- (1.) This judgment of mine would dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2186 and 2187 of 1979 filed by the claimant-landowners and R.F.A. Nos. 1254, 1257 and 1288 of 1980 filed by the State of Punjab and Cross-Objections Nos. 20-CI/89 in R.F.A. 1254 of 1980, 22-CI of 1989 in R.F.A. No. 1288 of 1980 as they arise out of the common Award given by the Land Acquisition Court.
(2.) In pursuance of the notification dated 11.12.1974 published in the Extra-ordinary Gazette dated 15.12.1973 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), land measuring 304 Acres, 5 Kanals and 18 Marlas situated in village Dhandari Kalan, Hadbast No. 241, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, was acquired for the purpose of expansion of Industrial Focal Point at Dhandari Kalan. The Land Acquisition Collector categorised the land into different categories and determined the market value of the acquired land at different rates. The learned Additional District Judge, however, fixed the market value of the acquired at Rs. 40,000/- per acre irrespective of categorisation. The learned Additional District Judge was of the view that there was pressure on the land for building activities and that industries had sprung up near the acquired land and, therefore, the potentialities of the land stood changed from agricultural to industrial and residential. He was further of the view that there was appreciable rise in prices. In his ultimate conclusion, the learned Additional District Judge relied upon the Award given by the Additional District Judge in Exhibit P.6 for determining the market value of the acquired land.
(3.) While arguing for the claimant-landowners in R.F.A. Nos. 2186, 2187 of 1979 and 1257 of 1980, Mr. V.K. Jhanji, learned counsel have vehemently argued that since no good evidence worth reliance was produced before the learned Additional District Judge when he gave the Award Exhibit P.6 and since his clients had led documentary evidence in the shape of registered sale deeds Exhibits P.4 and P.5, his clients are entitled to the enhancement in the amount of compensation in accordance with the evidence brought by them. He has pointedly drawn the attention of this Court to Exhibits P.4 and P.5, the two sale deeds, which were not considered by the Land Acquisition Court while giving the Award Exhibit P.6, I would like to comment upon the evidentiary value of the Award given by the Court. This Court while deciding R.F.A. No. 2556 of 1987 (Birender Singh and others v. State of Haryana) and others connected appeals decided on 6.4.1989 has held on the point of law Awards are only relevant and admissible and not binding upon the parties. It has further been held that the Awards do not have that much evidentiary value that they shut out consideration of other evidence of comparable nature. The parties to a proceeding for fixation of compensation, it was held, can always insist that the Awards be ignored and the valuation be determined on examination of the evidence brought by them. The following principles of law were laid in Birender Singh's case : 1) The market value of a particular piece of acquired land can be determined by keeping in view only one and one principle, namely, that the market value has to be such, a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. 2) For determination of such valuation the court should take into consideration the Awards given by the Collector or by the Court besides other documentary and oral evidence. 3) The Awards are only relevant and admissible and cannot be binding upon the parties. 4) The Awards do not have that much evidentiary value that they can shut out consideration of other evidence of comparable nature. 5) The parties to a proceedings for fixation of compensation can always insist that the Awards be ignored and the valuation be determined on examination of evidence brought by them. 6) The Award can be described to be a legal document whether given by the Land Acquisition Collector or by a Court containing determination of valuation after examination of several sale deeds and, therefore, such Award is an instance meant to be followed by another court like any other instance of sale and it cannot be described to be a precedent for determination of valuation of another matter or even pertaining to same notification at a subsequent stage provided more and superior evidence is forthcoming. 7) The Court while determining the market value of a piece of land are at liberty either to follow the Award or to rely upon the sale deeds whichever is more comparable vis-a-vis the acquired land.;