- (1.) Both the appeals are connected and they are for enhancement of compensation for property acquired through a notification dated 29.03.1996, village Jathlana, District Yamuna Nagar for the purpose of establishing a residential complex. The land owner relied on three documents essentially of private sales. One was with reference to small parcel of land, which was dealt with as commercial land and two others transactions were with reference to two transactions of Chahi land of 25.02.1997 and 04.08.1998 under Ex.P2 and P-3 respectively. The State relied on documents of sale prior to the notification but the Court discarded the documents observing that they were not proximate to the property and the valuation mentioned therein could not serve as a proper exemplar. The sale instances relied on by the land owners under Ex.P-2 and P-3 were also discarded on the ground that they related to a period subsequent to the notification under Section 4 and therefore, they could not be relied on. The Reference Court maintained the award already passed by the Collector where he had determined a valuation of the property at Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is prepared to concede that the property in Ex.P1 could not be the exemplar since it relates to small parcel of land. However, Ex.P2 and P3 were dealt with as Chahi lands with due regard to the potentiality of the property for housing by virtue of the fact that it was proximate to the abadi and the acquisition of property itself was only for establishing a residential complex. Learned counsel points out that even the extent of property acquired was not a large piece of land but was only 9 kanals 3 marlas of land and therefore, Ex.P2 and P3, which were proximate by an acre of land, ought to have served as the appropriate exemplars. Learned counsel would also point out that Ex.P2 and P3 cannot be relied, for it was not only subsequent to the notification under Section 4 but also on account of the fact that admittedly the properties covered under Ex.P2 and P3 were adjoining the road whereas there was no immediate access to the property acquired from the road and it was distanced of about one acre.
(2.) This Court has at all times observed that the Courts are called upon to determine compensation to make possible an objective consideration on the materials brought before it and there is no access of information from the blue as it were. If the evidence given by the State itself was to be discarded and document relied on by the land owner related to post-notification, the only ground on which the postnotification sales could be discarded would be when there are sale instances prior to the notification and the State was able to point out to such instances. In this case, we do not have the benefit, for one document that the State was relying on was treated as liable for rejection since it was not shown to be anywhere proximate to the property, which was acquired. The other ground on which postnotification sale could be discarded is to stave clear of dubious transactions where private persons deliberately indulge in boosting up prices by make believe transactions to secure higher compensation. This objection would invariably be seen in the context of how the evidence has been elicited when the documents were tendered for consideration in comparison with the property acquired. Ex.P2 is a document of sale by a party who has been examined in this case as PW3 and Ex.P3 is a transaction of sale involving PW-4, both of whom have spoken about the respective considerations realized through the sale instances. Ex.P2 is for an extent of 15 marlas of land dealt with for Rs. 2,18,750/- and Ex.P3 was dated 4.8.1998 for 2 kanals and 2 marlas of land. The value per acre is Rs. 10 lacs and Rs. 8 lacs respectively. No suggestion had been made that the sale prices were deliberately rigged to help the land owner to secure higher compensation. The nature of cross-examination addressed against them was that their own properties were near the roads while the property acquired was situate about one acre distanced from the property covered through Ex.P3 and Ex.P3.
(3.) Under the peculiar circumstances when the sale relied on by the State cannot be taken as an exemplar and that only documents that were placed before the Court are with reference to transactions of properties, which definitely was more valuable by the respective proximity to road, the appropriate compensation could be determined by making out deduction for the twin aspects of the relative higher value by the proximity to the road and the fact that sales were subsequent to the date of notification and therefore, to duly factor the inflationary trends. The deduction, in my view, that would be appropriate would be 10%, for the value of land acquired for a larger extent of 2 kanals for each year and by the fact that Ex.P3 was dated 4.8.1998 and the Section 4 notification was made on 29.03.1996, reduce the same at 10% for each year for 24 months. I would take that the total deduction for the later period must be 25%. I will apply also a further deduction of another 25% for the fact that the property dealt with under Ex.P3 was relatively better in valuation by the proximity to the property and take 50% deduction on the value of what is acquired under Ex.P3. It would work out to Rs. 4 lacs per acre. I will not find any further deduction to be made for development since the property acquired itself was a small piece of land of 9 kanals and 3 marlas and the deductions already effected in the manner ought to be taken as appropriate and just.;