JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. State of Haryana with an intention to achieve the public purpose for developing and utilising the land for development of Industrial Area in Sector 32 under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, acquired 294.04 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Jharsa, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The notification in this regard was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on 27.8.1987 and Section 6 notification in furtherance thereto was published on 25.8.1988. Upon actual measurements physical possession of the land measuring 281.54 acres was taken. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 16.3.1989 divided the land acquired into three categories and awarded the compensation as under :
Chahi Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre Magda and Narmoth Rs. 80,000/- per acre Banjar and Gair Mumkin Rs. 65,000/- per acre
The claimants felt totally dis-satisfied from the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants and preferred references under Section 18 of the Act. The various references of the claimants were disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, vide 9 different judgments. In these judgments the learned District Judge/Additional District Judge, awarded amount varying from Rs. 150/- per square yard to Rs. 300/- per square yard to the claimants.
2. Still being dis-satisfied from the amount awarded by the learned District Judge, the claimants prayed for further enhancement by filing various Regular First Appeals. On the other hand, the State was totally discontented and approached this Court by filing other Regular First Appeals with a prayer to reduce the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. In all nearly 326 Regular First Appeals relating to the same notification dated 27.8.1987 and the revenue estate of village Jharsa have been filed both by the State as well as by the claimants. The varied extent of compensation awarded to the claimants for the lands located in the revenue estate of the same village vide same notification has given rise to serious contentions on behalf of the claimants as well as on behalf of the State. For example in the case of State of Haryana v. Phool Wati the learned judge vide his judgment dated 14.1.1995 awarded the amount of Rs. 9,15,000/- per acre while in the case of State of Haryana v. Standard Rubbers an amount of Rs. 300/- per square yard was awarded while in the case of Rajinder Prasad v. State of Haryana compensation of Rs. 272/- per square yard was awarded.
3. In fact all these appeals were heard together along with RFA No. 556 of 1994 Kabul Singh v. State of Haryana. Elaborate arguments were addressed by the different counsels appearing for the claimants as well as by the learned Advocate General, appearing for the State of Haryana. On behalf of the State it is contended that there, was no admissible evidence before the Court to enhance, the compensation to the above amounts and the discretion exercised by the Court is contrary to the settled principles of law. As such the award of the Collector should be restored while the judgment of the learned District Judge should beset aside. On the other hand the claimants contended that keeping in view the location and potentiality of the land acquired and there being definite evidence of judicial decisions on record, they are entitled to further enhancement of the compensation by this Court. They claimed a sum of Rs. 300/- per square yard i.e. Rs. 14,52.000/-per acre.
At the very outset I consider it necessary to note that RFA No. 556 of 1994 titled Kabul Singh v State of Haryana has been partly allowed,vide judgment of the same date and the claimants have been awarded the following amounts while accepting the application of the belting system to the present acquisition in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Cqui1 in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Mehar Chanel and Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14371 of 1998, referred to in that judgment. The compensation awarded us as under:
Rs. 213.99 per sq. yard upto 10 yards abutting the National Highway.
Rs. 160.49 per sq. yard upto 10 yards abutting Gurgaon-Jharsa Road.
Rs. 106.90 per sq. yard beyond 10 yards in case of both lands mentioned above.
Now 1 Would proceed to discuss the respective Regular First Appeals indicated above.
State of Haryana v. Phool Wati and Ors.
4. As already noticed the entire land has been acquired by a single notification dated 27.8.1987. The land has been acquired in all these cases in village Jharsa and the amount of compensation was awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Collector to all the claimants by a common award dated 16.3.1989. To that extent all these cases arise from common premises of fact, law and circumstances.
5. In these cases the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 14.1.1995 has awarded a compensation of Rs. 9,15,000/- per acre to the claimants. As already noticed, the State has come up for reduction of compensation while claimants have prayed for enhancement.
