JUDGMENT R.N. Ray, J.
1. The bunch of First Appeal Nos. 114/95, 115/95 116/95 and 119/95 are taken up together for hearing.
2. Appeal No. 117 of 1995 is taken up for hearing along with the bunch of other aforesaid first appeals.
3. The lands acquired in respect of these appeals are more or less of same type of land and adjacent to each other and the lands were acquired by notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. In all these appeals the defendant-appellant Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, district Badaun through its secretary has preferred these appeals against the Judgment and decree passed by Land Acquisition Tribunal Judge, Sri Naval Singh. IVth Additional District Judge, Badaun. The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and order passed in Reference No. 5 of 1991 decided on 19.10.1994. All those lands measuring 266 square metres were acquired for the purpose of marketing complex by the Land Acquisition Collector vide his notification under Section 4 dated 30.1.1980. The declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was done on 30.7.1988 and thereafter the award was made under Section 23 by the Land Acquisition Collector. The plaintiff-respondent received the payment under protest and made reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Court below awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 150 per annum and also awarded solatium at the rate of 15% and also awarded interest upon solatium and also interest at the rate of 15% from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Court below allowed compound interest which is not permissible in law. There is no provision of awarding interest on solatium. The total land acquired was 9 bighas 16 biswas as such small portion of the land as purchased should not be taken into account for ascertaining the market price and the compensation awarded by the learned Court below was not correct. The learned Court below allowed the flat rate of the acquired land which was contrary to the provisions for ascertaining the market price as was prevailing at the time of acquisition of the acquired land. It has been further contended that the plaintiff purchased the land in 1984 and that the land was acquired in 1987 only after three years so, that purchase deed was the best exemplar for ascertainment of the market price and three years time should be taken into account for calculation of the compensation of the price of the land, as it is presumed that the price of the land might had gone up at the rate of 15% per annum. So there was an enhancement of 45% at best of the land in dispute when so acquired. It has been further contended that the certified copies of the documents filed in support of his case by appellant may be admissible under the provisions of Section 51(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but those documents were required to be proved under the provisions of Evidence Act because formal proof of those documents were not dispensed with by the defendant-appellant. Hence the learned Court below was wrong in placing reliance on the same. The land which the respondents purchased was the subject for impounding by the Collector under the Stamp Act and as such that should be accepted as an evidence but no other document should be taken into account as an evidence unless proved according to law. Learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the evidence of D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 ought to have been believed. D.W. 1 is Lekhpal who was not at all the member of the defendant Samiti and he had deposed that at the time of acquisition of the land it was agricultural land without having any construction on the adjacent lands towards east there was a nala for flowing foul water and in the west there was a graveyard on the north road for Badaun to Delhi and towards the east agricultural land exhibited. He had deposed that plot Nos. 445/2, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 454, 455, 457, 458, 462, 463, 564, 465 were acquired by notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of construction of a marketing complex by the defendant. It has been further deposed that at the time of acquisition of the disputed land there was one saw-machine towards the west and there was no habitation. Towards the east, after two fields, there were inhabitations. It has been stated that the lands which were acquired were the agricultural lands and were vested for growing vegetables, and the lands adjacent to the Mandi Samiti are fertile lands so enough vegetables and wheat used to be grown and plot Nos. 445. 448 out of which plot Nos. 450 and 451 were adjacent to Badaun-Delhi Road. Mohalla Akbarabad is at a distance of 150-200 yards away and Pathantola, Nasroolganj were 400-500 metres away from the disputed lands. The petrol pump is situated at a distance of one furlong and the cold storage is near about one kilometre from the disputed land.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred the following rulings in support of his contention as reported in AIR 1988 SC, 1652 : AIR 1966 SC 531 : JT 1995 SC 92 and also 100 ; AIR 1980 SC 1652 and JT 1966 SC 153. From all these decisions it appear that Hon'ble Apex Court held that where bulk land were purchase, the valuation should be determined from the purchase deed where similar bulk land of the relevant time of similar type land. Circle rate cannot be relied upon because the valuation fixed there was never done under any Statute and the Circle rate is not relevant for the purpose of market price of the acquired land in view of this, he wanted to impress upon the Court that the valuation should not be more than 17 rupees per square yard and the Court should not allow interest on solatium, in this way learned advocate for the appellant argued that the appeal should be allowed with costs.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent purchased the land and the Land Collector considered the price as inadequate. It has been submitted that the provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act should be taken into account for determination of market price of the acquired land. The defendant appellant is debarred but the market value assessed by the Collector for the purpose of realising the stamp duty should not be taken into account for the purpose of ascertainment of market price of the disputed land at the relevant time. It has been submitted that the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 should be taken into account and the shops under construction on the disputed land should be taken into account along with the fact that the disputed land was facing the main road which is known as Badaun-Delhi Road and that road is busy thoroughfare and it has been submitted that the award given by the learned Court below was low and it ought to have allowed at the rate of Rs. 200 per sq. yard.
6. Duly considered the submissions of both sides. The land was acquired on 30.1.1980 by publication of notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the declaration was made on 13.8.1986 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. On 13.8.1986 the disputed land did not face Badaun-Delhi Road. Be that as it may be the registered sale deed by which this plaintiff-respondent purchased the land was a good exemplar for ascertainment of market price. It is the matter of common experience that the price of the land is soaring high due to developments of the country and also due to exploitation of population. If 15% per annum is accepted as rate of increase of the price of the land, then there would 45% enhancement of the price of acquired land in dispute. Taking into consideration, that the development had just started at the time of acquisition of the land. I think Rs. 170 per sq. yard should be proper market price of the acquired land at the time of acquisition and compensation be awarded accordingly and the respondent is to get the interest also at the rate of 9% on enhanced compensation of the land which was acquired. If the compensation at the enhanced rate along with the solatium at the rate of 30% of the amount along with the interest at the rate of Rs. 9% on the enhanced price is not paid to the respondent within one month from this date, then the respondent would be at liberty to realise the same by way of execution through Court below.
7. In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed but under such circumstances, I do not make any order as to costs in this appeal. This judgment and order shall cover other connected appeals mutatis mutandis.