JUDGMENT
S.B. Wad, J.
(1) The appeals arise out of Award No. 1954 of 1966-67 Appellants lands in Village Ziauddinpur were acquired for public purpose by Notification under Section 4 dated 24.10.1961. The Land Acquisition Collector classified the lands in three groups. For the first group he awarded compensation @ Rs. 700.00 per bigha; for the second group Rs. 600.00 per bigha; and for the third group Rs. 470.00 per bigha.
(2) An application was made to the Additional District Judge under Section 18. The Adj combined groups (2) & (3) and awarded compensation @ Rs. 700.00 for the said two groups and Rs. 760.00 per bigha for group (i).
(3) In RFA. 227/71 the appellants have claimed Rs. 2.500.00 per bigha as compensation; whereas in other appeals the appellants have claimed increase of Rs. 2,000.00 per bigha, and claiming the market value to be Rs. 2,760.00 per bigha.
(4) The learned Collector while fixing the compensation relied on Ex. A/I produced by the appellants and Ex. A/I produced by the respondents. The learned Adj found that the Collector has rightly relied upon the said instances as they were near the lands that are subject matter of acquisition in these appeals. However, the learned Adj found that the Collector had not given increase from 16.3.1961 to 24.10.1961. i.e. the date of Notification. He, therefore, added Rs. 90.00 per bigha towards compensation awarded by the Collector.
(5) The appellants bad relied upon a sale instance dated 16.6.61 from the adjoining village Gokulpur, where land measuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas was sold for Rs. 12,000.00 . The learned Adj rejected the said sale instance as the sale was in a different revenue estate.
(6) We have been taken through the evidence on record and the findings of the Collector as well as the ADJ. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that reliance on Ex. R/1, the previous judgment of the Adj was erroneous. The further submission is that in the Judgment Ex. R/I the then learned .ADJ had relied upon two mutation entries for knowing the market value at the given time. The counsel refers to and the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 1979 Sc Pg.472 and submits that the mutation entries are not admissible for the purposes of knowing as to what the market value was at the time when the mutation entries were made. This submission of the appellant has to be accepted in view of the said decisions. In 1979 Sc the Collector had relied upon a. sales statement furnished his office but the actual sale deeds were not produced nor the vendor or the vendee examined. The Supreme Court held that statement of the price cannot be relied upon. is a decision of the Full Bench. This Bench has observed.
“THE entries made in the mutation register by the Patwari, in the discharge of his public duties or the orders passed thereon by the Revenue Officer would be a relevant price of evidence under Sec- tion 35 if they contain any fact in issue or a relevant fact. However, so far as proof of the terms of contract is concerned, S. 19 has specifically barred the leading of any other evidence except the document, itself or the secondary evidence whenever permissible under the other provisions of Evidence Act. So, a copy of the mutation would be admissible so far as the factum of sale is concernd, but it would not be admissible to prove the terms and conditions of the sale transaction.”
(7) Thus, the mutation entries relied upon in Judgment Ex. R/1 cannot speak of the price paid in those sales although it can be treated as an evidence of sale. Ex. R/1, therefore, cannot be relied upon in the present case. Ex. A/1 is the judgment in regard to the adjoining village Gonda Chauhan Khadar. But if Ex. A/1 is to be taken into consideration, there b no reason why Ex. A/3, which is a sale instance from another adjoining village Gokulpur, should not beconsidered. Ex.A/3isthe sale instance four months prior to the notification in question where the approximate value is Rs. 3,080.00 per bigha. Since this is a direct sale instance, we prefer A/3 to Ex. A/1, which is again a judgment but from a different village and not from Village Ziauddinpur. Considering all aspects of the matter we hold that Rs.. 2,500.00 per bigha would be the proper compensation and will represent the market value of the lands at the time of issue of Section 4 notification. We order accordingly. The appellants are also entitled to solarium and interest at the rate permissible when the Section 4 Notification was issued on the additional amount of compensation. The appellants would also be entitled to additional interest under Section 4(3) in view of the fact that there was a gap of more than three years between Section 4 and Section 6 Notification.
(8) The appeals are allowed with costs.
