JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. Government of State of Hary-ana on 23.1.1990 issued a notification under [SECTION] of the [ACT], hereinafter referred to as the Act, to acquire 72.03 acres of land in village Re-wari and Dhailawas, Tehsil and District Rewari. In furtherance thereto, notification was issued under [SECTION] of the Act on 22.1.1991. On actual measurement only possession of 71.87 acres of land was taken by the Government, which was acquired for a public purpose, namely, for development and utilisation of the land for residential and commercial purpose in Sector 3 Part-II, Rewari. The Land Acquisition Collector after affording opportunity to the parties to put forward their objections vide his award No. 15 dated 25.3.1992 categorised the land of both the villages into three different categories and awarded the following compensation to the claimants of their lands :-
Amount in both villages :-
[ENTITY] Rs. 1,75,000/- Rs. 1,40,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/-
2. The claimants preferred references under [SECTION] of the [ACT] praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to them. 35 claimants had preferred the references before the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari who vide his award dated 12.4.1994 after following the due process enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants and altered the categorisation of the land on the basis of nature of land and converted the same into three different blocks depending upon the location and potential of the land. The learned Judge granted the following enhanced compensation to the claimants. :-
Rs 8 lacs (1st Block Upto 100 feet depth on Rewari-Bawal Road Rs. 7 lacs (2nd Block) On road Rewari-Garhi Bolani i.e. in between Part-1 and Pan-11 of Sector-3.
Rs. 4 lacs (3rd Block) Remaining land.
3. The claimants felt dis-satisfied from the award of the learned Additional District Judge raising the plea that the compensation granted to them is liable to be considerably enhanced only on the basis of Ex. P.1. filed 36 regular first appeals praying for enhancement of compensation while the State of Haryana preferred 35 appeals against the same judgment praying for reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. In other words these 71 regular first appeals arise from the same judgment. Thus, it will be appropriate to deal and dispose of all these appeals by a common judgment.
4. The learned counsel for the claimants had referred to the evidence produced by the claimants on record and raised the following main submissions :-
a) Adoption of belting system by the learned Additional District Judge is erroneous as the entire land is situated in the Municipal Limits and has been acquired for one and the same purpose. According to the learned counsel there should be uniform rate of compensation to all the claimants whose land has been acquired in the said area.
b) Vide Annexure p.1 HUDA itself had auctioned 10 marlas (209 square meters) of land in the same area in October, 1989 for a sum of Rs. 2,96,780/-which would indicate the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 47,48,480/- per acre.
c) Lastly, while relying upon the various sale deeds the claimants claim much higher compensation than the one awarded to them.
5. The appellants had examined six witnesses including an Assistant from Estate Office, HUDA as PW1, draftsman PW2 who proved Ex. p2 and in additional thereto the claimants were examined. Ex.p.3, and Bx.p.5 to Ex.p.18 are the copies of the sale-deeds which have been produced on record by the claimants and Ex.p.22 is the copy of the judgment dated 10.2.1993. To counter this evidence produced by the claimants, the respondent-State examined only one witness RW1 [ENTITY], who tendered in evidence sale deeds Ex. R.1 to Ex.R.4 and siie pian Ex.R.5. Thereafter, the counsel tendered in evidence Ex.R.6 to Ex.R.8, copies of the sale deeds. This is the total material evidence on record which needs to be scrutinised by this Court being the first Court of appeal.
