IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No.: 99 of 1997. Date of decision : 11.09.2009 Lekh Raj and another ….Appellants. Versus LAC Hamirpur ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr. H.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This appeal is directed against the award dated 25.9.1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Una, in Land Reference Case No. 1 of 1994. Though three land references were decided by the learned District Judge vide the impugned award only Lekh Raj and Data Ram have filed this appeal against the award in Land Reference No. 1 of 1994. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that 28-12 Marlas of land situate in Mauja Bangarh, Tehsil and District Una were acquired for setting up the Irrigation Scheme, Bhabhour Sahib in Teeka Bangarh. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) was issued on 31.4.1991. Objections were invited and the Land Acquisition Collector determined the compensation for the said land 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 @ Rs.5000/- per Kanal for Barani land and Rs.500/- per kanal for Gair Mumkin land. Total compensation of Rs.1,15,552/- was found payable to all the petitioners. Aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, three references were filed, which have been disposed of by the impugned award. The claimant Lekh Raj claimed that the value of the land is Rs.50,000/- per kanal and therefore, claimed compensation at the said rate. The learned District Judge held that the claimants had failed to prove their case and upheld the award of the Land Acquisition Collector. He discarded the sale deeds produced by the claimants on the ground that the vendor and vendee of the sale deeds have not been examined to prove the same. At the outset, it may be stated that by now the law is well settled that in view of Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act, a certified copy of the document registered under the Registration Act may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document. Therefore, the learned District Judge was not correct in discarding the two sale deeds totally. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Ranvir Singh and another vs. Union of India, (2005) 12 SCC 59, and Church of South India Trust Association vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Tehsildar, (2006) 9 SCC 676 wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that such a document is admissible in evidence. The claimants before the learned District Judge, examined only three witnesses. PW-1, Bishan Dass, has only produced the site plan and his evidence is not relevant for any other purpose. PW-2 Nand Lal is one of the claimants and according to him value 3 of the land was Rs.4000/- per marla. He further pleaded that the land is close to Gurudwara Bhabhor Sahib, which is a place of historical importance. According to him, the national high-way is only two kilometers from the acquired land. He also stated that the land in question is in the vicinity of Nangal Dam and Mehatpur. PW-3, Lekh Raj, is the present appellant. In his statement he stated that the value of the land at the time of the acquisition of land was about 50,000/- per kanal. The land is close to Nangal Dam, Mehatpur Industrial area and Gurudwara Bhabour Sahib. In cross-examination, he admits that the Abadi of the village is scattered and land is situated two kilometers from the Una Nangal road. There is no market in the village. The river Satluj flows adjacent to the acquired land. On a suggestion put to him he admitted that the residential quarters of the National Fertilizer Limited are at a distance of two to three kilometers from the acquired land. This is the entire oral evidence. The documentary evidence consists of two sale deeds, which have been totally ignored by the learned District Judge. Ext.P-1 is a sale deed registered on 22.1.1990, whereby one kanal of land in Mauja Bangarh has been sold for a sum of Rs.18,000/-. Ext.P-2 is the copy of the sale deed registered on 14.3.1991 whereby one Marla of land was sold for Rs.2,000/- i.e. @ 40,000/- per Kanal. Though, I am of the considered view that these two documents can be read in evidence, the petitioners in their statements made no reference to these documents and there is nothing on record to show as to where the land, which is subject matter of the aforesaid sale deed, is situated. What is the nature of the land, its proximity 4 with the road, etc. has not been stated. True it may be that under Section 51-A these documents can be read in evidence as evidence of the transaction recorded in the statement but on this basis all that can be said is that land in Mauja Bangarh was sold at the rates mentioned in the sale deeds. The law is very clear that a sale deed of small piece of land may not be relevant for assessing compensation in respect of large tracts of land which have been acquired. In the present case, the total land acquired was 28 kanals and the land of the petitioner which was acquired was also six kanals. The sale deed of 1 Marla, which is just a month prior to the notification in question, may not be relevant for the purpose of assessing the compensation. Why the person purchased the land is not clear. One Marla of land would not even be sufficient for building a house. This is such a small area of land that no independent structure can be built on the same. Therefore, in my view, this sale deed cannot be taken into consideration while assessing the compensation. However, the other sale deed Ext.P-1 shows that the value of the land was Rs.18,000/- per kanal. One kanal is 384 square meters. This is a sufficiently large area of land which could reflect the market value of the area in question. While assessing the compensation one has to look into the evidence which clearly shows that Nagal Dam, Mehatpur Industrial Area and the National Fertilizer limited are within a radius of 1 to 3 kilometers from the acquired land. This clearly shows that the land in question had potential for building purposes since judicial notice can be taken of 5 the fact that there is ever increasing demand for urban properties in the vicinity of small towns. The potentiality of the land has to be taken into consideration while assessing the value. The land which is subject matter of Ext.P-1 is situated in the same village and revenues estate. Taking into consideration all these factors, I feel that Ext.P-1 is relevant for assessing the compensation. However, deduction has to be made on two counts. One that the land which forms subject matter of Ext.P-1 measures only 1 Kanal whereas the acquired land is 28 Kanal. Secondly, the nature and exact situation of the land which is subject matter of the sale deed Ext.P-1 is not clear. Therefore, in my view 1/3rd deduction should be made for the area and nature of the land. The value of the land is, therefore, assessed at Rs.12,000/- per Kanal. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned award in so far it relates to the claim of the appellants is modified and they are held entitled to compensation @ !2,000/- per kanal. In addition to the market value of the land the claimants shall be entitled to 30% of the market value on account of the compulsory acquisition charges. On the market value of the land so assessed the claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of award. On the amount of compensation, which is in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector, the claimants are held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award for a period of one year and thereafter the claimants shall be 6 entitled to interest @ 15% per annum till the entire excess amount is deposited in Court. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 11th September, 2009. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.