Ram Narain vs State of Haryana

Swatanter Kumar, J.—At serial number 1017-B of the regular list of the Court there are 9 regular first appeals preferred by the State and 9 appeals preferred by the claimants, arising from the same award dated 11.3.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which he enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants to Rs. 2,70,000/- per acre than that of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The lead case in all these appeal is that of Ram Narain v. State of Haryarta and another, RFA No. 1645 of 1995 and State of Haryana and another v. Rant Narain, RFA No. 1677 of 1995.

The Government of State of Haryana issued P-2 notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act, acquiring 137.05 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Patti Kaisth Seth, Had Bast No. 24, Tehsil and District Kaithal, for utilisation of the land for development of residential commercial and institutional area for Sector 20, Kaithal. As already noticed, the Land Acquisition Collector vide his award No. 16 dated 26.2.1992 awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre, which upon reference u/s 18 of the Act was enhanced to Rs. 2,70,000/-per acre. According to the claimants, on the basis of the evidence on record, they are entitled to further enhancement while on the other hand, the State prays for reduction of the amount of compensation.

The learned Additional District Judge, while relying upon the sale deeds Ex. P.2 to Ex. P.4, Ex. P.7, Ex. P.8 Ex. P.10 and Ex. P.15 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,70,000/- per acre. In this case the claimants only examined two witnesses and produced on record sale-deeds Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 excluding Ex.P.5 and Ex. P.6 Aksh-shijras. The respondents examined no witness, but tendered in evidence Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.10 the sale deeds.

The basic question that falls for consideration in this case is whether the sate deeds produced by either party to the proceedings are admissible in evidence or not. So far as the sale deeds produced by the respondents are concerned, it is clear from the record that they were merely tendered in evidence and as such in accordance with the law settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad Vs. P. Venkaiah and others, and Special Deputy Collector and another etc. Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, etc., these sale instances cannot be taken into consideration as they are inadmissible and there is hardly any dispute in this regard even raised by the State. However, out of the various sale-deeds produced by the claimants it is an admitted case that vendee or vendor were not examned of any of the sale-deed. However, the learned senior counsel appearing for the claimants has contended that in most of the sale deeds and to the particular reference to Ex. P. 16 the entire sale consideration was proved by the very endorsement made on the sale deed by the Registrar. In other words, the passing of the consideration stands proved by endorsement and as such the sale-deed should be held to the admissible. The learned counsel in this regard referred to Section 51A of the Act and Sections 58, 59 and 60(2) of the Indian Registration Act in support of his contention. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court afore-noticed I am unable to see any substance in the merit of the contention raised on behalf of the claimants. Even if there is some merit in this case, the judgments of the Hon''ble Apex Court as well as of Division Bench of this court are binding upon the Court and as such I would not like to discuss this contention in any great detail. As far as this Court is concerned, the question is no more res-in-tegra.

The above appeals have been heard together with the appeals listed at Sr. No. 1017-A (RFA No. 1206/96 Manohar Lal and others v. State of Haryana, deiced today). The date of notification u/s 4 of the Act is of the same day, the acquisition is from the revenue estate of same village/villages and the lands have been acquired for more or less a common purpose while in the earlier case it was for the development of Sector 19 Part-11, there in the present case the land has been acquired for development of Sector 20. The lands have more or less same location and potential, purpose of acquisition is development of Kaithal township and they were being used for the same purpose at the time of acquisition. There may not be much of evidence on record which is admissible strictly in accordance with law, but in all fairness the claimants and the Stale both cannot be denied the benefit of a judicial pronouncement i.e. detailed judgment in the case of Manohar Lal v. The State of Haryana, RFA No. 1206 of 1995: 2000(4) RRR 392 (P&H).

At this stage, it may be relevant to refer to a detailed judgment of this Court where it was considered that the lands which are similarly situated and are acquired for one and the same purpose and even are contiguous to each other can be awarded the same amount of compensation. The basic rule of law would even require the Court to grant equal compensation to the claimants of the land similarly situated except where in law itself the Court cannot reduce or increase the compensation already awarded. In the case of State of Haryana v. Buta Ram 1999(3) Ind Cas 389:1999(2) 629 (P&H), it has been 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 similar compensation to avoid inequality between the claims of the owners in relation to the land which is somewhat similarly tocated. In this regard reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Khushi Ram and another v. The Slate of Haryana 1988 LACC 653 : 1988(2) RRR 572 (P&H); Surinder Singh v. Punjab Stale 1995(1) P.L.R. 533 : 1995(1) RRR 674 (P&II)(DB) ; Ram Mehra v. Union of India AIR 1987 Delhi 130; Kar-rappa Ranghiya v. Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition AIR 1982 S C 77 and Krishna Yachendra Bahadurvaru v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore and others, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 869."

In view of the aforestated discussion, the appeals filed by the claimants are dismissed without any orders as to costs. However, the appeals preferred by the State are partly accepted for the reasons stated in the case of Manohar Lal v. State of Haryana, R.F.A. No. 1206 of 1995, judgment of same date. The compensation payable to the claimants, thus, is reduced on the basis of Group ''A'' lands and Group ''B'' lands. Owners of Group ''A'' lands would be entitled to Rs. 2,03,473/-peracre, while the owners of Group ''B'' land would get compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,83,478/- per acre. The claimants would also get other statutory benefits provided under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act.

Appeals dismissed.