Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. State of Haryana issued two different notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, dated 16.12.1988 and 30.1.1989. Vide notification dated 16.12.1988 the State Government intended to acquire 617.84 acres of land in village Khandsa, 21.88 acres in village Kadipur and 2693 acres in village Naharpur Rupa, while vide other notification land measuring about 13.04 acres was intended to be acquired in village Jharsa, 144.90 acres in village Naharpur Rupa and 303.31 acres in village Khandsa. In furtherance to the first notification the State Government issued a notification under Section 8 of the Act on 14.12.1989 and actually acquired and took physical possession of 461.50 acres in village Khandsa, 20.50 acres in village Kadipur and 11.69 acres in village Naharpur Rupa, totalling 493.75 acres. On the other hand, in furtherance to the. later notification the State Government published notification under Section 6 of the Act on 25.1.1990 abovestated for the land measuring 452.50 acres. However, part of the operation of the notification was stayed by the High Court and the State could actually acquire and take possession of the land measuring 378.36 acres in all the three villages.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector passed awards No. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 16 in relation to the first notification and award No. 9 in relation to the second notification. He awarded the following amount of compensation for acquisition of their respective lands under different awards:-
A. Award No. 6 dated 12.12.199
For Village Khandsa at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre.
For Villages Kadipur and Naharpur Rupa at the rate of Rs. 1,25,000/- per acres for both villages.
B. Award No. 1 dated 16.4.1991
For Village Khandsa at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre.
C. Award No. 16 dated 26.3.1992
For Village Khandsa at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre.
D. Award No. 2 dated 3.7.1992
For Village Khandsa at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre.
E. Award No. 4 dated 29.9.1992
For Village Khandsa at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre.
Award No. 9 dated 22.1.1992.
For Village Khandsa at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre
For Village Jharsa at the rate of Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre.
For Village Naharpur Rupa at the rate of Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre.
3. The claimants obviously felt dissatisfied with the extent of compensation awarded to them for acquisition of their lands and preferred references under Section 18 of the Act. Nearly 175 references were referred to the learned District Judge, in relation to the first notification while 52 references were answered in relation to the second notification.
4. The learned District Judge, Gurgaon answered 175 references in relation to enhancement of the compensation of land acquired vide notification dated 16.12.1988 vide 37 different judgments pronounced on different dates though practically based on somewhat common evidence and relying upon the previous judgments passed by the same Court. In relation to the subsequent notification 52 references were answered by the learned District Judge vide 10 judgments of different dates but again relying upon the judgments passed under a previous notification as well as under the subsequent notification. These 47 judgments pronounced by the learned District Judge, Gurgaon, have given rise to 342 Regular First Appeals. As the first judgment pronounced by the learned District Judge in relation to these two notifications was that of Attar Singh and in all subsequent judgments reliance was placed on this judgment, while awarding the amount of compensation. The learned District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 7,22,500/- per acre uniformly to all the lands in all the cases.
5. The State being aggrieved from the exorbitant enhancement of compensation payable to the claimants has preferred various appeals, the lead case being State of Haryana v. Attar Singh. The claimants also preferred appeals claiming still higher amount of compensation to be paid to them for acquisition of their respective lands and again Attar Singh v. State of Haryana is the lead case taken by the claimants to further their cause for enhancement. As main evidence was led in Attar Singh's case and Attar Singh's case was relied upon in subsequent judgments and uniform rate of compensation was awarded to al| the claimants, which has given rise to all these regular first appeals, I consider it appropriate to dispose of all these 342 appeals by a common judgment. Common evidence was led, the counsel for the parties also addressed arguments which were common to all cases. Common evidence, arguments, submissions and law arises for consideration in all these cases, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by dealing with the same separately specially in view of the fact that uniform rate of compensation has been awarded to all the claimants and all the cases arise from above two notifications.
