JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Vide two different awards dated 29.4.1992 in RFA No. 2418 of 1992 and dated 29.7.1992 in RFA No. 3801 of 1992, the claimants who had preferred reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as
the Act, before the Land Acquisition Collector, felt aggrieved from the judgment and award of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani. Resultantly. all the four claimants whose references were answered by the judgment and award dated 29.4.1992 have preferred four regular first appeals before this Court praying for further enhancement and RFA No. 2418 of 1992 (Smt, Surest! and others v. The State of Haryana) being the lead case, while, out of the 25 references answered by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide his award dated 29.7.1992, 24 claimants have preferred regular first appeals for further enhencement of the compensation, the lead case being RFA No. 3801 of 1992 (Gian Singh v. State of Haryana). In this manner, vide this judgment, I propose to dispose of 28 regular first appeals arising from these two awards.
2. It must be noticed at the very outset that the Slate has not filed any appeals against these two awards and in any case none is listed before this Court. The Stale has also not filed any cross-objections in the afore-noticed 28 appeals. It appears that the State has accepted the awards passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani.
3. In order to examine the merits of the claim of enhancement put forward by the claimants, reference to the evidence on record would be necessary.
R.F.A. No. 3861 of 1992 (Gian Singh’s case) :-
4. Though (he judgment in this case is subsequent to the judgment in Suresti’s case (RFA No. 2418 of 1992), still it will be appropriate to discuss the evidence of this case first. In this case, the claimants had examined 10 witnesses including the claimants Pala Ram as PW1 as well as PW-7 who proved the sire plan Ex.P. 1. The witnesses have also stated with regard to sale deeds, location and price of the land in their re-speciive statements. Ex.P-1, Ex.P.2, and Ex.P.5 to Ex.P-8 are the sale deeds produced on record. Ex.P.3 is the judgment in relation to the land acquired in village Bhiwani Lohar vide notification dated 1.8-1986 wherein Rs. 35/- per square yard was awarded as compensation payable to the claimants by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment dated 12.8.1980. The valuation reports Ex.PW-10/A and Ex.PW-10/B were also produced on record.
5. To rebut this evidence the respondents have examined only one witness RW-1 Inderjit Singh Patwari and they had tendered in evidence two documents Ex-R-1 the sale deed dated 4.7.1983 and Ex.R-2 the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 20.4.1992 in the case of Suresti (supra). Out of the sale instance produced on record, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 have been proved in accordance with law by examining a vendor or vendee. Ex.P.1,Ex.P.2, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 have not been proved in accordance with law in this case as per the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of A.P, State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2600 : J.T. 1997(5) S.C. 362 and Spe-
cial Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sam-basiva Rao and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2625. Thus, except Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6, no other sale instance either produced by the claimants or by the respondents could be considered for determining the fair market value of the land.
6. While discussing the sale instances, learned Additional District Judge rejected Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2, and Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.8 for the reasons that the claimants had failed to prove the proximity, location and potential of the land subject-matter of the sale deeds vis-a-vis the acquired land. Some of the sale deeds were rejected by the learned Additional District Judge for the reason that they were acquired prior to the date of notification. The learned Judge while excluding the sale instances from the zone of consideration for fixation of fair market value solely relied upon Ex.R2, his own judgment in the case of Suresti, and awarded the identical compensation.
R.F.A- No. 2418 of 1992 (Smt. Suresti’s case) :-
7. This brings the Court to discuss the evidence on record in Suresti’s case. The claimants in this case had examined only four witnesses. PW-1 and PW-2 referred to the location and potential of the land while PW-4 proved some of the sale instances. The claimants in all tendered six sale instances being Ex.P. 1 and Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.7. Out of these sale instances, only Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.3 have been proved in accordance with law. Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.3 both have been proved by PW-4. Ex.P.2 is the advertisement given by HUDA in relation to sale of plots around the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 641/- per square yard. The claimants also tendered on record the award Ex.P.8 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani dated 12.8.1989 in relation to the acquisition of the land from the same revenue estate of Bhiwani Lohar vide notification dated 1.8.1986 under Section 4 of the Act.
