rs. 7. 62 per squire yard. Copy of this sale deed was filed before reference court also. S. L. A. O. divided the acquired land into two belts. In the belt adjacent to the road, 40% deduction from the aforesaid rate of Rs. 7. 62/- per squire yard was made and in the other belt, 50% deduction was made. Through the impugned judgment, award and decree, learned A. D. J. awarded uni form rate of Rs. 6. 70 per squire yard. As far as awarding uniform rate is con cerned, no fault can be found in view of the following authorities: (1) AIR 1996 SC 3140, Ram Pairi Land Acquisition Collector, Solan (2) AIR 1997 SC 3569, Karan Singh v. Union of India (3) AIR 1997 SC 2064, Meharban. State of U. P. (4) AIR 1998 SC 731. Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Of ficer, Chittoor v. Kamalamma (5) AIR 1993 SC 1028, U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam (6) AIR 1999 SC 317, Kanwar Singh V. Union of India (7) AIR 2002 SC 1105, Kashiban Bhkabai v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (8) AIR 2006 SC 447, Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh However, the principle adopted for determining the market value by the learned A. D. J. cannot be approved. Copies of about 15 sale deeds had been filed before the learned A. D. J. , however learned A. D. J. placed reliance upon a sale deed dated 30. 12. 1968, i. e. executed after 40 days of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act. The learned A. D. J. placed reliance upon AIR 1933 Bom 361 to hold that post Section A notification, sale deed could also be relied upon. Through the said Sale deed, an area of more than 11000 squire yard land was sold @ Rs 6 70 per squire yard.
(3.) THE Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 3809, Karan Singh v. Union of India has held that only in rare cases sale deed executed after notification under Sec tion 4 of Land Acquisition Act can be relied upon. One of such situations, where such sale deed can be relied upon, is where no sale deed of the land in the area in question during last three years from notification under Section 4 of Land Ac quisition Act is available. The S. L. A. O. had applied the deduction percentage of 40-50. When exem plar is small area in comparison to the total area, some deduction is neces sary However, percentage of deduction varies from 10% to 50%. (Vide 2007 AIR SCW 7835, Atma Singh v. state of Haryana; AIR 2007 SC 740, deputy director of Land Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaidu, AIR 2005 SC 355, Ahad Brothers, M/s. v. State of M. P. AIR 2004 SC 1031, L. A. O. kammarapally Village (A. P.) v. Nookata Rajamallu; AIR 2003 SC 202, Kasturi v. State of Haryana. In the first authority of Atma Singh, 10% deduction was applied.;