6. In order to justify their claim, the claimants had examined three witnesses in the case of Attar Singh namely PW1 Dilbag Singh, PW2 Amar Chand Patwari Halqa, Khandsa and PW3 claimant Attar Singh. Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.7 were the copies of judgments in relation to the same lands or the lands of the adjacent areas where different amount of compensation was awarded by the judgments of the Court.
7. The respondents in order to rebut the claim of the claimants had examined only one witness namely Satbir Singh Patwari and tendered in evidence sale instances Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.8. The learned District Judge had awarded the uniform amount aforesaid on the basis of Ex.P.6 mainly which was the judgment in LAC No. 129-A of 1994.
8. In the case of B.K. Munjal, R.F.A. No. 585 of 1998 the claimants only appeared in the witness box and tendered in evidence Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 the judgments pronounced by different Courts in relation to the lands form part of the same villages. The respondents only examined RW1 the same Patwari and tendered Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.8 sale instances on record.
9. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana contended that the judgment passed by the learned District Judge has no basis and is not founded on any reliable and cogent evidence which could justify the enhancement from Rs. 1,25,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre to uniform rate of Rs. 7,22,500/-. According to the State the award of the learned Land Acquisition Collector deserves to be restored on the basis of the evidence on record. While the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that keeping in view the location and potential of the land and the earlier awards the compensation awarded by the learned District Judge is liable to be enhanced to Rs. 2,000/- per square yard.
10. One of the basic contentions raised on behalf of some of the claimants is that once the learned Judge had awarded a sum of Rs. 7,22,500/- in relation to the land acquired in three villages under notification dated 16.12.1988, the claimants whose land was acquired three months later i.e. vide notification dated 30.1.1989, in any case be entitled to at least increase of 25%.
11. In order to appreciate the gist of the contentions raised on behalf of the respective parties it would be appropriate at the very outset to refer to the location and potentiality of the acquired land. The learned District Judge in this regard discussed the evidence to the following effect:-
'In order to prove the market price of the acquired land at the time of acquisition, one of the claimants Attar Singh has appeared as PW3 and made statement that the acquired land abuts the National Highway No. 8 i.e., Delhi-Jaipur Road, and whereas on one side of it there is Sector 37 and on the other is the old Gurgaon-Manesar Road. Towards North of the acquired land Sector 10-A is situated, towards South is Sector 36 towards East are situated Sector 33-34 while agricultural land of village Khandsa is situated on the West. After giving the distances of the acquired land from various Government and private buildings/institutions, factories and HUDA Sectors, Attar Singh PW3 has claimed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 15 to 16 lacs per acre.
The claimants also examined Dilbag Singh, Planning Assistant of the office of District Town Planner, Gurgaon, who simply proved copy Ex.P-1 of the site plan of the controlled area No. 1 to IV of Gurgaon. The claimants have further examined Shri Amar Chand, Patwari of Halqa Khandsa who has proved copy of Ex.P.2 of the Aks Shijra. He has also deposed that the acquired land is situated at a distance of 5-6 K.Ms from village Basai, 3 K.Ms, from village Gurgaon and 2 K.Ms, from judicial complex, Gurgaon.'
12. I consider it appropriate to refer to the basic documentary evidence in this regard. Ex.P.1 is final draft development plan for controlled area 1 to IV of Gurgaon, Ex.P.2 is the Shijra Kishatwar of village Khandsa and Mark X is the site plan showing the area three different villages acquired and the proposed developed sectors under the scheme of H.U.D.A. Mark X has not been exhibited in accordance with law but for the purposes of proper understanding of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 reference to mark X would be necessary. Ex.P.1 shows different sectors i.e. from Sector 1 to Sector 57 and also identifies the names of the villages from where the land is acquired for developing these sectors. The land in village Khandsa was acquired for development of Sector 37. Mark X indicates the Shijra plan of Sector 37. To develop Sector 37 the lands acquired are from village Khandsa, Kadlpur and Naharpur Rupa. In other words, the land for development for Sector 37 has been acquired for development of the residential and commercial blocks by the HUDA.