6. The first and foremost question which is to be decided by this Court is whether Ex.p. 1 is a relevant document in consonance with the sealed principles of law, which can form basis for grant of just and fair compensation to the claimants under the provisions of the Act. Allotment letter Ex.p. 1 relates to allotment of a fully developed plot No. 531-B, Sector-3, Rewari and on the terms and conditions of the various rules, and regulations contained in the relevant Act. The total bid was for a sum of Rs. 2,96,185/- while the claimants was called upon to pay only Rs, 44,495/- and the remaining amount was to be paid as per the terms and conditions stated in the letter. The ownership of the property was to be transferred by means of execution of a conveyance dead only when 100% payment was made. There is no evidence referred to by the counsel for the parties to show mat the title was actually transferred to the allottee and the very element of speculation had been excluded by necessary implication or otherwise. This Court in the case of [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT] and decided an 23.9.1999 : 1998(3) RRR 141 (P&H), while dealing with somewhat similar situation held as under :-
"PW 25 had proved Ex.p.71 to p.73 which are the auction sales conducted by the Rehabilitation Department on 7.2.1991 where lands of more than 4 kanals to 7 kanals were sold at the rate of nearly Rs. 259.91 per square yard. While in the case of HUDA PW 4 clearly admitted in his statement that HUDA had sold plots No. 612, 613 and 615 measuring about 14*30 metres at the average rate of Rs. 946.84 per square yard. I would not like to rely on any or these sale instances for determining the market value of the land for variety of reasons :-
a) Auction terms and conditions have not been proved on record;
b) these public auctions have essentially an element of gambling and uncertainty in-built in them. The payments are to be made normally in instalments and the auction-purchaser is not required to pay the amount instantly. No final sale deed of these plots executed by Rehabilitation Department had been produced on record by the claimants;
c) These are developed plots and it is not possible for this court to find out exactly the land cost element out of the figure given by PW 4. Admittedly HUDA had sold fully developed plots which include development cost, element of interest, prospective development, margin money of the departments providing and repeated maintenance etc. and general facilities.
d) Where preferentially relevant evidence admissible in accordance with law and comparable instances having a direct bearing on the controversy in issue like sale-deeds and judicial instances exist, the court may not prefer to take recourse to other known method of computation.
This Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], decided on 3.6.1999 has already held that such auction/sale in-siances are normally not a preferential piece of evidence to be relied upon by the Courts. The Court held as under :-
"Serious expenditure and efforts are put in by the State or authorities like PUDA before the developed, residential or commercial plots are put to public auction. Cost of land is one of the components of the minimum auction price fixed by the authorities. Auction price is not the price indicative only of the cost of land. It includes various other factors and components in its composition. It is a matter of public knowledge that it includes maintenance, construction and maintenance of roads in times to come, element of interest payable under different heads and other ancillary factors. An auction/bid primarily is a speculative feature. The minimum price is already fixed by the authorities and it is only commercial attitude which the bidder bids in such auctions. An offer or bid, at best, could be concluded as an agreement to sell which creates no evidence and in face of the provisions of [SECTION] of the Act and it cannot be treated admissible and more so in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of [PRECEDENT], held that what are terms and conditions of an auction and whether they ultimately culminated into a sale deed, there is no such evidence on record. The auction or bid of a development plot cannot be equated to acquisition of land which either may be agricultural or may have even come up as haphazardly developed colony."
For the reasons afore-stated I would not like to rely upon any of the auction sale instances in the facts and circumsfances of the present case.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants have contended that Ex.P.1 is a relevant document and the court has to rely upon this document for determining the fair market value of the land. The reasons suggested are that property so allotted by Ex.p. 1 is on freehold basis. It is in Municipal limits. Condition No. 2 of the allotment letter clearly states in regard to freehold rights in the property. It does not contain any element of speculation, rather is the best price which the residential plot could fetch in an open auction. The Court has already discussed that such documents are showing tentative amount and do not have the capacity to confera title on Ihe person or to show actual transfer of the property to equate with the registered sale-deed between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Furthermore, the auction is of developed plots aud once development is carried out in an area by the Government authorities it is a known fact that prices of such land shoot up rapidly because of lack of availability of developed plots. The element of unfair competition in the bids cannot be a safe indicator of fair rale to be applied to fixation of market value of the huge lands which are acquired by the Government for discharge of its public utility obligation and development of its social welfare schemes.
8. Another factor which must be taken into consideration is that he acquisition is not exactly a sale between a lone buyer and lone seller. For the reasons afor-estated the Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Ex.p.1 is not the document which should be relied upon by the Court for determining the fair compensation payable to the claimants much less to grant a sum of about Rs. 48 lacs per acre as claimed by the claimants on the strength of Ex.p.1.
9. Now the sale instances tendered in evidence by both the parties to the references have to be discussed. As already noticed the claimants had produced Ex.p.3 to Ex.p.18, the copies of the sale deeds except Ex.p.4, which is a site plan. Our of these sale deeds all other sale deeds except Ex.p.3, Ex.p.5, Ex.p.10, Ex.p.14 and Ex.p.17 are in admissible in evidence. All these sale instances have not been proved in accordance with the law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]. It was not even contended by learned counsel for the claimants that other sale deeds are admissible. Ex.p.3 and Ex.p.5 are one and the same documents and appear to have been proved twice, once in the statement of PW3 and on the other occasion in the statement of PW5. Ex.p.14 has also been proved by examining the vendor/vendee Smt. [ENTITY] and it is a joint sale deed.