8. The respondents produced no evidence, whatsoever, in these cases. The learned Judge while taking note of various sale instance produced on record as well as award Ex.P.8 though not specifically relying upon on either of them, granted aforesaid noticed compensation to the claimants. At this stage, it will be appropriate to refer to the relevant part of the impugned judgment:
“The contention of the claimants that they be given compensation at least at the rale of Rs. 35/- per square yard on the basis of judgment Exhibit PS in Land Acquisition case titled as “Rati Pal and others v. State of Haryana” is not acceptable because from perusal of the judgment, it is apparent that this land was acquired for construction of Hansi-Tosham bypass and it has been in evidence and also as observed above that this by-pass starts from Bhiwani-Hansi road whereas the acquired land is situated somewhere near city railway station, Bhiwani. Though notification under Section 4 in respect of the present land was made in
the same month and year, but the claimants are not entitled to the same compensation as awarded in Exhibit P.8, as they have failed to establish the proximity of the acquired land with that of the land mentioned in Exhibit P.8. Moreover, land of Exhibit P.8 is towards the most developed start of the city Bhiwani, situated on the Bhiwani-Hansi road. Therefore, it is apparent from the aforementioned evidence that the claimants have not been able to produce any cogent evidence to prove the proximity of the acquired land with various government buildings mentioned in the evidence of the claimants or the instances of the sale deeds placed on file from Exhibits P. 1 to P.7, except Exhibit P.2. Case law referred to by the claimants is not in dispute, but the instances of the sale are applicable in view of proximity in time and distance and other potentiality of the land. However, it is apparent from the instances placed on file that the prices of the land around the acquired land were very high in comparison to the price awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and keeping in view instances referred to by the claimant, including that of Exhibit P.8, and the location of the acquired land and while taking a judicial notice of the prices of the different instances and that of the judgment Exhibit P.8, I hold the claimants entitled to Rs. 58,800/- per acre in compensation in view of the kind of the land and its location on the basis of evidence on the file, as the land falls within city limits of Bhiwani. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against respondent.”
9. Ex.P.8 is the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 12.8.1980 in relation to acquisition of land at village Bhiwani Lohar vide notification dated 1.8.1986 under Section 4 of the Act. Vide this award land measuring 30.30 acres was acquired for the purposes of construction of Bhiwani-Hansi by-pass road. The learned court after considering the evidence on record had awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 35/- per square yard. Even appeals arising from Ex.P.8 are pending in the High Court. Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.3 are the sale instances which have been proved in accordance with law. Vide Ex.P.1 land measuring about 3 kanals was sold in the revenue estate of village Bhiwani Lohar for a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- on 30.9.1985. This practically gives the market rate of the land at approximately Rs. 100/- paper square yard. The land sold vide Ex. P. 1 was further sold to the extent of 7.5 marlas on 16.10.1985 of Rs. 26,500/-. I am of the considered view that the claimants cannot take advantage of Ex.P.3 because it is a very small piece of land and the sale does not inspire confidence. However, Ex.P.1 cannot be stated to be a small piece of land in comparison to the total land acquired. In Suresti’s case only 36.52 acres of land was acquired in village Bhiwani Lohar and, thus, an instance of 3 kanals cannot be said to be sale of such a small piece of land which would justify its exclusion from the zone of consideration of evidence by the
Court.
10. I am of the considered view that the learned trial Court could not have ignored Ex, P.1 being sale of small piece of land. Whether, it must be noticed that even from the point of time the sale deed Ex.P.1 is relevant. The land was sold on 30.9.1985 while the land had been acquired on 18.8.1986. Thus, there is a reasonable gap and the sale deed cannot be said to be tainted with the intention on the part of the party to strike the price of the land for the purposes of receiving compensation alone.
11. The learned Counsel for the claimants relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Shanti Devi etc. v. Slate of Haryana and others, 1999(4) RRR(Civil) 374 (P&H) : 1999(2) R.L.R. 640 (UFA No. 947 of 1994 decided on 18.2.1999) where the land was acquired in village Bhiwani Lohar and Palwas vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 4.6.1986. That land was acquired for development of different sectors in the township being declared by HUDA, nearly two months prior to the present acquisition. This court had partly accepted the State appeals and reduced the compensation from Rs. 125/- per square yard to Rs. 79.89 per square yard.
