JUDGMENT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. On 28.2.1980 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said Act was issued. It had been notified that the land mentioned in the said notification was urgently needed by the Government at public expense for public purpose. The purpose was stated to be for establishment of Grain Market, Staff Quarters, Shed and Farmers’ Rest House by Market Committee, Barara, District Ambala. Subsequently on 29.2.1980 notification under Section 6 of the said Act was issued. Land measuring 324 Kanals 8 Marias which included the land of the present appellants was acquired. The land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 26.11.1980 awarded the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 10.883.20 paise per acre for land, Rs. 9,000/- per acre for Barani Land and Rs. 2500/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. Certain compensation was also awarded for tubewells etc.
2. The appellants dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, filed their claims asserting that compensation should have been paid at Rs. one lac per acre. The same was contested in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Ambala by the State. It was submitted that adequate and reasonable compensation has already been awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, keeping in view the market value of the land in the vicinity of the acquired land.
3. The learned Additional District Judge took into consideration the relevant documents namely the sale deeds produced by either party. The compensation was awarded by the learned Additional District Judge at Rs. 500/- per marla.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the Regular First Appeals were filed by the appellants as well as by the State of Haryana. The learned Single Judge took into consideration the sale deeds produced by either party and held that certain sale deeds are of the period after the land had been acquired and in other sale deeds location of the land has not been shown. It could not be determined if the land was similarly situated. Reference was made to Ex.P.4 which was a judicial pronouncement with respect to land towards Adhoya Road. Upto the depth of 18′ frontage of Adhoya road, the compensation was awarded at Rs. 800/- per marla. It was further held that with respect to the other land which is beyond the depth of 18′ from Adhoya road, the market price would be less because the land which is having frontage towards the main road is used for commercial purpose and not the other land. With respect to the rest of the land, it was directed in R.F.A. No. 1408 of 1983 that compensation would be paid to the vendors as per price which they had paid while purchasing the land. As regards the rest of the land, the market price was fixed at Rs. 330/- per marla.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the present Letters Patent Appeals have been filed. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of L.P.A. Nos. 774 of 1985, 826 of 1985, 870 of 1985, 871 of 1985 and 872 of 1985.
6. With respect to the potentiality of the land, there is no controversy. It is surrounded by Rice Shellers, Cold Storages, Shops, residential houses, F.C.I. Godowns and Tonga Shed etc. As already mentioned above the acquired land also abuts with the road leading from Barara to Adhoya. Therefore, it had the potential value for being developed as Commercial and residential side.
7. So far as the compensation that was awarded at Rs. 800/- per marla for the land abutting on Adhoya road, there was no controversy raised before us. The main dispute raked pertains to the land beyond the depth of 18′ from Adhoya Road. The appellants had produced certain sale deeds particularly Ex.P2 dated 7.1.1980 with respect to a land measuring 2 marlas, Ex.P.3 dated 24.7.1980 pertains to land which was 4-1/2 marlas in area, Ex.P5 dated 1.9.1997 pertains to the land measuring 10 marlas while Mark A was a sale deed dated 26.5.1979 pertaining to an area of 5 marlas. It is well known that sale deeds pertaining to small areas cannot provide a good guideline to determine the market price. The decision of the Supreme Court in this regard in the case of Tarlochan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1995-2)110 P.L.R. 100 (S.C.) is also to the same effect. It was held that market value of large tract cannot be determined by relying on transactions of small pieces of land.
8. It was urged that the learned single Judge erred in adopting the belting system. In order words according to learned counsel compensation with respect to the entire land should have been fixed at the same rate. The said argument is of no avail because though no hard and fast rule can be prescribed and the compensation has to be fixed on basis of the facts and circumstances of the individual case. Without multiplying the precedents, reference to some of the recent decisions can well be made wherein the belting system of fixing the market value has been approved. The Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr., 1995 LACC 297 had dealt with the similar situation. The Land Acquisition Officer had determined the market price upto a belting of a particular width and for rest of the land it was determined at a lessor price. The Supreme Court held that this method of fixing the market price is to be approved keeping in view the potential value of the land. The same principle was again approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Brijeshwar Singh Chhal and Anr. etc., JT 1996(4) S.C. 239. The Supreme Court was concerned with the acquisition of land under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. In paragraph 4 it was held:-
“The High Court in the impugned order relying upon its earlier judgment held that the belting system adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and the reference Court is not correct in law. It is settled by decisions of this Court that belting is a fair principle to determine just and adequate compensation lest unjust award would ensue. When large extent of land is acquired, land abutting the roads or developed area and interior land do not command the same market value. When it is proved that the lands are situated in low-lying area, obviously the lands situated at levelled area would command higher market rate than the lands situated in low-lying area.”
Keeping in view the aforesaid, the said argument of the learned counsel must fail. We, therefore, must revert back to the facts of the case.
9. It goes without saying that market value is the amount for which the land can be sold in open market and purchased by a willing purchaser. In case of land the market value is generally ascertained on consideration of the prices obtained by sale of adjacent land by similar advantages. There cannot be an exact and precise mathematical formula in this regard.
10. The learned Single Judge while fixing the market price of the land which was beyond 18′ from main Adhoya road, taking into consideration the sale deed copy of which is Ex.P1 and the sale deed pertaining to Rectangle No. 132 Ex.R1, after deducting 1/3rd of the value for development, the market price was fixed at Rs. 330/- per marla. While we find that there is no controversy that generally the land on the road side is used for commercial purpose and fetches higher price, still there cannot be so much difference in the price just after 18′ from the main road. The price fixed at Rs. 330/- per marla beyond 18′ is extremely low. The sale deed Ex.P1 pertains to the year 1983 i.e. very much after the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Similarly, Ex.R4 pertains to much prior to the said notification. These sale deeds will not provide true test to fix the market price. The market price at best would godown by 10 per cent to 20 per cent beyond 18′ from the price of the land on main Adhoya road. In the present case, the appellants thus have claimed. Only Rs. 600/- per marla and in certain appeals Rs. 620/- per marla. They cannot be awarded higher price than that. In all fairness, therefore, so, per their own claims they can be awarded compensation at Rs. 600/- per marla.
11. For these reasons, the appeals are allowed in part. With respect to the land for which market price has been fixed at Rs. 330/- per marla, the same is enhanced to Rs. 600/- per marla. They would be entitled to statutory interest and solatium as per provision of law.