10. Ex.p.3 is a sale deed dated 11.9.1989 vide which 9 rnarlas of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 45,000/-. Land measuring about 10 marlas was sold for Rs. 95,000/- vide sale deed dated 11.9.1989 (Annexure p. 14). Both the sale instances are of the same date and have been proved in accordance with law. On the other hand, Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4 are the sale deeds which were tendered in evidence by RW 1 while Ex.R.6 to Ex.R.8 are the copies of the sale deeds which have been tendered by counsel appearing for the State at a subsequent stage. In other words, all these sale instances are inadmissible in view of the law settled in the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra). The learned counsel for the State in any case did not raise any argument in this regard.
11. Before the Court proceeds to discuss the extent of compensation payable to the claimants on the basis of the above evidence, it would be but necessary to discuss the location and potential of the acquired land. Ex.p.2 is the site plan. Sale deeds Ex.p.3 and Ex.p.14 have been shown and marked on Ex.p.2 as A.9 and A.10 respectively. According to the site plan which was proved by PVV2 [ENTITY] it has also been stated that the land has great residential and commercial potential. It wns stated that the various buildings and roads are located in the surroundings of the acquired land. Sector-3 Part-1, for which the land was acquired quite sometime back is also shown at Ex.p.1 and is very close to the present land which has been acquired for development of Sector-3 Part-11. Radha Swami Colony is abutting the acquired land. The land acquired for Mini Secretariat is across the road, which is a road leading to Pawal. At some distance from the acquired land there is a nullah and across the nullah there is a Model Town and thereafter Judicial Complex. The other buildings which have been shown in Ex.p.2 are certainly at some distance from acquired land. D.A.V. School, Dharamshala and Radha Swami Colony are adjacent to the acquired land.
12. The acquired land is stated to be part of the land falling in municipal limits. On Ex.p.2 it has been so shown. PW2 in his cross examination, however, admitted that locations had been prepared as of 1993 though he also states that Dharamshala, D.A.V. School, Radha Swami Colony and roads were in existence at the time of acquisition of the land. The statement of RW I is a material piece of evidence which has to be looked into at this stage. In his cross-examination he stated as under :-
"I do net know who had prepared the original site plan and when. Whatever actual transaction had taken place is mentioned in the sale-deeds. I do not know if the actual sale price was different. It is correct that Radhaswami Colony is adjacent to the acquired land. I have seen the acquired land. It is correct that old Sector-3 has been developed inasmuch as roads had been constructed and possession has been delivered but no construction has yet been raised. Some shops have now been constructed. I have not contacted any party of sale transactions Ex. R. 1 to Ex. R.4. I do not know whether land in the vicinity of acquired land has been sold at the rate of Rs. 181/- per square yard in the year 1989."
The effect of the above statement is that the acquired land has reasonably a good location and market potential. The land itself has been acquired for development of residential and commercial places while adjacent Sector 3 Part-1 has already been developed (including the shops).
13. The claimants have also proved on record Ex.p. 10 and Ex.p. 17 which were proved by PW5, PW5 is not only an attesting witness to the sale deeds in question but in his statement he clearly stated that the sale consideration under the document was paid and the document was signed in his presence. Thus, these sale deeds would have to be held to be admissible in evi-dence even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India because PW5 would be a person otherwise connected with the documents and capable of proving the authenticity of the document and the consideration paid thereunder. In the case of [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :-
"It is settled legal position that the Court, while determining the compensation must sit in the armchair of a willing and prudent vendor and put a question whether the market value sought to be determined would be capable of fetching that hypothetical price and should determine a just and adequate compensation for the land acquired. Since none connected with the sale deeds was examined, the sale deeds are inadmissible in evidence through certified copies marked under [SECTION] are available. So, all the sale deeds stand excluded. It is the duty of the Court to take all the relevant factors into account before determination of the compensation."
Thus the Court is of the considered view that Ex.p.10 and Ex.p.17 cannot be ignored from the zone of consideration. The learned reference Court has erred in reiying upon Ex.p.12 as the said document was not proved in accordance with law and in any case related to a very small piece of land.
