ARORA, J. - (1.) THESE three appeals relate to the determination of the amount of compensation with respect to the lands of the claimants situated in the municipal limits of the town of Doongarpur, which were acquired by the State of Rajasthan for the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation, Jaipur. As the controversy in these appeals centred on the question of the valuation of the lands under acquisition, which are of same quality and nature and, therefore, all the appeals can be decided by common judgment.
(2.) THE State of Rajasthan acquired for the Rajasthan State Industrial Development Corporation (RIICO) three Bighas of land belonging to Devi Lal and Gordhan Lal, 5 Bighas 16 Biswas of land belonging to Shiv Lal and 36 Bighas 18 Biswas of land belonging to Bhadra Bahu, situated within the municipal limits of Doongarpur. THE Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued by the State of Rajasthan, which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on June 18, 1977. As there was some error regarding the description and situation of the property and therefore, the amended Notification was issued on February 22, 1978. After the issuance of the Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, the possession over the land was taken by the State of Rajasthan from the claimants on May 19, 1978. THEreafter notices under Section 9 of the Act were issued to the persons interested in the land for the determination of the compensation payable under Section 11 with respect to the land acquired. THE claimants filed their claims before the Collector (Land Acquisition Officer), Doongarpur, and the learned Land Acquisition Officer, by three separate awards, determined the compensation on the basis of the categories of the land entered in the revenue record. In case of claimant Devi Lal and Gordhan Lal (claimants in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 100 of 1985) the learned Land Acquisition Officer awarded an amount of Rs. 7941/- and in the case of claimant Shiv Lal (Claimant in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 101 of 1985) Rs. 12,550/- were awarded. In the case of Bhadrabahu, (Claimant in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal. No. 102 of 1985), Rs. 58146/- were awarded as compensation. THE claimants were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, they requested the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to the Civil Court for the determination of the correct amount of compensation. THE learned Land Acquisition officer made three different references to the learned Civil Judge, under section 18 of the Act for the determination of the compansation. THE learned civil Judge, vide three separate judgments, determined the compensation of the land acquired and fixed the compensation amounting to Rs. 37,500/-in the case of Devi Lal and Gordhan Lal (claimants in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 100 of 1985), Rs. 73,372/- in the case of claimant Shiv Lal (claimant in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 101 of 1985) and Rs. 4, 66,785/- in the case of Bhadrabahu (Climant in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 102 of 1985 ). Aggrieved with the enhancement of the compensation awarded to the claimants, the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation, Jaipur (RIICO) filed these three appeals challenging the judgment of the learned Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doongarpur. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents and the learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State. The question which requires consideration in the present appeals is : what should be the fair and just compensation for the lands acquired and whether the market value of the lands fixed by the learned Civil Judge reflects the correct market value? The claimants have a legal and legitimate right to get a reasonable and fair market value of the land they are deprived of and they have to be recompensated for rehabilitation or to purchase similar land elsewhere. It is settled law reflected from the catena of decisions including those cases on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the parties, is that the market value of the land is to be determined with reference to its condition at the time of declaration made under Section 4 of the Act and, also after taking into consideration the potential value of the land acquired. In determining the market value, the price, which a willing seller may get in the open from a willing buyers, would form the basis to fix the market value. While determining the market value, the price fetched for similar land with similar advantages and potentialities under bonafide transaction of sale in the proximity of time and the type and quality of the land at the time of issuance of the Notification under section 4 of the Act, etc. are the usual and best evidence for the fixation of the market value. The Authorities while assessing the compensation, are, also, required to take into account several other factors, namely, the situation and the nature of the land, its utilization, potentiality, the use to which the neighbouring lands have been put, ascertainable trend of the development of the town in the direction of the acquired land, any active building activities in the nearby area, the use to which the land is likely to be put, suitability of the land for building purpose, existing amenities like water, electricity and drainage over and adjacent