6. The learned Additional District Judge while awarding this amount to the claimants has principally relied upon Ex.P.8 and P.9 and has chosen not to rely upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. Ex.P. 1 to Ex.P.3 are the awards pronounced by the same Court awarding a sum of Rs. 300/- per square yard vide Annexure P.1, Rs. 272/- per square yard vide Ex.P.2 and Rs. 204/- per square yard vide Ex.P.3. The learned Judged observed that the com-perisation awarded in the above cases was not reasonable and the Court of Additional District Judge being not a Court of record he opted to follow his earlier awards in relation to the same notification and same village. In other words Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 which were also the judgments of the Court dated 6.5.1995 in the case of Sant Lal v. State of Haryana and dated 5.6.1996 in the case of Dharam Singh v. State of Haryana where compensation of Rs. 190/- per square yard was awarded was considered to be the reasonable and proper compensation to be paid to the claimants by the learned Judge. Thus he followed the said evidence and awarded a sum, of Rs. 9,15,000/- per acre to the claimants for acquisition of, their respective lands.
Surat Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.
7. In this case the learned Additional District Judge had awarded a sum of Rs. 204/- per sq. yard i.e. Rs. 9.87,360/-. per acre in relation to the same notification and same Village. The learned Judge relied upon Ex, PH, PJ and PK to award the said amount. Ex. PH is a judgment of the Court in relation to a notification issued for village Jharsa in the year t983. Therein claimants had been awarded a sum of Rs. l36/-, Rs. 102/- and Rs. 68/-per square yard adopting the belting system. Ex. PK is another judgment of tiles learned District Judge where for the notification dated 27.1985 claimants were awarded Rs. 170/-, Rs. 127.50/- and Rs. 85/- per square yard respectively for their respective lands while applying the belting system again. Ex.PJ was the judgment in the case of Ganga Devi v. State of Haryana pronounced by the learned District Judge on 14.1.199,4 awarding a sum of Rs. 272/- per square yard i.e. Rs. 13,48,680/- per acre as i.e. Delhi-Jaipur Road. The learned Judge applied a cut of 25% to Ex.PJ and awarded a compensation of, Rs. 2O4/- per square yard vide judgment dated 11.4.1994 to the claimants giving rise to these Regular First Appeals.
8. In this case the claimants were also intending in rely upon Ex. PC to Ex.PG, the sale instanced which were tendered in evidence by the claimants. These sale, instances reflects the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 205/- to Rs. 520/- per square yard. These sale instances were rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that they relate to sale of very small pieces of land and it will not be just, fair and proper to rely upon these instances to determine the market value. They were small plots, while admittedly as per the revenue record the huge land acquired is agricultural, land.
9. These sale instances were also not admissible in evidence and could not be made the basis for awarding compensation to the claimants because no vendor, vendee or official from the office of Registrar/revenue authorities was examined to prove the genuineness, authenticity and validity of these sale instances. These sale instances as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case 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. Kurra Sambasiva Rao, A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2625 are not admissible.
10. At this state it must be noticed that during the hearing of these appeals an application under Order 47 Rule 27 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was filed for leading additional evidence in appeal. It was stated that the vendors and vendees be permitted to be examined to prove the sale instances in accordance with law. Firstly, this application does not satisfy the basic ingredients for granting leave to the applicants to lead additional evidence. Secondly, these sale instances would not be of much reliance in view of the reasoning given by the learned Additional District Judge, which I would also accept and affirm. Thirdly, in huge acquisitions claimants should normally be granted same compensation more particularly when the land is acquired under the same notification and from the same revenue estate(s) and even lands are more or less similarly located. For, these reasons I do not think any fruitful purpose would be served by allowing this application. As such this application has no merit and is the same is dismissed.
State of Haryana v. Ganga Devi.
11. It needs to be noticed that while awarding a sum of Rs. 272/- per square yard to the claimants the learned Judge had relied upon Ex.P.4 which is a judgment of the Court, which was relied upon by the Court in the case of Surat Singh (supra) as Ex.PH. Vide this judgment compensation of Rs. 136/-, Rs. 102/- and Rs. 68/- per square yard was awarded to the claimants in relation to a notification dated 10.1.1983. The learned Judge further relied upon Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2, the sale instances, Ex.P.2 is a sale instance of October, 1982 where a small plot of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 256/- per square yard, while vide Ex.P.1 again a plot was sold at the rate of Rs. 520/- per square yard in June, 1987. The sale instances relied upon the learned Judge firstly relate to small pieces of land in face of acquisition of huge chunk of land for the same purpose and secondly they are very small plots of lands and not agricultural land which is the status of the land under acquisition as per revenue records.