14. Therefore, the exhibited documenls which would fall within the zone of consideration for determination of the fair market value of the acquired land are Ex.p.3, Ex.p.10, Ex.p.14 and Ex.p.17. These are the sale instances of small as well as bigger pieces of land more particularly keeping in view the fact that the entire land acquired is only 72.03 acres. These sale instances are relevant seeing from any point of view. They relate to a relevant period and are comparable as far as the land is concerned. The average of these sale deeds would be a proper index for granting compensation to the claimants. Vide Ex.p.3 the land measuring 9 marlas wassoldon 11.9.1989 worth Rs.45,000/-. Vide Ex.p. 10 land measuring 13 Kanals 07 Marias was sold for Rs. 6,48,000/- on 29.5.1989 and giving the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 3,88,314/- per acre. Vide Ex.p.14, 19 Marias of land i.e. nearly one Kanal, was sold for Rs. 95,000/- on 11.9.1989 giving the rale of land at Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre. Vide Ex.p.17 one Kanal of land was sold for Rs. 87,000/- on 15.12.1989 giving a market rate of Rs. 6,96,000/- per acre.
15. Learned Counsel for the claimants contended that de hors any other evidence on record, the claimants should be entitled to receive the same higher compensation as has been contended by them in the case of Haryauti Urban Development Authority v. [ENTITY], R.F.A. No. 1[SECTION]4 of 1997. It is further contended that since the land was acquired as one block for development and extension of Rewari town, the same compensation should be awarded. Even the claimants have not produced all the evidence which was produced in [ENTITY]'s case.
16. I am not in a position to accept that this contention has merit in its entirety. Every case has to be determined and decided on its own merits and with reference to the evidence which has been brought on record. In this regard reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of [PRECEDENT]. A Division Bench of this court in the case of [PRECEDENT] through the Secretary to Govt. Punjab, Colonization Department, Chandigarh and another, 1995(1) P.L.R. 532 had held that similar compensation should be paid to the landowners whose land was acquired for the same purpose though falling in the revenue estates of different villages. Following the principles enunciated by the Division Bench as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court in different cases, this Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra) held as under :-
"The proper course which has been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court for determination of fair market value is to work out the price on the principle of averages and also the adjacent lands should be awarded similarcompensation to avoid inequality between the claims of the owners in relation to the land which is somewhat similarly located. In this regard reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]."
As already noticed the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge in the present case was followed by the learned Additional District Judge in the case of [ENTITY] as Ex.P.A. All these cases have been heard together by this Court and as such it becomes relevant for the Court to consider whether the claimants in both the cases should get the same compensation or different one. It has come in evidence that both the villages from the revenue estate of which the land has been acquired fall within Ihe municipal limits of the Rewari town. Furthermore, these two villages are closer to Rewari town than the other three villages whose lands have been acquired in the case of [ENTITY]. It is true that all the five villages, subject matter of this case and [ENTITY]'s case are contiguous and adjacent to each other, but the fact remains that the lands which are closer to the two would be fetching higher price. The land in this ease was acquired earlier to that of [ENTITY]'s case by nearly 65 days. The increase in price for the period between the two acquisitions can safely be set off as the acquired land having better location and good potential as shown on record. In other words, it would be just, fair and equitable to grant same compensation to these claimants which has been granted in [ENTITY]'s case vide judgment of this Court of the same date.
17. The last question that now falls for determination and a pertinent one is whether all the claimants are entitled to receive compensation at a uniform rate or at different rates based upon the principles of belting to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
18. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that no belting system should be applied and uniform rate of compensation should be awarded to all the claimants. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] the counsel contended that the entire acquired land falls within the municipal limits. The surroundings of the area are developed. The land has a commercial and residential potential and it is a comparatively small acquisition of just 72 acres of land. The location of the land and its acquisition for being a common purpose, namely development of Sector-3, Part- II, there is no justification for applying the belting system. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General, Haryana, while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] and a judgment of this Court in the case of [ENTITY] and another v. Union of India and another, 1991(1) PLR 330 : 1991(2) RRR 248 (P&1I)(DB) contended that the belting system has been rightly applied by the learned Additional District judge and calls for no interference on that score.