Ex.P.1 further shows that Sector 37 and specially the area of village Khandsa is abutting the main National Highway from Jaipur to Delhi. Ex.P.2 further shows the boundaries of different villages touching the boundary of village Khandsa. HSIDC's industrial complex was adjacent to Sector 37. It also shows that Sector 10-A was already developed. The factories etc. had already come up in the area. It was even abadi deh of village Khandsa which had been shown in Ex.P.2. PW2 in his cross examination had stated that part of Khandsa village abuts the National Highway No. 8. PW3 has specifically stated that there are many factories and industries surrounding the acquired land. The lands acquired in village Basai and Jharsa are at a distance from the land acquired in village Khandsa. He also stated that acquired land is about 2 kilometers from the Courts complex, Gurgaon. He gave the value of the land at Rs. 15 lacs to Rs. 16 lacs per acre. This witness was hardly put to a proper cross examination. In the limited cross-examination conducted he denied the suggestion that he had wrongly stated the facts in examination in chief.
13. RW1 has started that the acquired land was agricultural land at the time of acquisition and he tendered Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.6 in his examination in chief. Cross examination of RW1 makes an interested reading. He conceded that the acquired land abuts the National Highway towards the East. Village Jharsa was stated to be about 5-6 kilometers from the District Court Complex. He also conceded that acquired land is about 2.5 kilometers from Grain Market, Gurgaon.
14. From the above evidence it is clear that the land has been acquired vide these two different notifications from the three villages i.e. Khandsa, Kadipur and Naharpur Rupa for further development of residential and commercial complexes to be constructed and developed by HUDA. In other words, it is a part of the composite plan to develop the colonies around Gurgaon town. In these three villages including Silokhra, Sukhrali and other surrounding villages of Gurgaon town, land has been acquired from time to time to complete the development. The notification itself stated that the land was being acquired for public purpose namely for development and utilisation of land as commercial/industrial/transport area (Part of Sectors 33 and 34) at Gurgaon. While the notification dated 16.12.1988 stated that the land was being acquired for the public purpose namely, for development and utilisation of land for industrial area (Sector 37) at Gurgaon.
15. The location and potentiality of the land has to be commonly adjudged as it has been acquired for a composite purpose and is ultimately forming part of a fully developed town consisting of various sectors up to Sector 57. For some of the Sectors land had been acquired much earlier as would be clear from the various judgments exhibited on record before the acquisition of the present land. Major part of the acquired land falls on the National Highway as Sector 33, 34 and 37 are abutting the National Highway as per Ex.P.1. Thus, I am of the considered view that the location and potentiality of the land can hardly give any advantage to the State and the land is capable and infact is intended to be used for composite development as above noted.
16. Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.8 are the sale instances tendered in evidence on behalf of the State before the learned District Judge. They were simplicitor tendered in evidence. They were neither proved nor exhibited in accordance with law. No vendor or vendee was examined. The respondents did not care to call any witness from the Registrar's/Revenue Authorities office to prove the genuineness and authenticity of the sale instances Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.8. They were rightly rejected by the learned District Judge from the zone of consideration for determination of fair market value of the land at the time of acquisition. In accordance with the settled principles by different pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and more particularly in the cases of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah and Ors., A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2600 and Special Deputy Collector and Anr. v. Curia Sambasiva Rao and Ors., A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2625, these documents are inadmissible and cannot be looked into for any purpose in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
17. Another factor which would warrant rejection of these Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.8 is that the value reflected in the sale instances is even lower than the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. In other words these sale instances were not considered relevant even by the Land Acquisition Collector. The amount reflected in these sale instances would, therefore, be of no consequence in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act.
18. The claimants, as already noticed, had tendered on record Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.7 the various judgments of the Courts. It is a settled principle of law that judgments and awards of the Courts can constitute a valid basis for determining the fair market value of the land payable to the claimants at the time of acquisition of the land. The details of Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.7 are as under:-
------------------------------------------------------------------------Sr. Date of Village Name of Parties Date of Rate perNo. notification award Sq. yard. ------------------------------------------------------------------------1. P.3/8.3.89 Basai Om Parkash etc. 13.3.95 Rs. 150/-v.State of Haryana2. P.4/27.8.87 Jharsa Smt. Ganga Devi 14.1.94 Rs. 272/-v.State of Haryana3. P.5/27.8.87 Jharsa M/s Standard Rubber 6.5.94 Rs. 300/-v.State of Haryana4. P.6/27.8.87 Jharsa Yudhvir Singh 5.6.94 Rs. 915000/-v. per acreState of Haryana5. P.7/27.8.98 Jharsa Surat Singh etc. 11.4.94 Rs. 204/-v.State of Haryana.-------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The learned District Judge in addition to the above Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.7 in exercise of his inherent powers took on record Ex.PX. Ex.P.3 is the judgment in the case of Om Parkash and Ors. v. State of Haryana, decided on 13.3.1995 by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon in relation to the land acquired in village Basai vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 8.3.1989. Ex.PX is the judgment dated 2.9.1996 in the case of Hambir (deceased through his LRs) v. State of Haryana and Anr. which relates to the lands acquired again in Basai vide notification of the same date i.e. 8.3.1989. In Ex.P.3 and Ex.PX compensation of Rs. 5,78,000/- per acre was awarded by the learned District Judge. In the case of Hambir (supra) the learned District Judge has granted compensation of Rs. 5,78,000/- per acre while in the case of Om Parkash (supra) he has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,26,000/- per acre.
20. In the case of Om Parkash the State had come up in appeal to this Court. RFA No. 1767 of 1995 State of Havana v. Om Parkash and Ors., as well as appeals of the claimants were dismissed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali vide judgment dated 25.7.1997. The learned Judge held as under:-
'It is settled proposition of law that judicial precedents in the shape of awards are best evidence in determining the market value of the land. This Court is, thus, of the considered view that the award rendered by the learned Additional District Judge needs no interference. That being so I dismiss all appeals preferred either by the claimants or the State.'
The view expressed by the Hon'ble Judge in Om Parkash case was followed by this Court in RFA No. 1700 of 1997 titled State of Haryana and Anr. v. Dr. Bosa Ram Decided on 3.5.1998. It was conceded before me by the learned counsel for the parties that the LPA No. 288 of the 1998 preferred against the judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali was dismissed by Letter Patent Bench on 24.3.1999. In other words the amount awarded in Ex.P.3 has attained finality.
21. From the exhibits produced in the case of B.K. Munjal Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.6 cannot be relied upon for the obvious reason that the notification under Section 4 of these cases is year's later than the notification for the lands acquired by the present notification. In the case of Attar Singh there could be serious doubts whether Ex.P.3 could be the basis for determination of compensation. In other words, at best Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.7 in the case of Attar Singh and Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5 in the case of B.K. Munjal can be the fair basis for determining the amount of compensation payable to the claimants.
22. But, another factor which must be taken into consideration is that these awards relate to village Jharsa and village Basai. Very small portion of village Jharsa has been acquired vide these notifications while village Basi, according to the evidence that has come on record, is located 4-5 kilometers away from the Court Complex. Ex.P.1 clearly shows that Sectors 9, 9-A and 10 were developed on the lands acquired of village Basai and Sector 37 has been developed on the land acquired in village Khandsa and Kadipur. This exhibit further shows that there is not much distance between Sector 9 and Sector 37. The boundaries of these two Sectors touch each other. This is also possible that despite being adjacent sectors there would be some distance between the lands of the two villages which have been acquired for developing these sectors. A Division Bench of this Court has already upheld the compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,22,500/- awarded in the case of Om Parkash and which has also been followed in other cases. The lands of village Khandsa are abutting the National Highway No. 8 and cannot be placed worse to the lands of village Basai which are definitely and admittedly at a greater distance from the Court Complex as well as from the National Highway.