12. It is admitted before this Court that vendors and vendees were not examined by either party to prove the authenticity or genuineness of the sale instances by either party. Thus, Ex. P.1 and Ex.P.2 in any case would not be relevant for determining the market value of the land in question.
State of Haryana v. Standard Rubber Mills.
13. In this case the learned Judge has simply relied upon the award in the case of Ganga Devi and other cases holding that the land belonging to the claimants was better located and was having a greater potential and by applying element of surmises and conjectures awarded a sum of Rs. 300/- per square yard which has given rise to this appeal.
14. The cumulative effect of the above various judgments of the learned Additional District Judge is that the Court has relied upon earlier awards of the Court and within the lapse of a short period has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 196/-, Rs. 194/- and Rs. 84/- per square yard to Rs. 200/-, Rs. 204/- and Rs. 272/- and then Rs. 300/- per square yard. Hardly any plausible explanation is available on record for varying the amount of compensation payable to the claimants to the aforesaid extent. In the case of State of Haryana v. Khazan Singh, R.F.A. No. 578 of 1996, another learned District Judge has awarded Rs. 7,26,000/- vide judgment dated 24.3.1995 while in the case of Gopi Chand v. State of Haryana, R.F.A. No. 464 of 1995 the learned Judge had awarded a sum, of Rs. 136/- per square yard vide judgment dated 7.11.1994. In the case of Kabul Singh v. State of Haryana, R.F.A. No. 556 of 1994 vide judgment dated 23.11.1993 the Court had awarded a sum of Rs. 196/-, Rs. 145/- and Rs. 98/- per square yard by applying the belting system to the lands located in village Jharsa. The extent of variation in the face of the belting system cannot be justified and the amount awarded in Standard Rubber Mills and Ganga Devi is not justifiable.
15. After detailed discussion in the case of Kabul Singh v. State of Haryana, R.F.A. No. 556 of 1994 this Court has already computed the reasonable amount of compensation that should be paid to the claimants for acquisition of their respective lands. The entire evidence led by the parties was discussed and it was also noticed that judgment of Kabul Singh has been relied upon even in subsequent judgments by the learned District Judge/Additional District Judge in various cases.
16. It is true that some element of reasonable and acceptable conjecture may have to be applied for determining a fair market value, but above indicated extent of variation in the amount awarded to the claimants certainly does not fall in that category. It cannot be disputed that the entire land has been acquired from the revenue estate of the same village vide a single notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 27.8.1987 and. for a common purpose of developing the industrial and institutional sector in the new township proposed by HUDA. The lands which are abutting the National Highway Delhi-Jaipur Road, and Gurgaon Jharsa Road would have to be given a preferential value to the lands which are located at some distance from these two main roads. The application of the belting system to the facts of the present cases already stands affirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehar Chand (supra).
17. For the reasons aforestated I am of the considered view that the amount of compensation awarded by this Court in the case of Kabul Singh (supra) would be just and fair amount of compensation payable to the claimants even in these appeals. Resultantly, these appeals, for the reasons stated in Kabul Singh’s case (supra), in addition to what has been observed above, all the claimants in these appeals would be entitled to the following relief:
Rs. 218.99 per square yard upto 10 yards abutting the National Highway.
Rs. 160.49 per square yard upto 10 yards abutting Gurgaon-Jharsa Road.
Rs. 106.99 per square yard beyond 10 yards in case of both lands above mentioned.
18. The claimants would be entitled to the above enhancement alongwith statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. The appeals of the State as well as those of the claimants are accepted to the limited extent afore-indicated. All appeals would stand disposed of accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.