In compulsory land acquisition, certified copies of sale deeds are admissible evidence under Section 51-A of the 1894 Act without examining parties. Courts must adopt the highest bona fide sale exemplar with necessary annual appreciation while excluding development cuts for road acquisitions and applying staggered interest rates for delayed compensation.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an Award dated 17.11.1997 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur (for short, “Reference Court”), whereby, reference petition preferred at the instance of appellant-landowner invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “1894 Act”), was partly allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that some land measuring 2 kanals 14 marlas owned by the appellant-landowner, situated in the revenue estate of Village Salwara, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, was acquired vide notifications dated 03.04.1991 (published on 06.05.1991) and 09.08.1991 (published on 16.08.1991), issued under Sections 4 & 6, respectively of the 1894 Act, for the public purpose namely, “for construction of road”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “LAC”) vide its award dated 01.10.1993 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.4000/- per marla along with other statutory benefits under the 1894 Act.

3. Feeling dissatisfied with the award passed by the LAC, the appellant-landowner preferred reference petition under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, seeking enhancement of compensation. Upon consideration of the material available on record, the learned Reference Court vide its award dated 17.11.1997 partly allowed the reference petition while upholding the market value assessed by the LAC, however, reassessing the interest; besides granting other statutory benefits under the 1894 Act.

4. Aggrieved of the aforesaid decision of the learned Reference Court, the appellant-landowner preferred the present appeal.

5. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of the appellant-landowner.

6. I have heard learned counsel representing the respondent-State and gone through the paper book.

7. A perusal of the record shows that the base price derived from the sale instances produced by the respondent-State in the form of Ex. R-2 to R-12 ranged between Rs. 500/- and Rs.4,000/- per marla. Thus, the maximum sale price derived therein was Rs. 4,000/- per marla, just equivalent or lesser than the market value assessed by the LAC based on the rates fixed by the Collector for the purpose of payment of stamp duty on the registration of sale deeds. This Court is mindful of the fact that as a matter of common practice, the sale deeds are often executed at a value below the prevailing market rate to avoid the payment of stamp duty. In such circumstances, the same cannot be taken to be bona fide and genuine sale transaction reflecting the representative market value of the said land at the time of its acquisition and as such, cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of market value in the case in hand. The aforesaid view is supported by observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “ Haryana State Industrial Development Corp. v. Pran Sukh ” reported as 2010 (11) SCC 175. The relevant paras 22 to 25 and 28 are extracted hereunder:-

“22. In our view, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by relying upon sale transaction Exhibit P1 for the purpose of fixing market value of the acquired land. Undisputedly, that sale transaction was between two corporate entities and the entire sale price was paid through bank drafts. It is also not in dispute that the land which was subject-matter of Exhibit P1 is situated at village Naharpur Kasan and is adjacent to the acquired land. The Corporation and the State Government did not adduce any evidence to prove that the land sold vide Exhibit P1 was over-v