N.C. Jain, J. - (1.) THIS judgment of mine would dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 1197, 1198 of 1988,1185 to 1191 of 1992. 1659, 2584 of 1991, 2788 of 1992, 2063, 2064 of 1991 1454 to 1457 of 1992, 1856 and 3922 of 1992 filed by the landowners as they arise out of the same notification issued by the State of Haryana Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') on 13.3.1981.
(2.) PUT shortly the facts of the case are that land measuring 160.97 acres situated within the revenue estate of Karnal, Hadbast No. 1 was acquired by the Haryana State for a public purpose namely, for the development and utilization of the land for industrial and commercial area in Sector 3 at Karnal. The Land Acquisition Collector by his Award dated 23.9.1986 assessed the market value of Nehri/Chahi land at the rate of Rs. 80,000/ - per acre and Gairmumkin at the rate of Rs. 50,000/ - per acre. On reference Under Section 18 of the Act, the Additional District Judge, Karnal, by his Award under challenge before this Court has determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 33/ - per square yard at a flat rate. The Additional District Judge has evaluated the land at the said rate on after relying upon an earlier Award which was given by the Land Acquisition Court in the case of acquisition of land in Sector 6. The land in Sector 6 was acquired by the State of Haryana on 4th June 1980 granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/ - per sq. yard. Since there was a time gap between the two dates of notifications the Additional District Judge in his Award in the present cases has granted the necessary increase. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and was made through the documentary and oral evidence produced by both the parties. The counsel for the claimants have argued that the claimants are entitled to the grant of much higher compensation on the basis of the sale deeds which have been produced by them particularly when the land acquired lies within the municipal limits of Karnal and had great potentialities for being developed into residential area. It cannot be denied that the land was situated within the Municipal limits of Karnal. It has further not been denied that there was developed around the acquired land as has been stated by the claimants and in view thereof the landowners are entitled to enhancement in the amount of compensation but the question arises as to how much enhancement has to be made keeping in view the evidence brought on the record of the case. The landowners and the State have produced as many as 9 sale deeds the chart of which is given below: - S.No. Document Date of Area Amount of Rate per sale consideration sq. yard 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Ex.P.5 20.6.72 400 sq.yards Rs. 14,000/ - Rs. 35/ - Ex.P.6 7.1.74 1 1/2 Biswas Rs. 3,000/ - Rs. 40/ - (75 sq.yards) 3. Ex.P.9 25.2.79 500 sq. yards Rs. 20,000/ - Rs. 40/ - 4. Ex.P.10 2.12.81 304 sq.i yards Rs. 30,000/ - Rs. 40/ - 5. Ex.P.7 8.5.82 300 sq. yards Rs. 30,000/ - Rs. 100/ - 6. Ex.P.8 25.5.82 5231 sq. yards Rs. 40,000/ - Rs. 76/ - 7. Ex.R.2 17.3.80 1B -6B Rs. 10,000/ - Rs. 7.63P 8. Ex.R.l 13.5.80 4B -8B Rs. 26,000/ - Rs. 5.86 P 9. Ex.R.3 22.1.81 IB -12B Rs. 20,000/ - Rs. 12.40P Exhibits R.1 to R.3 have been rejected by the Additional District Judge on the ground that they relate to small pieces of land and I concur with the finding of the Additional District Judge. Moreover, the State has not filed any appeal against the valuation put by the Additional District Judge.
(3.) ADVERTING to the sale deeds produced by the landowners, this Court is dis -inclined to rely upon the same for more than one reason. Sale deeds Exhibits P.7, P.8 and P.10 are dated 8.5.82, 25.5.82 and 2.12.81 respectively and, therefore, they being post -dated notification, the same are not relevant for determining the market value of the acquired land. Moreover, by virtue of the afore -mentioned sale deeds small pieces of land were sold. Sale deeds Exhibits P.5, P.6 and P.9 do relate to a period before the notification in, question was issued by this Court is of the considered view that the same would also not be safe guide to determine the market value of the acquired land because they also pertain to the sale of small pieces of land. By virtue of" Exh. P.5 land measuring 400 sq. yards was sold on 20.6.72 whereas by virtue of Exh. P.6, 75 sq. yards of land was sold. Similarly, by virtue of Exh. P.9, 500 sq. yards of land was sold. This Court is further inclined to concur with the finding of the Additional District Judge that Exh. P.9 dated 25.2.79 which is near the date of notification could not be relied upon as the area sold has been shown at point 'C' in the site plan which is in the shape of a plot. Moreover, in view of the smallness of the size of the area sold vide Exh. P.9, a deduction of l/3rd has to be applied and after giving the necessary enhancement in view of the time lag between the sale deed Exh. P.9 and the date of the protification in the present cases the valuation which is going to be put by me would come virtually at the same rate.;