to the land to be acquired and its proximity to the residential, commercial and industrial area as well as to the educational, cultural and medical institutions. In the above perspective, I would first like to consider the evidence produced by both the parties. The claimants in these cases produced similar and identical evidence before the learned Civil Judge in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. Except the statement of the claimants themselves, in the three cases, the statements of the remaining witnesses are identical and the same. Even the documentary evidence produced by the claimants in their respective cases is the same. The Corporation i. e. , the RIICO, also, produced the identical evidence in all these three appeals. The claimants produced themselves as NAW 1 and also, examined NAW 2 Kari Lal, NAW 3 Gordhan Lal, NAW 4 Laxman, NAW 5 Noor Mohammed, NAW 6 Bhanji, NAW 7 Keshri Mal and NAW 8 Rameshwar. The claimants in all these three appeals produced same nine documents. NAW 1 Devi Lal (Claimant in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 100/1985) has stated that his land is situated near the Doongarpur Sagwara Road and is within the Municipal limits of Doongarpur. Near the land in question, the Government Hostel, Triba Hostels, godown of Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti, godown of forest department, S. T. C. and College building, are situated and the price of the land is approximately Rs. 18,000/- per Bigha, which is the sale price of the agricultural land in the area. He has, also, proved the sale deed Ex. A 1 to Ex. A 8. He has, also, proved the lease deed Ex. A 9, which was made in favour of Sohan Lal Sharma for a consideration of Rs. 23,958/ -. He has admitted in the cross- examination that some of the sale deeds, which have been produced by them, relate to the land which is situated in village Kunali, Vikasnagar and Odwadiya, which are situated at a distance between 10 to 15 kilometres from Doongarpur. Naw 1 Shiv Lal (claimant in S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 101 of 1985) has stated that his land, which has been acquired by the State Government, is situated near the Revenue Circle within the municipal limits of Doongarpur City and near the land in question, two tribal hostels, are constructed. There are, also, Roadways depot as well as the College and S. T. C. training centre. The land is situated near Doongarpur Sagwara Road. He has stated that the price of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is much on the lower side while the actual market price of the land acquired is Rs. 30,000/- per Bigha. Similar sales have already taken place of the agricultural land for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/- per Bigha. He has further stated that Odwadiya has the population of 1000 persons while Kunali is having the population of 2000. He has further stated that Nawadera area is within the municipal limits of Doongarpur. He has, also, stated that the land, which has been given to Shri Sohal Lal Sharma on1ease is situated near the acquired land and only a road passes in between these two lands. He has, also, proved Ex. 1 to Ex. 9. He has, also, stated that about 50 trees are standing on the land in question and the land is surrounded by the fencing of about 3 feet height and 11/2' width. He has estimated the price of the trees etc. at Rs. 5000/- He has further stated that though the price of the land is more than Rs. 30,000/- per Bigha but he has demanded in the claim petition an amount of Rs. 18,000/- per Bigha. Naw 1 Bhadrabahu (claimant in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 102 of 1985) has stated that his land is situated on Doongarpur - Sagwara road and is within the municipal limits of Doongarpur and nearby this land, two tribal hostels are constructed. In the nearby area there are Roadways depot as well as the College and S. T. C. training centres. He has further stated that the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is most inadequate while the price of the land in the area, at the relevant time, was Rs. 18,000/- per Bigha. he has, also, proved the various documents Ex. A 1 to Ex. A-9. He has, also, stated that the value of the fencing around the land and the price of the trees standing on the land is about Rs. 5000/ -. He has further stated that the just and fair compensation with respect to the land, which should be awarded, must not be less than Rs. 6,27,000/ -.
(3.) THE evidence of NAW 2 to NAW 8 in all the three claim cases is identical and same. NAW 2 Karl Lal has proved the sale deed Ex. A 6. He has stated that on September 22, 1977, he purchased agricultural land from Alam Khan for a consideration of Rs. 14,000/ -. He has further stated that this is the price of the land and so far as the 'kaccha' room which was constructed on this land, is concerned, that costs only about Rs. 500/- and the price which he paid, was the price of the land only. Naw 3 Gordhan Lal has stated that he purchased 4 Bighas of agricultural land in Khasra No. 3077 for a consideration of Rs. 6000/- in village Kunali, which is situated at distance of 22 kilometres from Doongarpur. Naw 4 Laxman has stated that he purchased 1/2 Bigha of land from Maina Bai for a consideration of Rs. 2500/- vide Annexure AI. He further stated that the land of the claimants comes within the municipal limits of Doongarpur, but he does not know about the situation of Kunali, whether it falls within the municipal limits of Doongarpur or not? ;