23. I do not find much substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the claimants that they are entitled to higher compensation just because the notification is 1.5 months later to the earlier notification. It is a matter of common knowledge that when areas acquired for development of townships or sectors, the notifications for the same purpose follow one after the other. There could hardly be any change in value, of the land within such a short span which would provide Some advantage to the claimants in relation to increase of compensation. First notification was issued on 16.12.1988 while the subsequent notification was issued on 30.1.1989. Still another notification was issued on 8.3.1989 (in the case of Om Parkash). When the first notification came, obviously the other notification were under the process and must be known to all concerned including the public at large. It is also a matter of common knowledge that surveys by revenue authorities, public meetings and considerable written work process spread over a period of time proceeds the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It also must be noticed here that the learned District Judge, Gurgaon in subsequent judgments relating to the surrounding lands had granted higher compensation in the present case despite Ex.PX.
24. Learned Advocate General, Haryana, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanwar Singh and other v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1999 Supreme Court 317 contended that the lands falling in the adjacent revenue estates cannot form the basis for determining the compensation payable to the present claimants. He also contended that the judgments related mostly to Jharsa and Basai, as such the present case was of no evidence.
25. I am unable to accept either of these contentions in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is true that where the value of the adjacent revenue estates to the acquired land are available on record it may always necessarily not follow that such value be the value of the land acquired. But equally true is that the judgments tendered in evidence form proper basis for determining the amount of compensation payable. Such judgment should provide comparable instances. Reference can be made to the cases of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Vasudev Chander Shanker, 1988(1) LA.C.C. 2345 (S.C.) and State of Madras v. AM. Nanjan and Anr., A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 651. It will be more so where entire land of the adjacent villages as well as the village in question is acquired for one and the same purpose. It is admitted case before this Court that the lands of villages Basai, Jharsa, Khandsa, Kadipur, Naharpur Rupa, Salokhra and Sukhrali have been acquired for the development of the township to be developed by HUDA near the township of Gurgaon consisting of more than 57 sectors. It includes residential, commercial, industrial and common facilities for the entire proposed township. In these circumstances I do not think that the contention raised on behalf of the State that the present case is a case of no evidence, can be accepted.
26. Ex.P.6 would not be of great help to the claimants because this relates to village Jharsa which admittedly falls much closer to Delhi, is on the National Highway No. 8 and has developed areas around it at the time of even the present notification. The grant of higher value of compensation in relation to those notifications though they may relate to a point of time prior to the notification under Section 4 in the present case but still location and potentiality of village Jharsa has to be placed at higher pedestal than the other villages. The comparable instances certainly take within its ambit the location and potentiality of the land along with all its attendant circumstances material for determination of the amount of compensation payable to the owners of the land.
27. The claimants in either of the two cases afore referred and even in connected cases have not brought or proved any sale instances on record to show that the market value of the land in the year 1988-89 was higher than the one awarded by the learned District Judge.
28. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that I am unable to see any error of appreciation of evidence or application of law by the District Judge, to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The judgment fixes fair market value of the land which ought to be paid to the claimants. The case of Om Parkash (supra) would be squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the Hon'ble Letters Patent Bench already upheld the view taken by the learned Single Judge in that case. The lands of village Basai are at some distance from the acquired land but they are adjacent to each other inasmuch as according to Ex.P.1 lands of Basai were acquired to develop Sectors 9-A and 10, while the present lands have been acquired for developing Sector 37 which is adjacent to Sectors 9, 10 and 10-A.
29. Having given my considered thought to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the judgments in the case of Attar Singh and B.K. Munjal do not call for any interference. Fair marker value of the land at the time of acquisition has been fixed by the learned District Judge and i would concur with the view taken by him Consequently, all the appeals of the State as well as of the claimants are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.