JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri vide the judgment and award dated 5.12.1997 answered 89 land acquisition references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). This judgment has been impugned before this court by the State as well as by the claimants. The learned Judge recorded the main judgment in Smt. Kishan Devi v. State of Haryana, LAC No. 158 of 1996 and followed it in the cases including the case of Johar Singh and Punnu Ram. The State amongst others has preferred appeals in the cases of Punnu Ram (RFA No. 4515 of 1998) and Smt. Bala Devi (RFA No. 4520 of 1998). In all, the State has preferred 89 regular first appeals, while other appeals have been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them under the impugned judgment. As all these cases have arisen from a common judgment, common questions of facts and law arise for consideration. Therefore, it will be appropriate to dispose of all these regular first appeals by a common judgment For the purposes of discussion, the judgment would primarily be recorded in RFA No. 3306 of 1998 titled as Jagdish Ram v. The State of Haryana, RFA No. 3307 of 1998 titled as Jagdish Singh and Anr. v. The State of Haryana, RFA No. 3308 of 1998 titled as Khehar Singh and Anr. v. The State of Haryana, RFA No. 3309 of 1998 titled as Jagdish and Anr. v. The State of Haryana, RFA No. 3310 of 1998 titled as Khehar Singh and Anr. v. The State of Haryana, RFA No. 3311 of 1998 titled as Smt. Murti Devi and Anr. v. The State of Haryana, RFA No. 3312 of 1998 titled as Sherjang v. The State of Haryana, RFA No. 3313 of 1998 titled as Prem Chand and Ors. v. The State of Haryana, RFA No. 3314 of 1998 titled as Smt. Prabhi Devi and Ors. v. The State of Haryana, RFA No. 3315 of 1998 titled as Prem Chand and Ors. v. The State of Haryana, RFA No. 3316 of 1998 titled as Urmila Devi and Anr. v. The State of Haryana, RFA No. 3317 of 1998 titled as Basso Devi and Anr. v. The State of Haryana, RFA No. 3318 of 1998 titled as Amir Chand and Anr. v. The State of Haryana, RFA No. 3319 of 1998 titled as Sher Jang v. The State of Haryana, RFA No. 3320 of 1998 titled as Urmila Devi and Anr. v. The State of Haryana, RFA No. 4515 of 1998 titled as The State of Haryana v. Punnu Ram, RFA No. 4520 of 1998 titled as The State of Haryana v. Smt. Bala Devi, RFA No. 4575 of 1998 titled as The State of Haryana v. Gian Chand and Ors.
2. It would be appropriate to refer to the basic facts giving rise to these appeals. The State Government of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 31.7.1980 intending to acquire 208 kanals and 19 marlas of land from the revenue estate of village Khizrabad for setting up of a Project for conservation of soil. This was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 2.12.1982. Having taken possession of the land and upon hearing the parties, the Land Acquisition Collector, Jagadhri, awarded different amount of compensation depending upon nature of land to the owners vide award dated 10.2.1984. The amount of compensation awarded is as under:-
Nature of Land Amount of Compensation (Per acre) Chahi Rs. 6,030/- Barani Rs. 4,020/- Banjar Rs. 2,010/- Gair Mumkin Rs. 1,005/- 3. The claimants felt dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded and preferred references under Section 18 of the Act before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri. The learned Additional District Judge vide impugned judgment dated 5.12.1997 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 9,000/- per acre. The compensation awarded as uniform irrespective of the nature of the land acquired.
4. The State felt aggrieved from the judgment on the ground that amount of compensation awarded to the claimants was very high and had no reasonable basis for that purpose while the claimants contended that, keeping in view the documentary and oral evidence produced by them on record, they were entitled to compensation at least at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, reference to the evidence produced on record would be useful.
