ORDER
N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. This order will dispose of a bunch of 241 Letters Patent Appeals and
cross-objections arising out of the same acquisition proceedings some of which have been filed by the land-owners for further enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the learned single Judge while the others have been filed by the Union of India for reduction of the amount. Since L.P. A. 211 of 1991 in the main appeal on the basis of which others were admitted facts are being taken from this case.
2. By a notification issued by the State of Haryana on June 18,1984 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) land measuring 3791 kanals and 2 marlas in village Satrod Khas and another area measuring 1138 kanals and 11 marlas in village Satrod khurd, Tehsil and District Hisar was sought to be acquired for a public purpose, namely, for the extension of Hisar Cantonment. This notification was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act and the Haryana Government was satisfied that the land specified in the notification was urgently required by the Central Government for the aforesaid public purpose. Out of the total area of 3781 kanals and 2 marlas some land in village Satrod Khas was released and the notification under Section 6 of the Act finally acquired 3026 kanals and 17 marlas in this village. Similarly, some land was released in village Satrod Khurd as well and an area measuring 1044 kanals and 8 marlas was finally acquired. Villages Satrod Khas and Satrod Khurd adjoin each other and the land has been acquired in both these villages for the extension of Hisar Cantonment. The
acquired land is for extending the cantonment towards the city of Hisar. The total acquired land in both the villages is shown in blue colour in the site plan which has been produced on the record as Exhibit PW 3/1. A part of this land abuts on the National Highway No. 10 popularly known as Delhi Hisar Road and another part of the land abuts on the Hisar bye-pass road. The Land Acquisition Collector as per his award No. 5 pertaining to the land in village Satrod Khurd divided the same in three blocks and determined Rs. 60,000/- per acre as the market price for land in block ‘A’; Rupees 40,000/-per acre for land in block ‘B’ and Rs. 25.000/ -per acre for land in block”C’. As regards the land in village Satrod Khas, the Collector divided the same in four blocks and as per his award No. 6 awarded Rs. 60,000/- per acre for block ‘A’, Rs. 40.000/- per.acre for block ‘B’, Rs.25,000/-per acre for block ‘C and Rs. 15,000/- per acre for block ‘D’.
3. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners in both the villages sought references under Section 18 of the Act. All the references pertaining to village Satrod Khurd were, heard and disposed of by Shri V. P. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Hisar as per, his judgment dt. January 23,1989. He not only maintained the belting system but also the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector for land falling in block ‘A’. For blocks ‘B’ and ‘C’ the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 50.000/- and Rs. 40,000/ -per acre respectively. References pertaining to Village Satrod Khas came up for hearing before Shri P. L. Khanduja, Additional District Judge, Hisar who as per his judgment dt. February 28, 1989 divided the entire land of this village in two blocks, namely, block’A’ and block ‘B’. A sum of Rs. one lac per acre was the market price determined for the land in block’A’ and Rs. 50,000/-per acre was the amount awarded for the remaiping land in block ‘B’.
4. The land owners and the Union of India both were not satisfied with the amount
of compensation awarded by the Additional District Judges and they consequently filed Regular First Appeals and cross appeals in this court. Land owners claimed further enhancement in the amount of compensation while the Union of India wanted the amount to be reduced. Regular First Appeals and the cross-appeals pertaining to the land in village Satrod Khas came up before the learned single Judge who after going through the evidence led by the parties and relying upon some instances of sale of land which was in the close proximity of the land in question determined the market value of the land at Rs. 1,05,000/-per acre as per his judgment dt. November 29,1990. He found no justification in dividing the land into two blocks in which it had been divided by the Additional District Judge by the Judgment under appeal before him. The learned Judge abolished categorisation of the land into two blocks and granted compensation to the land owners at a uniform rate of Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre.