19. Essentially application of belling system to a particular case would depend upon its facts, circumstances and evidence produced on record. No doubt that according to Ex. P.2 the acquired land falls within the Municipal limits and there is nothing in the cross-examination of PW2 which could be read to the contrary. Surrounding areas are already developed, again is an undisputable question in the facts of the present case. As already noticed, number of buildings are touching the acquired land. Once the land is partly or even haphazardly developed, it would not be fair to sub-divide the land acquired into number of sections. The general classification of the land is possible but its categorisation into three different categories would hardly be justified. The lands which are abutting the State Highway or other main road could form a class itself while the remaining land could form part of another class.
20. PW5 has admitted in his cross-examination that the acquired land is nearly 5 kilometre away from the National Highway. The road leading from old city to Bavval Chowk, where it meets [ACT], cannot be termed as State Highway nor can the road to Garhi Bolni is a State Highway. In other words the land which abut the road on either side is located on local roads of the town Rewari and are more or less of equal nature or potential. The distinction in the potential, nature and location of the land is not so major that it would result in grant of substantial varied compensation to the claimants of both categories of land i.e. abutting the road or otherwise than that. In the case of [PRECEDENT] the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India enunciated the principles of categorisation of lands located on National Highway being one class and the remaining lands situated away from the National Highway to be of another class. The Court held as under :-
"The lands abutting main road or National Highway command higher market value and as the location goes backward, market value of interior land would be less even for same kind of land. It is a settled legal position that the lands possessed of only similar potentiality or the value with similar advantages offer comparable parity of value. It is common knowledge that the lands in the village spread over the vast extent. In this case, it is seen that land is as vast as ad-measuring 1669 bighas 18 biswas of land in the village. So, all lands cannot and should not be classified as possessed of same market value."
21. In the case of [ENTITY] and others (supra) a Division Bench of this Court held that the lands falling is sub-urban property around Municipal Town would normally not be capable of division into different classification. Still in another case of [ENTITY] and others (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :-
"The counsel for the claimants contended that when the evidence shows that the value of different lands are available and the lands are contiguous and situated in a developing area, application of the principle of belting is illegal. We find it difficult to accept the broad contention. The principle of average will not be applied in the case to determine the compensation. The Division Bench did not look into the intrinsic evidence on record. On the other hand, as a general proposition of law, the principle of flat rate was adopted which is clearly illegal. As stated earlier, when the transactions and the sale deeds relating to the land abutting road and the land situated (in the) interior, effected on the same day, shows the difference in the price, the former fatched higher value and the latter securing lesser value, it itself would lead to an irresistible conclusion that the application of !he principle of flat rate is clearly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious."
22. In the light of the above principles, it has come on record that the sale instances in relation to the plots abutting to the main road as well as on the olher side were available on record, though some on them were not admissible but they could be always looked info for collateral purposes like seeing the trend of the market value as well as for location and potential of the land. Keeping in view the entire evidence on record, the Court is of the considered view that it will be appropriate to classify the acquired land only into two categories/portions i.e. (A) within 100 metres from either of the roads falling in Municipal limits and [ACT], and (B) rest of the land has to be grouped into another class in itself.
23. In view of the above discussion, the claimants whose lands fall in category (A) within 100 meters from either of the roads falling in Municipal Limits and [ACT] would be entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,04,367/- per acre and while the other claimants whose lands fall in category (B) which is treated as a compact piece of land, the claimants obviously cannot get the same amount. But, at the same time, they cannot be awarded too low a compensation than the one awarded to the claimants of category (A) because the land itself is adjacent; has been acquired for one and the same purpose and falls in municipal limits. Thus, they would get, by applying some guess work and keeping the sale deeds in mind, a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- per acre.
24. Resultantly, the appeals of the Stale in so far as they relate to the lands falling in category (A) aforementioned are partly accepted and compensation granted by the learned Additional District Judge, Re-wari is accordingly reduced., while other appeals preferred by the State are dismissed. Further, the appeals preferred by the claimants whose lands fall in category (B) as afore-noticed, are partly accepted, while all other appeals preferred by the claimants in relation to category (A) are dismissed. The claimants whose appeals have been partly allowed also be entitled to statutory benefits provided under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and as appeals of both the parties have been partly accepted, there shall be no order as to costs.
25. Appeals partly allowed.