R. F. A. No. 735 of 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. F. A. No. 735 of 1994 Date of Decision : May 08, 2009 Dinesh Kumar .... Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Ritu Punj, DAG, Haryana. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Dinesh Kumar – land owner has filed this appeal against judgment dated 13.01.1994 of learned District Judge, Faridabad. Land measuring 42 kanals 10 marlas situated in Hodal was acquired by State of Haryana for a public purpose namely for construction of 3rd Railway Line (Mathura to Palwal). Notification dated 14.12.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short – the Act) was published on 26.12.1989 in the official gazette. Land Acquisition Collector, vide Award No. 8 dated 19.12.1990, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,30,000/- per acre on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The appellant, whose R. F. A. No. 735 of 1994 2 land was also included in the acquired land, filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation alleging that market value of the acquired land on the relevant date was not less than Rs.2,500/- per square yard. This claim of the appellant was contested by the State. Learned District Judge, Faridabad, vide impugned judgment dated 13.01.1994, disposed of the said reference petition along with many other reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act holding that market price of the acquired land on the relevant date was Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal for further enhancement of compensation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The acquired land is situated in Hodal, District Faridabad (now District Palwal). Land owners produced six sale instances, which are tabulated as under :- S. No. Sale deed Date Area sold Sale consideration 1. Ex. PW2/1 7 marlas Rs.12,000/- dt. 15.07.88 (200 sq. yards) 2. Ex. PW2/2 7 marlas Rs.12,000/- dt. 04.07.88 (200 sq. yards) 3. Ex. PW2/3 11 marlas Rs.15,000/- dt. 09.06.88 (320 sq. yards) 4. Ex. PW2/4 5 marlas Rs.9,000/- dt. 02.05.88 (144 sq. yards) 5. Ex. PW2/5 5 marlas Rs.9,000/- dt. 19.02.88 (144 sq. yards) 6. Ex. PW2/6 1 marla Rs.4,500/- dt. 30.06.88 R. F. A. No. 735 of 1994 3 On the other hand, State produced five sale instances, which are tabulated as under :- S. No. Sale deed Date Area sold Sale consideration 1. Ex. R2 1 kanal Rs.7,000/- dt. 12.04.89 2. Ex. R3 1 kanal 16 marla Rs.10,000/- dt. 24.05.89 3. Ex. R4 2 kanals Rs.15,000/- dt. 07.05.90 4. Ex. R5 7 marlas Rs.1,000/- dt. 20.08.90 5. Ex. R6 6 kanals 6 marlas Rs.15,000/- dt. 06.02.91 Sale instances produced by the State have to be ignored because the same cannot be said to be comparable sale instances. Market value as per said sale instances comes to less than half of that awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. This, by itself, would show that the sale instances produced by the State are not comparable sale instances. As regards sale instances produced by the land owners, the sale instance mentioned at Sr. No. 6 has to be ignored being for one marla land only and showing the market value of the land grossly disproportionate to the other sale instances produced by land owners themselves. The remaining five sale instances produced by the land owners would show that market value of the land involved in those sale deeds was Rs.60/- per square yard (in two sale instances), Rs.61/- per square yard (in other two sale instances) and Rs.47/- per square yard (in another sale instance). Learned R. F. A. No. 735 of 1994 4 District Judge took the market value as per these sale instances to be Rs.60/- per square yard. However, it was observed that all the sale instances pertained to small pieces of plots meant for construction of residential buildings and therefore, the same cannot be said to be `most comparable' sale instances because the acquired land is a large tract of agricultural land measuring 42 kanals 10 marlas. Even the appellant stated that at the time of acquisition also, the acquired land was being cultivated for agricultural purposes. Consequently, market value of the acquired agricultural land cannot be determined to be the same as market value of small residential plots as per sale instances produced by the land owners. However, it has also to be taken note of that the acquired land was situated within municipal limits and near developed area, as observed by learned District Judge. Keeping in view these factors, some reduction had to be allowed in the market value of the land as per sale instances of small plots keeping in view the large area of acquired land, which was being used for agricultural purpose at the time of acquisition. Learned District Judge reduced it to half and found the market value to be Rs.30/- per square yard of the acquired land, but rounded it off to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre i.e. Rs.31/- per square yard. However, reduction by 50% appears to be a little on the higher side keeping in view the fact that the acquired land was also within the municipal limits at the relevant time. Moreover, the sale instances produced by the land owners are of February 1988 to July 1988, whereas the relevant date for determining the market value is 26.12.1989 being the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Consequently, for the intervening period of 1½ years also, some increase in the market value had to be allowed. Keeping in view all the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered view that market value of the acquired land as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act was Rs.45/- per square R. F. A. No. 735 of 1994 5 yard. It is held accordingly. The appellant shall be entitled to compensation for his acquired land at the aforesaid rate along with all statutory benefits in accordance with provisions of Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. May 08, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE