The State of Haryan vs S.N. Kapoor (deceased) through his L.Rs.

I.S. Tiwana, J.—In pursuance of a notification published u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) on February 8, 1975 an area measuring 1146 kanals 16 marlas of land situated within the revenue estate of village Mehrana was acquired by the State Government for the setting up of a fertiliser plant at Panipat. This area also included the area of the present Respondent S.N. Kapoor since dead and now being represented by his successors. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated October 9, 1975 determined that market price of this land on the basis of its agricultural kind and quality at the following rates.

Chahi and Nahri ... Rs. 10080/- per acre.

Banjar Qadim ... Rs. 1600/- per acre.

Gatr Mumkin ... Rs. 960/- per acre.

Not feeling stisfied with this rate of compensation, the Respondent sought a reference u/s 18 of the Act and as a result thereof the Land Acquisition Court enhanced this rate of compensation to Rs, 24,000/-per acre. The State has made a grouse of this enhancement hence this appeal.

The solitary submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that while determining the market price of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per acre, the lower court has placed reliance on one solitary transaction Exhibit P. 1 relating to the sale of a small piece of tend and thus the lower court has committed an error in raising the rate of compensation. The learned Counsel further points out that this transaction Exhibit P. 1 was not relied UOOn in an earlier judgment by the Land Acquisition Court i.e. L.A. case No. 23/4 Addl. of 1998 Exhibit R. 10. Besides this, the learned Counsel also seeks permission vide C.M. 445/C-1 of 1981 under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC to produce a copy of the judgment of the Land Acquisition Court dated January 2, 1979, wherein this sale transaction was not relied upon by the said court. So far as the prayer for additional evidence is concerned, I find that in view of the provisions or of Order 41 Rule 27(aa) Code of Civil Procedure, no case has been made out for granting the same. It is not in dispute that the Appellant-State was a party to that judgment and the same was pronounced about a year earlier to the present decision now under appeal. Thus, it is a case where neither the State-Appellant can plead that it was not aware of that judgment or it was not in its knowledge nor it exercised due diligence in the matter of production of evidence in the present case. In reply to the above-noted contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant the learned Counsel opposite while justifying the approach and conclusion of the lower court in placing reliance on Ex. P. 1 that instance having been found to be the only relevant piece of evidence in this case also places firm reliance on an earlier judgment of this Court in Assa v. The State of Haryana and Anr. R.F.A. No. 384 of 1980 decided on January 29, 1981, where by the market price of about 131 acres of land acquired for this very purpose i.e., for the setting up of National Fertilizer Project was determined at the rate of Rs. 22160/-per acre. The area conversed by this judgment through forming part of the revenue estate of village Kheri Nangal is undisputably adjoining to the presently acquired land.

After weighing the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the judgment of the lower court. It is not in dispute that the acquired land of the Respondent abuts the main Panipat Gohana road and lies in the vicinity of Binjhol rest house. Exhibit P. 1 being the solitary instance of sale relating to the area of village Mehrana the same undisputably could not be ruled out of consideration on any justifiable ground. This disinclination of mine is more so in view of the judgment of this Court in Assa''s case (supra) wherein the market price of as big a chunk of land as 131 acres was determined at Rs. 22169/-per acre. Merely because Exhibit P. 1 was not relied upon by the Land Acquisition Court in another case i.e., Exhibit R. 10 is no ground to rule this instance out of consideration.

For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same but with no order as to costs.