Judgment:
N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. This bunch of 49 Letters Patent Appeals bearing numbers 1156 to 1166 of 1991, 312 to 334, 424 to 426 and 1236 to 1247 of 1992 filed by the land owners for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgments as all these appeals arise out of the same acquisition proceedings and identical questions of law and fact are involved in them. Letters Patent Appeal 1156 of 1991 being the main appeal on the basis of which others were admitted, facts have been taken from this case.
2. Land measuring 12131 kanals and 18 marlas in village Badho Rangran Tehsil and District Hissar was sought to be acquired by the State of Haryana for a public purpose viz. extension of Hisar Cantonment. A preliminary notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was later followed by a declaration Under Section 6 of the Act on April 12, 1985 and the aforesaid land mentioned therein stood acquired. Land Acquisition Collector as per his award of September 17, 1986 awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per acre as compensation for Nehri/Chahi land, Rs. 12,000/- per acre for Tal/Barani land and Rs. 8000/- per acre for Tibba/Banjar Aadim/Gair Mumkin land in addition to the compulsory acquisition charges and interest at the statutory rates.
3. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector the land owners had references made by Under Section 18 of the Act all of which were heard and disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Hissar. The claimants who claimed higher amount of compensation before the Court had placed reliance on five sale deeds the details of which are as under:-
Sr. Exhibit No. & Date of Area of land Sale Approximate No Sale Deed sold Price rate per acre.K. M.1. PZ/3 2033/2.7.84 20 03 Rs. 35000/- Rs. 14000/-2. PZ/4 1892/27.6.84 -do- --do-- --do--3. PZ/5 3416/29.9.86 10 04 Rs. 45000/- Rs. 34000/-4. PZ/6 4019/20.1.83 8 00 Rs. 13500/- Rs. 13500/-5. PZ/8 4026/27.11.84 11 00 Rs. 42000/- Rs. 30000/-
The learned Additional District Judge discarded the aforesaid instances of sale transactions and instead placed reliance on a letter Exhibit PW16/A written by the Deputy Commissioner Hissar recommending the rates of different categories of land to the Land Acquisition Collector and it was on the basis of those recommendations that he enhanced the compensation as per his judgment and order dated February 18, 1989 to a sum of Rs. 25000/-per acre for the land which was Nehri/Chahi, Rs. 20,000/- per acre for Tall Barani land and Rs. 12000 per acre per land which was Tibba/Banjar. It was observed by the Court that the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the claimants did not prove a safe criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land on the date of the preliminary notification.
4. Still not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge the land owners filed Regular First Appeals in this Court for further enhancement in the amount of compensation. The State of Haryana also filed Regular First Appeals challenging the awarded to the claimants. All these appeals came up for hearing together before the learned Single Judge who after examining the evidence oral as well as documentary led by the parties came to a conclusion that there was no sufficient material on the record to justify any further increase in the amount of compensation awarded by the Court below. The contention that the acquired land had the potential for development into a residential area was also negatived because of lack of evidence in this regard. The learned Judge, however, found that the land mentioned in Chakbandi Forms 'A' came under 'Command Area' which was entitled to receive water and therefore, the same deserved to be evaluated at the Nehri rates. After perusing the Chakbandi Forms 'A' Exhibits P1 to P13 and P26 to P32 the learned Judge directed that the land of the claimants mentioned therein which had been acquired would be assessed at the rate of Rs. 25000/- per acre the rate which was fixed for Chahi/Nehri land. The appeals filed by the claimants were accordingly partly allowed and the appeals filed by the State were dismissed. The land owners were held entitled to proportionate costs as also to the grant of statutory benefits of the amended provisions of Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. It is this order of the learned Judge which has been impugned before us in the present appeals. It would be relevant to mention here that Union of India also preferred appeals against the order of the learned Single Judge claiming reduction in the amount of compensation determined by him but the same were dismissed in limine.
5. We have heard Shri S.D. Bansal, Advocate on behalf of the claimants, Shri S.K. Pipat, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India and Shri H.L. Sibal, learned Advocate General for the State of Haryana. They have taken us through the judgment under appeal and have also referred to the relevant evidence on which they placed reliance.
6. It may be mentioned at the outset that in the present set of cases the land owners have not produced any material on the record which would warrant any further enhancement of compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. They have, however, placed on record letter Exhibit PW 16/A by which the Deputy Commissioner of the District had recommended the award of compensation to the land owners in regard to the land in question. The learned Additional District Judge relying on this document enhanced the amount of compensation which was determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Even a site plan showing the location of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city of Hisar or other developed areas around it including the existing Hisar Cantonment has not been produced. Shri Bansal appearing for the claimants relied on the sale transactions on which the land owners had relied before the Land Acquisition Court. Exhibit PZ/6 is the only relevant sale transaction which took place on January 20,1983 in regard to an area of 8 kanals which was sold for a sum of Rs. 13,500/-. This is the only sale transaction prior to the date of the preliminary notification. All other sale instances relied upon are subsequent to the relevant date and cannot be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the land in question. If one were to accept the sale instances produced by the claimants the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge and the Land Acquisition Court would have to reduce. In our opinion the learned Single Judge as also the Land Acquisition Court were right in discarding the instances of sale produced by the land owners. The oral evidence led by the claimants is equally insufficient to prove the market value of the acquired land. Some of the witnesses who appeared on their behalf have stated that the value of the Nehri land in village Badho Rangran was Rs. 80000/- per acre and that of Tibba land was Rs. 70000/- per acre. The statements of these witnesses cannot be accepted at their face value for they have not given any rational basis for holding that the value of the land was what they stated. As a matter of fact the oral testimony of the witnesses does not find any corroboration from any sale transaction. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has already been rather liberal in awarding the amount of compensation to the land owners and further modifying the award of the land Acquisition Court by bringing in more land within the category of Nehri/Chahi land for which a higher amount of compensation has been fixed. In the circumstances, there is no scope whatsoever for any further enhancement in the compensation already awarded.
7. In the result, we uphold the order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeals. There is no order as to costs in this set of appeals.