Iqbal Singh, J.:— This order will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal No. 2211 of 1989 filed on behalf of the State of Haryana (appellant) and Cross-objections No. 7 of 1990 filed on behalf of Smt. Bhagwati Devi (respondent) arising out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated June 2, 1989.
2. Land measuring 3 Kanals and 12 Marlas was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide Notification dated June 13, 1975 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for extension of ‘Sabzi Mandi’ in Rewari town. The market value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square yard. A reference under Section 18 of the Act was made against this award. The Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide his judgment dated April 20, 1982, determined the market value of the acquired land on the date of the Notification of Rs. 40/- per square yard besides solatiun at the rate of 15 per cent. It was further directed that the appellant-State would pay interest to the respondent at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of taking over possession i.e January 8, 1976. The Additional District Judge also awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 2250/- to Lalu Ram (petitioner No. 2 before the Additional District Judge) besides solatium and interest, as stated above.
3. Aggrieved against the judgment dated April 20, 1982, passed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, respondent. Smt. Bhagwati Devi filed Regular First Appeal No. 1054 of 1982, which was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on June 2, 1989. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the potentiality of the acquired land and the sale deed (Exhibit P.19), came to the conclusion that the acquired land would have fetched the price of Rs. 219/- per square yard. However, by applying the cut of ⅓rd, the learned Single Judge increased the amount of compensation to Rs. 146/- per square yard. As regards the grant of statutory benefits under Sections, 23(1-A) and 28 of the Amended Land Acquisition Act, the learned Single Judge held that since the award had been announced by the Land Acquisition Court before April 30, 1982, the claimant could only be entitled to grant of solatium at the rate of 15 per cent per annum on the market value determined in consideration of compulsory nature of the acquisition, as has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court on May 16, 1989, while deciding Review Petition No. 671 of 1985 in Civil Appeal No. 1965 of 1984 : 1989 (1) RRR 552 (SC) (Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by L.Rs etc.) and several other cases.
4. This is Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the State of Haryana (appellant) against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated June 2, 1989. At the time of motion hearing, the learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the appellant restricted his argument to the grant of benefit under Sections 23(1-A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended whereas the learned counsel for the respondent (Cross Objector) has confined his argument to the extent that cut on the market value determined with reference to the sale transaction (Exhibit P.19) by the learned Single Judge should have been ¼th instead of ⅓rd.
5. We have heard Mr. Jaswant Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellant and Mr. S.C Sibal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. V.S Rana, Advocate, for the respondent and have gone through the records of the case.
6. The learned Single Judge made the sale transaction (Exhibit P.19) the sole basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. Vide sale deed (Exhibit P.19), part of the acquired land was sold at Rs. 219/- per square yard. The learned Single Judge, observing that since on three sides of the acquired land there is approach road and since the acquired land cannot be described to be a big chunk of land and, rather, can easily be described to be a small plot of 3 Kanals 12 Marlas, which on conversion into square yards would come to be about 2200 square yards, formed the view that a cut of ⅓rd was needed to be applied and that this cut of ⅓rd may be considered and attributed towards the smallness of the size of the plot sold by Exhibit P. 19 or towards the development of the acquired land. The learned counsel for the cross-objector/respondent has stated that the cut of ⅓rd applied by the learned Single Judge cannot be described to be as justified keeping in view the potentiality of the land after further development. We agree with the learned counsel for the cross-objector/respondent on this point and accordingly, hold that cut of ⅓rd on the market value determined with reference to the sale transaction (Exhibit P.19) is on the excessive side. Keeping in view the potentiality of the acquired land and its location, we find it just and appropriate to impose a cut of ¼th instead of ⅓rd on Rs. 219/- per square yard i.e the sale price of the acquired land sold vide sale deed Exhibit P.19 We order accordingly.
7. As regards the direction given by the learned Single Judge for grant of statutory benefits in terms of Sections 23(1 -A) and 28 ibid on the entire amount of compensation, we are of the opinion that the same requires modification. Accordingly, it is ordered that the respondent/claimant shall get the benefits of the amended provisions of Sections 23(1-A) and 28 ibid on the amount of enhanced compensation as ordered by the learned Single Judge and on the amount to be calculated after reducing the cut from ⅓rd to ¼th on the market value determined by the learned Single Judge with reference to the sale transaction (Exhibit P.19) as mentioned above, from the date of coming into force of the amendment in the Act till the date of actual payment of compensation.
8. The Letters Patent Appeal and Cross-Objections are, accordingly, partly allowed to the extent of the modification in the judgment pased by the learned Single Judge, as indicated above.
Appeal partly allowed.