IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) When a large area is acquired, it is not fair to assess the market value of the land on the basis of sale deeds pertaining to small area.
(2) Prices fetched for the land similar to the acquired land with similar advantages and potentiality at about the time of preliminary notification constitutes the best evidence.
(3) Assessment of market value of the land has to be made by keeping the purpose in view for which the land is to be utilized for compensation and uniform market rate of the land can validly be applied for applying for compensation.

Alok Aradhe, J.—In these appeals preferred under Section 52 of the State Land Acquisition Act, Samvat, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appellants have assailed the validity of the judgment dated 30.04.2002 passed by the trial Court. The CIMA No.163/2003 has been preferred by Union of India challenging the judgment dated 30.04.2002 passed by the trial Court, whereas Cross Appeal(C) No 184/2003 has been assailed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these appeals, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

2. The facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that the land measuring 99 Kanals 15 Marlas was sought to be acquired by the Ministry of Defence for construction of barracks for Rashtriya Rifles at village Maitra Tehsil Ramban. The process of acquisition was set in motion by issuing of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 04.11.1995. Thereafter a notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 29.04.1997. The Collector Land Acquisition, Ramban vide award dated 31.03.1999 determined the compensation @ 30,000/- per kanal for agricultural land and Rs.18,000/- per kanal for Gair Mumkin land besides determining the compensation for trees and structures existing on the land. Being aggrieved, the claimant filed the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Additional District Judge, Ramban. The Additional District Judge, Ramban vide judgment dated 30.04.2002, award compensation at the flate rate of Rs. 30,000/- per kanal in respect of the land measuring 99 kanals 15 marlas and further directed that the claimant shall be entitled to grant of 15% solatium and interest at the rate of 10% per annum. In the aforesaid background, the claimants as well as the Union of India have filed these appeals.

3. Learned counsel for the Union of India has submitted that the trial Court grossly erred in awarding the compensation irrespective of the quality of the land. It is submitted that out of 99 Kanals and 15 Marlas of land, the land measuring 44 Kanals and 1 Marla was hail/Warahal Changi, Warahal Mandi land which was used for agricultural purposes, whereas the land measuring 55 Kanals and 14 Marlas was utilised for Gair Mumkin purposes i.e., non agricultural purposes. It is further submitted that the trial Court ought to have appreciated that the value of the large tract of land could not have been determined on the basis of sale deed which pertains to small piece of land. It is further submitted that the trial Court grossly erred in awarding the rate of interest at the rate of 10%. In this connection, attention of the Court has been invited to Section 35 of the Act and it has been submitted that the claimant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the whole of the compensation which was awarded.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has supported the Award passed by the trial Court and has submitted that the assessment of market value of the land has been made for the purposes for which the land is acquired and utilized. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly applied the uniformity for acquisition of land. It is further submitted that even though the award was passed on 31.3.1999, yet the amount determined by the Collector was deposited on 4.8.2003. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly awarded the interest at the rate of 10%. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India vs Ghansham and ors reported as (2008)1 JKJ (HC) 261 and State vs Probodh Chander and ors reported as (2003) 2 JKJ (HC) 554.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants in CIMA No.184/2003 has submitted that the trial Court ought to have appreciated that PW-1 Gulab-ud-Din has stated that he has sold the adjacent land to the Department of Hort