J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of RFA Nos. 469, 282, 283, 284 of 1984, the appeals preferred by the claimants -land -owners, and the eight cross appeals being RFA No. 724, 725,726,727,728,729, 730 and 731 of 1984 filed by the State, as all the appeals have been filed against the common judgment of the Additional District Judge, Ambala, dated 14th December. 1983, which was passed on a reference Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act arising out of the common award of the Collector.
(2.) AGRICULTURAL land measuring 10 acres 6K and 6M situated in villages Milak and Naraingarh, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, was acquired for the construction of New Bus Stand and a workshop there Notification Under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 4th June, 1980. The Collector gave his award on 28th October, 1981, whereby he awarded compensation @ Rs. 13,539/ -per acre for Chahi land, Rs. 9,026/ -per acre for Barani land, Rs. 4,513/ - per acre for Banjar land and Rs. 2.256/ -per acre in respect of Gair Mumkin land. On reference Under Section 18 of the Act, at the instance of the claimants -land -owners, the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the amount of compensation as under: JUDGEMENT_99_LAWS(P&H)5_1986.htm Dissatisfied with the same, the appeals have been preferred by the land owners/claimants as well as the State for enhancement of the compensation awarded and for reduction thereof, respectively. Learned Counsel for the claimants/landowners submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has ignored the instances of sale vide Ex. P5, dated 31st July, 1980, for 8 Marias of land, for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/ -, i.e.,@ Rs. 1,500/ - per Maria, and Ex. P6, dated 10th March, 1980, in respect of 40 Marias of land for a consideration of Rs. 32,000/ -, i.e., @ Rs. 800/ - per Maria, on surmises and conjectures. The sale vide Ex. P6 was prior to the notification Under Section 4 of the Act and it could not be ignored. Moreover, argued the learned Counsel, the learned Additional District Judge did find that the land acquired had a potential value because of its location, etc., but at the same time the market value was not assessed accordingly. According to the counsel, having found that the land acquired had the potential, even the sale of small plots was good evidence to determine the market value. In support of his contention he referred to the judgment of this Court in R. F. A No. 149/1972 (Smt. Pushpa Devi v. The State of Haryana), decided on 13th November, 1979. It was further contended that the land acquired was situate on two roads and, so, even the cut of l/3rd was not justified. In support of this contention he referred to the judgment of this Court in LPA No. 767/1980 (Siri Paul v. The Collector) decided on 23rd December, 1981. Reference was also made to Ex P9, the judgment of this Court while determining the market price for the land acquired in the year 1971 in the same village, i.e., Naraingarh, @ Rs. 200/ - per Maria. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, in these circumstances the market value of the land acquired could not be less than Rs. 9,6000/ - per acre, i.e., Rs. 600/ - per Maria in any case, on which the court fee has been paid in RFA No. 469/1984, though the claimants are entitled to much more, i.e., @ Rs. 800/ per Maria. On the other band, learned Counsel for the State submitted that RW2 Shri Malik Singh, Station Supervisor, Haryana Roadways, Naraingarh, has categorically stated that the acquired land has got depression of 7 feet from the road level, and there was no development activity near the acquired land at the time of its acquisition. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, keeping in view his statement and the fact that for the period 1974 -78 there was no substantial increase in the market price of the land in the village, and it only varied from Rs. 400/ - to 500/ -per Maria on which basis the learned Additional District Judge has allowed Rs. 300/ - per Maria for the Chahi land which was excessive and that is why the State has filed the appeals for its reduction.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the relevant evidence on record. A resume of the sale transactions as given by the learned Additional District Judge is as under: JUDGEMENT_99_LAWS(P&H)5_19861.htm;