5. The claimants examined six witnesses, in addition to tendering on record exhibits P.1 to P.4. the sale instances. In order to prove the location and potential of the acquired land, the claimants proved a site plan exhibit P.5 showing roads, houses and acquired land meant for the use of forest department. On the other hand, the respondents have examined only one witness RW.1. Mr. Naresh Kumar, as their sole witness, who tendered on record exhibits P.1 and P.2. attested copies of the sale deeds to prove the market value of the acquired land. The learned trial Court considered the sale instances produced by the petitioners as relevant and admissible in evidence while rejecting the sale instances produced by the respondents exhibits R.1 and R.2, being inadmissible. The learned trial Court has given two reasons for rejecting exhibits R.1 and R.2; one that they relate to different village i.e. Khizri, which is far away from the acquired land and secondly the vendor and vendee were not examined to prove the authenticity and genuiness of these sale instances. Thus, following the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Narain Rao v. The Acquisition Officer, 1996(2) Apex Court Journal 147 S.C., the sale instances have been rightly excluded from the zone of consideration by the learned trial Court. I would affirm that finding arrived at by the learned trial Court.
6. While determining the market value of the land and the compensation payable to the claimants, the learned trial Court concluded as under:-
“16) I am left with the sale-deed dated 16.8.1977 Ex.P.4 vide its 4 kanals of land has been sold. A reading of the contents of Ex.P.4 shows that the land measuring 4 kanals is not sold to one person. It is sold in shares to several persons and thus it is case of a sale deed of small plots. In case of sale of small plots the sale-deed can be relied upon in the absence of the any other reliable sale instances. To make the price available in such a sale-deed to represent the price of bulk of land, a cut of 1/3rd is to be applied. However, premium @ 12% p.a. has to be added to this price w.e.f. 16.8.1977 upto 30.10.1979 and 31.7.1980 so as to make the resultant sum of represent the price per acre of the land on the aforesaid two dates. After adding the premium to the price of Rs. 10,000/- per acre, I obtain a sum of Rs. 12,600/- as price per acre on 30.10.1979 and Rs. 13,5007- per acre as on 31.7.1980. Applying a cut of l/3rd to both the amounts, the amount of Rs. 8,400/-comes as the price per acre on 31.10.1980.
17) Now comes to the question as to what is the kind of land for which this is the price. In cases of land which are dependent on rain for cultivation, barani and banjar lands have the same value. In some cases gair mumkin land is priced above the cultivable lands. The evidence is that the lands of Khizrabad are of the same quality. As such I assess the price as given above for all the categories of land acquired.
18) Thus, I hold the market value of the land acquired under notification dated 30.10.1979 @ Rs. 8,400/- per acre and for the lands acquired under notification dated 31.7.1980 @ Rs. 9,000/- per acre. The issue is decided accordingly.
19)……What has come on the record is in the shape of general and vague statement. Zorawar Singh PW1 has said that khair and safeda plants were there in the land. He does not even say that there were trees on the land in question. What was the age of the plants and what were the other vital statistics of the trees required for assessing the value of the trees is not coming on the record. Moreover, rates for different categories of trees has also not been proved on the record. Mere statement of Zorawar Singh PW.1 and other witnesses that khair wood fetches Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 3,000/- per quintal is of little value on the questions requiring answer in the reference before me.
20) Hence for want of evidence the petitioner fail to prove that they are entitled to any other thing in the name of compensation for their acquired land. The issues are decided against the petitioners.”
7. On the basis of the above discussions, the learned Additional District Judge, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits to the claimants, as already noticed.
8. There are four sale instances produced by the claimants, which are admissible in evidence. In view of G. Narain Rao’s case (supra), there is no dispute that vendor and vendee were examined in these sale instances. Exhibits P.1. and P.4 are the sale deeds dated 19th December, 1977 and 16th August, 1977 respectively. The present land was acquired on 31st July, 1980. In view of the fact that the sale instances of subsequent period which are more closer to the date of notification in relation to considerably big piece of land are available. I see no reason for the learned trial Court to totally rely upon exhibit P.4 for determining the compensation and then granting 12% increase per year till 1980 to the claimants. Subsequent sale instances, which are closer to the date of acquisition of the acquired land, are always more relevant and comparable instances. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehtab Singh and Ors. etc. v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1995 Supreme Court 667, has held that flat increase of 12% annually for the purpose of determining the fair market value of the land at the relevant time is not a very safe criteria. The Hon’ble Court has held that 12% increase should not be adopted as universal criteria and more particularly when other evidence is available on record for determining the compensation payable.
