R.F.A. No.2445 of 1994 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. R.F.A. No.2445 of 1994 Date of decision : 19.05.2009 Kulwant Kaur .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents 2. R.F.A. No.2399 of 1994 Parmeshwar Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Suresh Monga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. For establishment of new Grain Market, Gadda shed, office building, quarters, Rest houses etc. an area measuring about 13 acres 2 kanals and 3 marals was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector passed award dated 2.5.1989. Feeling dissatisfied the appellant raised a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which did not find favour with the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri. The land owner/appellant is in appeal against the order dated 1.6.1994 of the learned Addl. District Judge, Jagadhri. R.F.A. No.2445 of 1994 -2- **** Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the learned Addl. District Judge, Jagdhari had erred in determining the real market value of the acquired land by having refrained from relying upon the instances of sales of similar land vide various sale deeds produced on record. The learned State counsel went wholehog with the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jagadhri and argued that the learned Trial Court had recorded proper reasoning for discarding those sale deeds. It is apparent from the discussion recorded by the learned Trial Judge that the sale deeds relied upon by the petitioner- landowner pertained to “a very small areas of the lands measuring about one marla, two marlas, or four marlas, and the same are pertaining to the land or plots of very small size.” In that context, the learned Trial Court observed that “it is a case of common knowledge that smaller pieces of lands are sold at a higher rate and some time smaller piece of land are purchased due to compulsion or out of necessity by the adjoining owner at a very high price. This fact also cannot be lost sight of that from the year 1978, on wards upto apex court verdict there was also general trend of exercising of right of pre-emption on full swing. Whenever, any sale transaction was effected, because right of pre-emption vested at that time in the near blood relations, tenant, co-sharer, etc. there was tendency of incorporating exaggerated amount in the sale deeds in order to ward off or discourage the possible pre-emptors.” R.F.A. No.2445 of 1994 -3- **** The learned Trial Court also noticed the other relevant facts and observed as under:- “It is also pertinent to mention that a perusal of the copy of the sale deed Ex.P3 dated 15.09.1988 shows that no consideration has been paid before the Sub Registrar, rather, the sale – consideration has been squared up towards the outstanding amount due to Ziri. Then, in copy of sale deed Ex.P4 dated 11.3.1986, also nothing has been paid before the Sub Registrar. No doubt, presumption of truth, and correctness attaches to the endorsement of the Sub Registrar, but the same is rebuttable one. The endorsement of the Sub Registrar, is nothing but the self serving statement or admission of the vendor, or the vendees in their own favour. The sale transaction produced are nether pertaining to the same nature quality of the land, nor the same are pertaining to the relevant period and so the same are not appropriate instance, to prove the market value of the land in question.” There is no averment on behalf of the appellant that there is any factual error in the impugned judgment. It is a matter of common observation that small parcels of land at times fetch a fairly higher value because the sales are actuated by necessity on the part of the land owner who may have has purchased the land in its immediate vicinity. Small parcels of R.F.A. No.2445 of 1994 -4- **** land are also required many a time for affording of Rasta etc. At times, small parcels of land may have to be acquired compulsively if those intervene the land acquired by the land owner on both sides thereof. In that view of things, the impugned finding recorded by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jagadhri cannot be faulted with on any valid score, particularly when it has not been pointed out that there is any material obtaining on the file to prove that land of similar quantity and in the immediate vicinity thereof had been alienated at the relevant point of time. For want of evidence to that effect, I have no hesitation in upholding the finding recorded by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jagadhri. The appeals are held to be denuded of merit and are ordered to be dismissed. May 19, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No