! 2. On the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana contended that the claimants have miserably failed to discharge their onus in regard to market value of the land as well as the location, potentiality and proximity of the acquired land in relation to the various awards and thasale instances proved on record. Thus, according to the State the claimants are not entitled to any enhancement of compensation. It is true that the claimants, except in the case of one Nathu Ram, have not placed detailed site plan on record. Nathu Ram in relation to his claim has only produced site plan on record mark A. Normally site plan would be a better proof of location and potential of the land but that does not mean that oral evidence of the parties and specially the evidence which remains unrefuted cannot be read in evidence. A statement on oath is admissible in evidence especially when there is other corroborative evidence on record to justify such deposition. In this regard reference can be made to the statements of P W, 1 and PW.4 who have made definite statements with regard to the nature, potential and location of the land in their examination-in-chief. In their cross-examination not even a suggestion was put to them that the location had not been correctly described by them. PW. 1 has stated as under :-
“I am the co-sharer of the acquired land along with my brothers, sisters and mother. The acquired land is situated just near the Bhiwani City Railway Station. Near the acquired land, there are facilities of electricity and roads. There are residential houses all around the acquired land. The Govt. Buildings including Govt. College. Milk Plant, District Jail, and other buildings are located in the western side of the acquired land. We had kept the acquired land for construction of our
houses. Since I have no house of my own. The market value of the acquired land at the time of issuance of notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was more than Rs. 200/- per square yards. There were willing purchasers of this land at this rate at that time. The State of Haryana through H.U.D.A. has developed Sectors 13 and 23 just adjacent to the acquired land on the south-em side.”
PW.4 has stated as under :-
“I and my brother Jagdish Chander purchased an area of three kanals for Rs. 1,80,000/- situated in Bhiwani Lohar by way of registered sale-deed. I identify the signatures of Jagdish Chander, my brother on this sale deed. The photostat copy of the sale-deed is Exhibit P1. This land is situated near the acquired land in the revenue estate and Bhiwani Lohar. The rate of the acquired land at the time of acquisition was Rs. 200/- per square yard. The land in vicinity is not available these days at Rs. 500/- per square yard even. The Government has advertised for sale of plots at the rate of Rs. 641 /- per square yard.”
13. In the light of the statements of these witnesses, the present cases cannot be stated to be the cases of no evidence. The revenue estate of village Bhiwani Lohar is the same which had been acquired vide Ex.P.8 and Shanti Devi’s case (supra). It is only the location of the land which is little different. In Shanti Devi’s case the land had been acquired for commercial and residential development of the sectors and adjacent sectors had already been developed while in Ex.P.8 the land was acquired for the purposes of construction of by-pass. It is true that the claimants cannot claim the same compensation as was granted in either Shanti Devi’s case or vide Ex.P.8. The location of the present land is certainly different than the location of the other two acquired lands. Another factor which must be noticed is that Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.7 (though inadmissible in evidence) were also produced as Ex.P. 18 and Ex.P. 19 in the case of Shanti Devi.
14. The claimants can only take some advantage of Ex.P.3 but certainly cannot claim parity for the said purpose. The notification in both the cases is of the same length i.e. August, 1986. Thus, the differentiation basically has to be on the basis of location and potential of the land. As already noticed, the claimants have not been able to bring complete parity of location and potential of the land acquired in Ex.P.8. They could have produced experts, Patwari and could place site plan on record, which, for the reasons best known to them, were not produced.
15. The sale deeds produced on record also show that the land is from the same revenue estate, but again the exact location, vis-a-vis the acquired land is not exactly traceable. If the Court takes Ex.P. 1 as the basis for determining the fair market value of the land in question, then the Court has to keep in mind that a higher deduction would have to be made on account of
comparatively small piece of land as the seller is the claimant himself and the possibility of exaggerating the price cannot be absolutely ruled out. The land is being acquired for development of waterworks i.e. for a public purpose, one time expenditure by the State, blockage of money and other incidental reason. As per Ex.P.1, the rate would come to Rs. 99.17 per square yard and keeping in view the fact that the entire land acquired was agricultural land as per the revenue records, at least 70% deduction would have to be made from this price, thus, leaving the net compensation payable to the claimants to be about Rs. 29.10 per square yard. This value is also in consonance with Ex.P.8 as vide Ex.P.8 the claimants were allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 35/- per square yard and the location of that land is better than tie present land. As such reducing the said amount by application of reasonable and guess work, the claimants would be entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/-per square yard, which would also be equivalent to the compensation arrived at vide Ex.P.1.
16. Coming back now to the case of Gian Singh, the learned Judge has entirely relied upon Ex. R.2 the judgment in Suresti’s case (supra). Furthermore, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 produced in the case of Gian Singh were also produced by Om Parkash PW.6, who had been examined as PW.4 in Suresti’s case. In other words, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.3 are equivalent of Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 in the other case.
17. As the basic evidence as well as the judgment relied upon in Gian Singh’s case is similar, it will be appropriate to grant to the claimants the same relief as has been granted in the case of Smt. Suresti. Another factor, the Court must keep in mind is that the State has already accepted the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge and has not filed any appeal/cross-objections before this Court.
18. For the reasons aforestated the appeals preferred by the claimants are partly allowed with proportionate costs. Now the claimants would be entitled to receive compensation uniformly at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square yard with all statutory benefits provided under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act.
19. Appeal partly allowed.