JUDGMENT
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Additional District Judge, Jind, dated 24.12.1985 whereby the claim made by the claimants in the reference petition filed by them under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was disallowed and no enhancement in the award of the Land Acquisition Collector was made.
2. Land measuring 53 Kanals 12 Marias situated in the outskirts of Narwana was acquired vide notification dated 29.5.1992 for the construction of a Tourist Complex. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square yard and also awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- for barbed wire i.e. loss of the expenditure on the fencing. Reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act were filed and the claimants claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard. They also claimed a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on account of the severance of the land, which was left with them. The compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard had been claimed on the ground that at some distance of the acquired land there were lands acquired for the purpose of construction of Mini Secretariat and for New Bus Sand at Narwana it had also been alleged that there was one Ganesh Rice Mill in the nearby locality. On this basis it was claimed that the acquired land had a great potential. In support of their claim they produced sale deed Ex.P3 in order to ascertain the market value of the acquired land. Compensation for eucalyptus trees, which according to the claimants were 500 in number on the acquired land, was also claimed.
3. In order to controvert the claim made by the applicants, the State of Haryana adduced on record photographs Ex.R1 to R3 and copies of the Khasra Girdawaries Ex.R9 and R10. Photographs Exhibits R1 to R3 to show that there were no eucalyptus trees on the acquired land. Rather Exhibit R4 pointed out that the eucalyptus trees were grown on the road and not on the land in question. Similarly Khasra Girdawaries Exhibits R9 and R10 were produced on record to show that Bajra, wheat, grams and Sani and other crops had been sown on the acquired land right from 1979. Thus, it was proved by the State that there were no eucalyptus trees standing on the acquired land, with regard to severance of the land, it was shown that three acres of land with tubewell existing therein was left out for the claimants. It was averred on behalf of the State that three acres of land was sufficient for a tubewell for irrigation purpose. Thus, no compensation therefore could be granted. It was also proved on behalf of the State that the land in question was under cultivation and the photographs Exhibits R1 to R4 indicated that no construction had taken place nearby the acquired land.
4. After examining the evidence adduced on record by both the sides, the learned Additional District Judge, Jind, found that no enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Collector can be granted. However, solatium at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of actual payment made to the claimants, were granted.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the evidence adduced on record by both the sides.
6. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Court below had wrongly discarded the sale instance Ex.P3 merely on the ground that the said Sale deed relates to the period after the acquisition. He contends that even the sale, instance in the locality within a reasonable time of the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act can be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the land acquired. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the authorities of this Court reported as The State of Punjab v. Inder Singh, (1969)71 Punjab taw Reporter 1034; and Shri Tara Singh (deceased) v. The State of Punjab, (1983)85 Punjab Law Reporter 286.
7. In order to controvert the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it has been argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana that the land covered under the sale instance (Ex.P3) was at distance from the land acquired in the present case. Thus, the sale instance (Ex.P3) cannot be made basis for granting compensation to the appellant.
8. In para 10 of the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Jind, it has been averred that the land which is the subject-matter of the sale instance (Ex.P3) is not “Sufficiently connected with the site in question.” It shows that the land covered by the sale instance (Ex.P3) which had been produced by the claimants was not at a very far away distance from the land acquired in the present case. Thus, this sale instance could not be out rightly rejected merely on the ground that the said sale deed relates to the period after the acquisition in the present case and also that the land covered by it was not sufficiently connected with the site in question. In the case State of Punjab v. Inder Singh (supra) it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that “for determination the market value of the acquired land, one had to see the sale transactions in respect of similar lands in the locality within a reasonable time of the Section 4 notification.” Similarly, in the case reported as Shrl Tara Singh (deceased) v. The State of Punjab (supra) it has been held that “generally the valuation of the acquired land is fixed on the basis of sales at or about the time of notification under Section 4, The date of sate for comparison should ordinarily be close to the date of Section 4 notification. However, bona fide transactions subsequent to the notification can also sometimes be taken into consideration. They are not always altogether to be ignored.” No sale instance has been adduced on behalf of the State of Haryana. Therefore, it would be quite reasonable to determine the compensation of the acquired land in the present case on the basis of the sale instance (Ex.P3), though the saki sale deed was executed subsequent to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case. The land covered by the said sale instance is also situated in the locality of the land acquired in the present case. As per sale deed (Ex.P3) the (and was sold at the rate of Rs. 24.75 per square yard. The sale had taken place on 6.8.1972, i.e., about two months subsequent to the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case. It has also come on record that the land covered in the said sale deed was not sufficiently connected with the land acquired in the instant case. Keeping in view these factors also, I am of the considered opinion that it would be quite reasonable if the amount of compensation for the acqured, land is determined at the rate of Rs. 23A per square yard. The demand made by the claimant-appellant for awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard is very unreasonable and the compensation at this rate cannot be granted to him because even as per sale instance (Ex.P3), which was adduced by the appellant, the land was sold at the rate of 24.75 per square yard. The demand made by the appellant for fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard is, thus, declined.
9. In the light of above discussion, I partly allow the appeal and determine the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of 23/- per square yard. The appellant will also be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30 per cent and interest on the unpaid amount at the rate of 9 per cent annum subsequent thereto till the actual payment is made to him.