5. The other set of appeals and cross appeals pertaining to land in village Satrod Khurd which were directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge dt. Jan 23, 1989 also came up for hearing before the learned single Judge and while following his earlier judgment pertaining to village Satrod Khas wherein also the land was acquired for the same purpose and by the same notification he awarded a uniform rate of Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre as compensation after doing away with’the belting system as per his judgment dt. March 16, 1992.
6. Both the orders of the learned Single Judge dt. November 29, 1990 and March 16, 1992 awarding compensation to the land owners in village Satrod Khas and Satrod Khurd have been impugned before us in the present bunch of appeals and cross objections. As observed earlier the land owners want further enhancement in the amount of compensation whereas the Union of India feeling aggrieved with the amount already awarded by the learned single Judge claims that the market value of the land on the relevant date was such less and that the land ought to have been divided into two or three
blocks as the Court may think appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
7. We have heard Shri Jaswant Jain, Advocate in support of the appeals and the cross-objections filed by the land owners and Shri S. K. Pipat, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India. They have taken us through the judgment under appeal and also the evidence on record.
8. On the contentions urged before us, the following two questions arise for our consideration.
(i) What is the market price of the acquired land on the date of the preliminary notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and whether the learned Judge was right in determining the same at the rate of Rs. 1,05,000/-per acre.
(ii) Whether the learned Judge was right in fixing a uniform rate for the entire land while abolishing the blocks created by the Land Acquisition Collector and the Additional District Judges for the purpose of assessing the market value.
9. As regards the first point, the learned single Judge on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties came to a conclusion that the market price of the acquired land on the relevant date was Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre. For determining this value the learned Judge placed reliance upon two instances of sale Exhibits PA and PC. Land meansuring 11 kanals and 9 marlas was sold as per sale deed dt. 29-3-1984 for a sum of Rs. l,50,000/-. This sale deed is Exhibit PA and according to it the price of the land per acre works out to Rs. 1,04,803.43 Ps. The land covered by this sale deed abuts on the National Highway and is very close to the acquired land. Another big chunk of land measuring 167 kanals and 10 marlas was sold on May 18,1984 for a sum of Rs. 21,73,750/-as per sale deed Exhibit PG. According to this sale deed the price of the land per acre comes to Rs. 1,03,820.63 Ps. Learned counsel for the claimants, however, placed reliance on the sale deeds Exhibits PD, PE and PM to contend that the market price of the acquired land on the relevant date was not less than
Rs. 3 lacs per acre. Land measuring one kanal was sold on May 1, 1984 as per sale deed Exhibit PD for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. Similarly land measuring 1 kanal ‘and 3 marlas and 2 kanals 15 marlas was sold vide sale deeds Exhibits PE and PM for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and Rs. 1,16,363/- respectively; The price when worked out on the basis of these sale instances conies to more than Rs. 3 lacs per acre. As is clear from the site plan Exhibit PW 3/1 the land covered by these sale instances is far away from the acquired land and is very close to the Hisar City. Moreover, very small pieces of land have been sold through these sale deeds and they cannot, therefore, be said to reflect the true market price of the acquired land which was a big chunk. It is true that where no evidence of sale of large pieces of land or area comparable with the acquired land is available, the sale transactions of smaller pieces of land can be taken into consideration and a reasonable cut can be imposed on the market price as represented by them so as to arrive at the correct value of the acquired land. However, in the case before us we have sale instances of large pieces of land which are Exhibits PA and PG and those sale transactions took place a little before the preliminary notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act. In determining the amount of compensation the Court is to take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The market value means the amount which a purchaser is ready to give to a seller considering the advantages and disadvantages of the land he is willing to purchase. Urgent need of the purchaser and unwillingness of the seller are factors which have to be disregarded. Again, land like every other commodity has a price which can be ascertained within certain limits. This price, however, constantly varies according to the variations of the supply and demand and also according to its location and it is impossible to fix it at any given time with mathematical accuracy. Determination of the value of immoveable property is an inquiry relating to a subject abounding in uncertainties and in the very nature of things there is more than ordinary
guess work and a certain amount of con-jecture is inevitable but the Court has to be careful not to go too far in this direction. A look at the site plan Exhibit PW 3/1 makes it clear that before the land in” question was acquired for the extension of the existing cantonment there were industrial units which had already been set up in its close proximity. Haryana Urban Development Authority had carved out a big area of land as an industrial area a small portion of which abuts on the Hisar Bye-pass road on the other side of which is the acquired land. Had the land in question not been acquired the whole area could have developed as an industrial area. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the acquired land had the potential for such a development. It is common case of the parties that the acquired land which on the date of the preliminary notification was outside the municipal limits of Hisar city but later came within such limit when the same were extended having examined the matter from all aspects and after giving our thoughtful consideration we are of the opinion that the learned Judge was right in relying on the sale instances Exhibits PA and PG according to which the price of the acquired land comes to about Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre after round-ing off and it can be said to be the fair market value on the relevant date.
