JUDGMENT
N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of L.P.A. Nos. 884 to 890 of 1986 and L.P.A. Nos. 16 and 17 of 1987 as these arise out of the same judgment of Shri I.S. Tiwana, J., as he then was dated 9.10.1986.
2. Vide notification dated 22.5.1979 Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act area of few owners, namely, the present appellants was acquired by the State for construction of an approach road. Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre. Appellants-petitioners felt dissatisfied with the award of compensation and so sought reference Under Section 18 of the Act claiming compensation at the market value of the land.
3. Learned District Judge permitted the parties to adduce evidence and on considering the matter evaluated the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 33,000/- per acre. Petitioner’s ancillary claims like solatium, interest etc. too were awarded as per provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. State of Haryana challenged the judgment of District Judge by preferring appeal. It was argued before the learned Single Judge that evidence adduced by the claimants is no evidence in the eye of law as only copies of mutation of the documents (exhibits P.1 to P.4) have been adduced in evidence. In view of the Full Bench judgment in The State of Punjab v. Pohu and Ors., 1985 PLJ 583 mutation orders are neither primary nor secondary evidence of the terms and conditions of sale such orders do not prove anything apart from the factum of sale. Thus, it is a case of no evidence. It being so, the District Judge ought of have relied upon the earlier award exhibit R-4, thus, awarding the compensation at the same rate. Learned Single Judge found merit in this submission of the appellant and so accepted the appeals, thereby directing the Land Acquisition Collector to pay compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre.
5. The sole grievance of the counsel representing the appellants in this set of appeals is that since copies of mutation have been considered to be no evidence as per Full Bench decision of this Court, it was incumbent upon the learned Single Judge to afford the claimants another opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the contentions raised. Appellants case has been greatly prejudiced as the sale transaction exhibit P-2 on the basis of which the District Judge awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 33,000/- per acre has for no justifiable reason been ignored by the learned Single Judge, thus, resulting in failure of justice. Otherwise too, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Rajender Singh, JT 1996(2) SC 112 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Aligarh v. State of U.P. and Ors., JT 1997(4) SC 555 the cases deserve to be sent back to the reference Court permitting the parties to adduce evidence afresh. Thus, the appeals deserve to be allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court.
6. Shri Rathee, learned counsel for the State, however, argued that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge as the matter has been examined in its totality. The learned Single Judge was aware of inadmissibility of exhibits P-1 to P-4 in view of the Full Bench judgment in the State of Punjab v. Pohu and Ors. (supra) yet chose to consider the same and so held that as the location and comparability of the pieces of land covered by these mutations vis-a-vis the suit land is nowhere established on record there is no ground to award compensation on the basis of these transactions. Precisely for this reason Court placed reliance upon the earlier decision exhibit R-4 and so awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as of the District Judge we are of the view that these appeals merit acceptance. Admittedly, the claimants placed on record four mutations (exhibits P-1 to P-4) in support of their case. Vide exhibit P-1, a transaction dated 14.10.1977, land measuring 7 kanals 16 marlas situated in village Sihol was sold for amount of Rs. 18,000/-, Similarly, vide exhibit P.2 land measuring 2 kanals 7 marlas (chahi) was sold for Rs. 10,000/-. Exhibits P-3 and P-4 are the attested copies of sale deed dated 30.7.1981 and 5.6.1980 respectively. These latter two documents exhibits P-3 and P-4 were not taken into consideration by the learned District Judge on the ground that these transactions are subsequent to the date of notification i.e. 22.5.1979. Out of the remaining two documents exhibits P-1 and P-2, as the latter was more favourable to the claimants, the market value was assessed on its basis (exhibit P-2). Exhibit P-2 is a copy of mutation. It is no evidence in the eye of law. Full Bench in the State of Punjab v. Pohu and Anr. (supra) held as under:-
“Consequently, from the case law whatever is available and the plain language of Sections 91 and 65 of the Evidence Act, it is evident that mutation is neither a primary nor secondary evidence of the terms or conditions of a contract of sale and as such would not be admissible, apart from the factum of sale, to prove any of the terms or conditions of the contract including the sale consideration. The principle of law laid down in Bharat Singh’s case (supra) as regards the admissibility of the copy of the mutation is, therefore, over-ruled.”
Thus, there is no manner of doubt that it is a case of no evidence. Somewhat similar matter came up for consideration before the Apex Court in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Rajender Singh (supra) and the Court held that with regard to the sale transactions when neither the vendee nor the vendor has been examined the same cannot be taken to have been proved. Court, accordingly, remitted the matter to the reference Court to give an opportunity to the claimant as well as to the Land Acquisition Officer to adduce evidence in the case and then determine the compensation according to law. To the similar effect are the observations of the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation’s case (supra) remitting the matter to the reference Court to allow parties to produce evidence afresh.
8. Respectfully following the aforesaid two decisions of the Apex Court, we accept the appeals, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and remand the case to the District Judge for afresh adjudication with a further direction that both the parties shall be given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions.
9. Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Faridabad on 8.9.1997. Since the matter is fairly old, attempt should be made to decide the same without any unjust delay and preferably within a period of six months from the receipt of order of the case