The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions and interpretations from various cases to determine fair compensation for acquired land, considering its potential for agricultural products and the presence of trees and grass.

Swatanter Kumar, J. - By this judgment I propose to dispose of 142 regular first appeals and cross objections arising from the judgment/award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala dated 26.9.1987. Out of these, 70 appeals have been preferred by the State, 69 appeals have been filed by the claimants and 3 respondents/claimants have preferred cross objections.

2. The necessary facts are that Government of State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, thereinafter referred to as the Act, on 20.4.1979. In furtherance thereto, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 1.6.1979 to acquire 2343 acres 2 kanals 15 marlas of land in the revenue estate of village Nangali, Had Bast No. 32, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala. The land was acquired for forestation and anti-soil erosion. The Collector vide his award dated 5.8.1985 awarded the following compensation to the claimants after adopting the prescribed procedure :

a) Claimants owning Barani Land : Rs. 1600/- per acre

b) Claimants owning Gair Mumkin Pahar : Rs. 400/- per acre

3. The claimants felt dissatisfied from this amount of compensation and, thus, they filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming enhancement of the amount. The learned District Judge permitted the parties to lead evidence in support of their claim and finally vide his judgment dated 26.9.1987 enhanced the compensation to the following extent :-

a) Barani Land : Rs. 4000/- per acre.

b) Gair Mumkin Pahar : Rs. 800/- per acre.

4. The learned judge rejected the claim of the claimants in relation to loss of business or houses etc. as there was no cogent evidence on record for granting any enhancement on that account. Discontended from the above judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, both the parties i.e. the State as well as the claimants have filed appeals before this Court. As all these appeals arise from a common judgment, common premises and are based upon identical evidence, I have proposed to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment. The claimants claim further enhancement of the awarded amount while the State prays for reduction of the awarded amount and resultant restoration of the award of the Collector.

5. In order to appreciate the merits of the rival contentions raised by the parties, it will be appropriate to refer to the evidence on record. The claimants examined four witnesses AW1 to AW4 in support of their case. AW1 mainly referred to the location and potential of the land as well as the trees existing thereon. AW2 produced the award Ex. A.1 on record as well as tendered in evidence jamabandi Ex. A.2, sale-deeds Ex. A.3 and Ex. A.4, Aks- shijra Ex. A.5 and mutations Ex. A.6 and Ex. A.7. AW3 and AW4 stated orally and produced on record lease order Ex. A.9 and receipt of payment of lease money Ex. A.10.

6. To rebut this evidence, the respondents produced sale-deeds Ex. A.6, Ex. A.7, Ex. A.8 in addition to some mutations. They examined four witnesses RW1 to RW4. These witnesses also refer to the location and potential of the land as well as its distance from the nearby village known as Salimpur Kohi. It is commonly conceded case that none of the said deeds produced by either party is admissible in evidence in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah and other, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2600 and Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2625. In other words, Ex. A.3, Ex. A.4, and Ex. R.6 to Ex. R.8 cannot be relied upon by the Court as they are inadmissible in evidence. These documents, thus, were rightly excluded and rejected by the learned trial Court in addition to the above amongst other reasons like that the land in question related to other villages etc. The mutations are no direct and complete evidence of fair market value of the land in question. Onc