land in question was less than what was indicated in
these two sale instances. The land Reference Court
primarily relied upon Exh. 24 and after giving
increase in the said price of the land, awarded
compensation to the claimants. Exh. 24 relates to
sale of 1 hectare which is ‘jirayat’ land. Thus
after giving increase for the intervening period of
2 years and 9 months, i.e. from 14.7.1986 to
12.12.1989, the value determined would be that of
‘jirayat’ and not of the ‘bagayat’ land as indicated
by the Reference Court. Even if some element of
deduction was to be effected, the same was not
justified in the facts of the present case as the
sale instances relates to reasonably large piece of
land i.e. 1 hectare, still the compensation
determined by the Reference Court would be
compensation payable for the ‘jirayat’ land which
then ought to have been increased by 1.5 times at
least to determine the market value of the ‘bagayat’
land. Furthermore there is no merit in the argument
advanced on behalf of the State that there was no
increasing trend. Exh. 24 and 26 itself shows that
there was increasing trend in the sale price of the
lands. This fact firstly has been duly reflected in
the evidence produced on record and even otherwise,
it is a well known and accepted fact that the prices
of the land has been increasing all over.
