JUDGMENT
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This is claimant’s appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’) challenging the order dated 29.11.1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani. On an application filed by the claimant-appellants, the learned Additional District Judge has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 24,000/- per acre and modified the award of the Collector dated 4.9.1985 awarding Rs. 12,000/- per acre. The Additional District Judge has principally relied upon two sale transactions exhibits P6 and P8 dated 19.4.1982 comprising 10 Marlas and 1 Kanal of land respectively. The land covered by the sale transactions is adjacent to the land acquired by the respondent.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a notification under Section 4 of the Act expressing the intention to acquire the land of the claimant-appellants was issued on 12.10.1984. The object of acquisition was allotment of residential plots to landless Harijans, members of Backward Classes. The land was acquired and a notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 22.5.1985. The Collector announced his award on 4.9.1985 awarding Rs. 12,000/- per acre for the Nehri land. Thereafter, the claimant-appellants filed application under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the compensation by citing various sale transactions. The Additional District Judge has awarded Rs. 24,000/- per acre to the claimant-appellants primarily relying upon sale transactions exhibits P6 and P8. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant-appellants have approached this Court under Section 54 of the Act for further enhancement.
3. Sh. Jaswant Jain, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there was no justification for the Additional District Judge to discard the sale transactions Ex.P1 and P7 dated 15.10.1978 and 1.12.1981 by merely stating that those sale transactions were much prior to the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 12,10.1984. The learned counsel has pointed out that sale transaction exhibit P1 shows that about 1240 sq. yds. of land was sold @ Rs. 11.40 on 15.10.1978. He has also relied upon exhibit P7 dated 5.12.1981 showing that 815 sq. yds. land was sold @ Rs. 12/- per sq. yd. The learned counsel argued that the sole reliance on exhibits P6 and P8 dated 19.4.1982 was wholly unjustified. According to the learned counsel, the consistent view taken by this Court is that such sale transactions are relevant for the purpose of determining the market value of the land and even 12 percent increase per year has to be awarded. The learned counsel has placed reliance on various judgments of this Court viz; Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., 1989(1) R.R.R. 393 (P&H), Jaswant Rai v. Land Acquisition Collector, (1989-1)95 P.L.R. 270; Smt. Chhatu v. State of Haryana, 1999(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 541 (P&H): 1999(2) A.C.C. 531; Charan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1988(2) R.R.R. 553 (P&H): 1989(1) R.L.R. 105 and Daya Nand v. State of Haryana 1992(1) R.R.R. 174 (P&H) and have argued that Reference Court was not justified in ignoring the sale transaction Ex.P6 and P7. The learned counsel has also pointed out that the land covered by Exs.P1 and P7 was adjacent to the acquired land and the nature of the land is also Nehri.
4. Sh. Sidharath Sarup, learned State Counsel has pointed out that the sale transactions Ex.P1 and P7 would reflect the down trend of the price of the land and therefore, the sale transactions Ex.P6 and P8 which were showing the rate of land at Rs. 6/- and Rs. 6.60/- per sq. yard has been rightly taken into consideration. According to the learned State counsel the price of the land is lower i.e., Rs. 10/- per square yard. It further went down to Rs. 6.60 on 19.4.1982. .
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length, I am of the view that the learned Additional District Judge has committed an error by ignoring the sale transactions exhibits P1 and P7. It is highly improper to take the sale transactions of the lower rate alone into consideration and ignore the sale transaction of higher rate. The sale transaction and their prices per sq. yard are given below:-
S. No. Rate/sq/yd. Land sold 1. Ex.P-1 dt. 15.10.78 Rs. 11.40 1240 sq.yds. 2. Ex.P-6 dt. 19.04.82 Rs. 6.60 10 Marlas 3. Ex.P-7 dt. 05.12.82 Rs. 10.00 815 sq.yds. 4. Ex.P-8 dt. 19.04.182 Rs. 6.60 1 Kanal
6. If the average of the afore-mentioned transactions is kept in view, the same would come to more than Rs. 8/- per sq. yard. Keeping in view of the lower trend in the market price of the land as pointed out by the learned State counsel, the realistic market value of the land would be around Rs. 8/- per sq. yd. on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 on 12.10.1984. In support of the afore-mentioned view and relying upon the sale transactions of 1978 and 1981, reliance could be placed on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Charan Singh v. State of Haryana (supra) and Daya Nand v. State of Haryana (supra). In view of the above, I enhance the market value of the land from Rs. 5/- per sq. yd. as awarded by the learned Additional District Judge to Rs. 8/- per sq. yd. The enhanced amount shall also earn all consequential benefits of solatium and enhanced interest. The afore-mentioned enhanced amount be calculated and paid to the claimant-appellants within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented to them.