10. The second question herein concerns what is commonly described as the belting system. The method of valuation by ‘belting’ is sometimes adopted in dealing with differences as in shape, size, road frontage, depth etc. of the various plots. It is rare to find two plots of land even on the same road so exactly similar in situation, size, road frontage, depth etc. as to make the site value as a whole of one plot application to another. It may be that road front land to a certain depth has sometimes higher value than the one beyond that depth. Immediate contiguity to a highway commonly known as frontage adds to the value of the land and were frontage to a high road does not exist, nearness and easy access to such a road are also_ elements of value distinguishing lands which have them from those which do not have them. When determining the value of frontage land, depth
is a question of importances. What is a suitable depth must primarily depend upon, the facts and circumstances of each case. How far deep will the value of the land differ from the front land will be a matter of evidence in each case though valuers generally determine the value of the first or road front belt and then decide how deep would the second or third belts be and thereafter impose proportionate cut in the value of the subsequent belts. This method represents only proportions of the values of the second and third belt lands as attached with the front belt but it does not give any independent value of these lands taken separately or as detached from the front land. No. doubt, there may be some difference between the back and frontage lands but no absolute ratio can be fixed between the former and the latter as each case will turn on its own merits depending on the evidence brought on the record nor does it by itself justify a recourse to the belting system in each and every case. It is, indeed, a highly artificial system and cannot be restored to as a hard and fast rule. The belting system, however, can be useful only when the depth) and remoteness of the acquired land indicate possible variations in prices. A look at the site plan Exhibit PW 3/1 makes it clear that one’ big chunk of land had been acquired for the public purpose and a part of it has frontage on the National Highway No. 10 and the Hisar Bye-pass road whereas some other part of it abuts on the canal which passes along the acquired land. The maximum depth of land in question of 5 killas at one point and the same is not uniform. Keeping in view the fact that the entire land has been acquired for the purpose of extending the existing cantonment and that the same had the potential of growing into an industrial belt and also keeping in view its size and shape, we are of the opinion that the learned Judge was right in abolishing the various blocks which has been created by the Additional District Judges for the purpose of assessing the market value of the land in question. This is not a fit case in which the Courts below should have had resort to the belting system. Moreover, there is no evir dence on the record to show that the rear portion of the acquired land which is close to
the existing cantonment has in any way less value than the land in the front. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the learned single Judge abolishing the different blocks.
11. To conclude, we hold that the learned single Judge was not only right in determining the market value of the land in question on the relevant date at the rate of Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre but he was also justified in the circum? stances of the case to abolish the different blocks.
12. In the result, we find no merit in the appeals and cross-objections filed by the claimants-land owners for further reenhance-ment in the amount of compensation nor is there any substance in appeals filed by the Union of India challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the Courts below. This bunch of appeals and cross objections consequently stand dismissed. There is no order as to costs in regard to the appeals and cross objections before us.
13. Order accordingly.