The relevance of evidence, particularly sale deed Ex. A3, in determining the market value of acquired land under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Viney Mittal, J. - This order shall dispose of two appeals being RFA No. 1256 of 1984 and RFA No. 1257 of 1984 and the cross-objections filed in the appeals respectively as the common questions of fact and law are involved.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from RFA No. 1256 of 1984.

3. Some land belonging to the land owners was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated July 23, 1980 fixed an amount of Rs. 9,200/- per acre as market value of the acquired land. The claimant-land owners felt dis-satisfied. They claimed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The reference was made. The learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide his award dated January 2, 1984 has allowed the reference and fixed Rs. 50,000/- per acre as the market value of the aforesaid acquired land.

4. Now, the State has felt aggrieved against the aforesaid enhancement and has filed the present appeal.

5. I have heard Shri Girish Agnihotri, the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the appellant State of Haryana. Shri Agnihotri has contended that in fact the enhancement as ordered by the learned Additional District Judge, was absolutely contrary to the record inasmuch as the learned Additional District Judge had placed reliance on sale deed Ex. A3. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid deed could not be used for determining the market value of the acquired land.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the plea raised by Shri Agnihotri and also perused the record with his assistance.

7. In my considered opinion, it was rightly held by the learned Additional District Judge that the only relevant evidence produced by the claimant land owner was the sale deed Ex. A3. The said sale deed pertains to 1 kanals 18 marlas of land. The said land was sold for Rs. 12,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre. Ram Chand vendor of the aforesaid sale deed had also appeared as a witness and stated that in fact the land was sold at a comparatively lesser price because the said land was also under lease for 99 years. However, the statement of Ram Chand was rejected by holding that nothing was shown that the said lease for 99 years as claimed by the vendor was a bona fide transaction. According to the learned Additional District Judge, the aforesaid sale deed Ex. A3 reflected the true consideration and the market price of the land sold. It was also noticed by the learned Additional District Judge that the land under the aforesaid sale deed Ex. A3 was situated on the main road while the acquired land was partly on the main road and partly behind it. On that basis, the plea of the State that there should be some reduction in the total sale consideration as reflected by the sale deed Ex. A3 was rightly rejected by holding that the sale deed in question was executed on May 31, 1978 whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued for the acquired land on June 6, 1979 i.e. almost after the expiry of one year. The learned Additional District Judge noticed that in the aforesaid period of one year the prices of the land had gone up and, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge, in my considered opinion, rightly came to the conclusion that the sale deed in question would reflect the real value and would be the determining factor for fixing the market rate of the acquired land.

8. Shri Agnihotri has further submitted that in fact the sale deed Ex. A3 pertained to a small piece of merely 1 kanal and 18 marlas of land and, therefore, some deduction should have been applied for determining the market value of the acquired land.

9. In my opinion, the said plea raised by Shri Agnihotri is also without any merit. The acquired land itself was 38 kanals 14 marlas i.e. merely 4 acres. It was not a big piece of land.

10. No other evidence has been produced by thee State Government also to show that the market rate of the acquired l