9. Exhibits P.1 to P.4 relate to village Khizrabad, as already noticed above. The sale deed relating to 1977 necessarily need not be considered by this Court for determining the compensation payable to the claimants in face of exhibits P.2. and P.3. Exhibit P. 3 cannot be considered as relevant piece of evidence because it is much subsequent to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, in the present case. Exhibit P.3 is dated 9.7.1981 i.e., nearly a year after the date of notification. The sole document, which can be relied upon to determine the compensation payable to the claimants, would be exhibit P.2. Exhibit P.2 is the sale deed dated 7.6.1979, where land measuring about 7 kanals 8 marlas (nearly an acre) was sold for a sum of Rs. 17,000/-. This gives rate of Rs. 18,378/- per acre. Exhibit P.3 is the land located in the revenue estate of the same village from where the present land has been acquired and is relevant in point of time and even is comparable instance on the basis of its location. This can safely be concluded on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the claimants. The learned judge excluded exhibit P.2 on the basis that Rs. 16,000/- out of the total consideration was paid before the Sub Registrar, but there was no averment by the claimants as to when Rs. 1,000/- was paid. This factor by itself would neither render this document inadmissible in evidence; nor this creates any doubt on the genuineness of a registered document, which otherwise has been produced and proved in accordance with law. The learned Judge ignored the fact that exhibit P.2 specifically states that Rs. 1,000/- was paid as earnest money, the receipt of which was acknowledged in the registered document itself and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards the sale consideration was paid before the Sub Registrar. The contents of a registered document would be correct, unless contrary is proved. Thus, I am of the view that the learned Judge could not have excluded exhibit P.2 and adopted in preference thereto exhibit P.4. which a sale instance of a much smaller piece of land and nearly three years back from the date of acquisition of the present land.
10. Exhibits P.1 and P.4 in comparison to exhibit P.2 clearly show that there has been an increase trend in the value of the land. Thus, the claimants can also not be deprived of the benefit of increase on account of time gap between the date of execution of exhibit P.2 and the date of acquisition. No. judgment or award of the Court of competent jurisdiction was tendered in evidence by either party in the reference proceedings. Exhibit P.5 site plan clearly shows that a considerable part of the acquired land is abutting the mettled road, as there are pacca houses constructed in various part of the acquired land. Abadi of village Khizrabad is just across the land and facing the part of the acquired land. The land has been acquired for the purpose of setting up a forest department for conservation of soil, which itself is a public purpose.
11. For the reasons aforestated. I am of the considered view that exhibit P.2 can safely be taken as best piece of evidence for determining the fair market value of the land at the relevant time and determining the final compensation payable to the claimants for acquisition of their respective lands. In the year 1979, the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 18,378/- per acre, while the present land was acquired in July, 1980. The claimants would be entitled to increase for a period of one year as increasing trend was traceable in the value of the land on record of this case. On a reasonable increase for the intervening period between exhibit P.2 and the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, the value could be roughly estimated at Rs. 21,000/- per acre. It is a settled principle of law that element of deduction has to be applied to the acquisition proceedings unless, there was compelling circumstances for the Court to hold to the contrary. In the present case, there is nothing no record to show that acquired land or the land adjacent or surrounding the acquired land was developed and was put to any commercial or residential in a planned or even unplanned manner. The area being near to village abadi per se would not make the acquired land as having a commercial or residential potential in terms as it is understood in common parlance. Applying some element of deduction and following the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hasanali Walimchand (dead) by LRs. v. State of Maharashtra, 1998 (1) All India Land acquisition and Compensation Cases 120, I think 50% deduction can be made from so determined market value of the land. Resultantly, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 10,500/- per acre for the acquisition of their respective land.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the State could bring nothing to the notice of the Court which could even remotely suggests that the appeals filed by the State are liable to be accepted wholly or in pArt. The evidence produced by the State is inadmissible in evidence and further more, hardly any oral evidence was adduced to rebut the documentary as well as ocular evidence led by the claimants.
13. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals preferred by the State are dismissed without any order as to costs. However, the appeals preferred by the claimants are partially accepted. The claimants would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,500/- per acre with statutory benefits provided under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act.