Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer And ... vs Shantibhai Jivabhai Patel on 13 November, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1993)2GLR1289
JUDGMENT J.N. Bhatt, J.
1. A dispute is centred on the question of market value of the lands under acquisition in this group of 45 appeals under the provisions of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short).
2. As all these 45 appeals arise out of common judgment and raise identical questions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. A conspectus of the material facts giving rise to the present group of appeals may be narrated at the outset so as to appreciate the merits of the appeals.
The appeals are preferred by the State of Gujarat and the Acquiring Body against a common judgment rendered in 45 References by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Kheda at Nadiad, on 26-12-1991, and the original claimants whose lands are acquired, have preferred cross-objections in all the 45 appeals.
4. A notification dated 29-8-1986, under Section 4 of the Act, came to be issued pursuant to which the lands of the claimants were acquired. The notification under Sec, 6 of the Act was published on 13-11-1986. The awards came to be passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Express Highway), Kheda, on 10-6-1987. The lands in the above acquisition cases are situated at village Samarkha, Taluka Anand, in Kheda District. They, re acquired for the project of Ahmedabad-Baroda Highway, for the purpose, by the acquiring body, i.e., 'the Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings. The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 350 per Are, i.e., Rs. 3.50 per sq. mt.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 3.50 per sq. mt. for the land under acquisition, 45 claimants of the respective lands approached the Court by way of References under Section 18 of the Act, claiming Rs. 25 per sq. mt. by way of compensation >for their acquired lands.
7. The claimants relied on the evidence of the following seven witnesses:
Sr. No. Name of Witness Ex. No. 1. Kanubhai Nathabhai Patel 10 2. Yogendrakumar Gordhanbhai 89 3. Govindbhai Bhailalbhai Patel 90 4. Batukbhai Nanajibhai 91 5. Naranbhai Kalidas 92 6. Pratapsing Dhulabhai 95 7. Ambalal Chaturbhai Patel 97
The original opponent/appellant-State relied on sole witness, who is a Talati-cum-Mantri, Prabhatsinh Chauhan. He is examined, at Ex. 99. The claimants also placed reliance on the documentary evidence produced, at Exhibits 74 to 99.
6. All the References were consolidated and common evidence was led in the main Reference Case No. 1 of 1990 and all the References came to be disposed of by a common judgment. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, the trial Court reached to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 11.50 per sq. mt. by way of market price of the acquired land. Thus, the Land Acquisition Officer offered an amount of Rs. 3.50 per sq. mt. and the trial Court awarded, in aggregate, an amount of Rs. 15 per sq. mt.
7. Being aggrieved by the said awards of the trial Court, the original opponents State and the Land Acquisition Authority, have assailed the legality and validity of the common award passed in all the 45 References in these 45 appeals. The claimants have claimed an additional amount of Rs. 5 (five) pjw sq. mt. by filing cross-objections in all these appeals.
8. With a view to appreciate the disputed aspects in this group of 45 appeals, the material aspects are tabulated in the following table:
Land acquired for the purpose of "Express Highway" between Ahmedabad-Baroda
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal Comp. Date of Land Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp. Claim in No. All Case Notification S. No. Area of Claimed Awarded Claimed decreed Appeal Appeals No. under village Samarkha, with L.A. by L. A. in L. by Court with Section 4 Taluka Anand, Officer Officer Court Cross- Dist Kheda Rs. 25 Rs. 350 Rs. 151 Rs. 11.50 Obj. H. A. Sq. Mt. Sq. Mt. Sq. Mt Sq. Mt. Sq. Mt. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1906792 with Cross 1/90 29-3-1986 990-1 0.51.60 129000.00 17460.00 59340.00 59340.00 88857.95 Obj. 990-2 0.00.10 250.00 35.00 150.00 115.00 1907/92 with Cross- 2/90 " 1090 0.33.52 83800.00 11732.00 50280.00 38548.00 71829.02 Obj. 1092 0.08.40 21000.00 2940.00 12600.00 9660.00 1908/92 3/90 " 270 0.02.10 5250.00 735.00 3150.00 2415.00 3598.35 1909/92 4/90 " 2541 30.30.68 76700.00 10738.00 46020.00 35282.00 52570.18 1910/92 5/90 " 1094 0.24.95 62375.00 8732.00 37425.00 28692.00 42751.73 1911/92 6/90 " 1091-2 0.22.60 56500.00 7910.00 33900.00 25990.00 38725.10 1912/92 7/90 " 995-2 0.09.49 996 0.00.10
--------
0.09.59 23975.00 3356.50 14385.00 11028.50 16432.37 1913/92 8/90 29-8-1986 994 0.38.69 96725.00 13541.50 58035.00 44493.00 66295.31 1914/92 9/90 " 879-1 0.04.00 10000.00 1400.00 6000.00 4600.00 6624.00 881 0.21.60 54000.00 7560.00 32400.00 24840.00 37011.60 1915/92 10/90 " 995-1 0.11.69 29225.00 4091.50 17535.00 13443.50 20030.81 1916/92 11/90 " 973 0.06.08 974 0.15.57
----- --------
1+2 + 3 0.21.65 54125.90 7577.50 32475.00 24897.50 40387.10 1917/92 12/90 " 1876-2 0.08.35 20875.00 2922.50 12525.00 9602.00 13827.53 1918/92 13/90 " 1098-1 0.39.40 98500.00 13790.00 59100.00 45310.00 67511.90 1919/92 14/90 " 1876-1 0.56.48 141200.00 19768.00 84720.00 64952.00 96778.48 920/92 15/90 " 1093-1 0.43.05 107625.00 15067.50 64575.00 49507.50 73766.13 1921/92 16/90 " 256-3 0.00.15 375.00 52150.00 225.00 172.50 257.02 1922/92 17/90 " 1091-1 0.07.60 19000.00 2660.00 11400.00 8740.00 13022.60 1923/92 18/90 " 801-1 + 2 0.18.72 46800.00 6552.00 28080.00 21528.00 32076.72 1924/92 19/90 " 255-2 0.14.25 35625.00 4987.50 21375.00 16387.50 24417.37 1925/92 20/90 " 239 0.64.35 160875.00 22522.50 96525.00 74002.50 110263.72 1926/92 21/90 " 211-2 0.27.40 68500.00 9590.00 41100.00 31510.00 46949.90 1927/92 22/90 " 183-2 0.40.16 100400.00 14056.00 60240.00 46184.00 68814.10 1928/92 23/90 " 975 0.13.70 34250.00 4795.00 20550.00 15755.00 23474.95 1929/92 24/90 " 865 0.13.61 34025.00 4763.50 20415.00 15651.50 23320.73
--------
1 + 2A 1930/92 171/90 29-8-1986 975 0.62.73 977 0.19.83 980 0.21.50
-------
1.04.06 260150.00 36421.00 156090.00 119669.00 178306.81
1931/92 172/90 " 210 0.55.85 139625.00 19547.50 83775.00 64227.50 95698.97
1932/92 173/90 " 185 0.43.10
186 0.01.50
-------
0.44.60 111500.00 15610.00 66900.00 51290.00 76822.10
1933/92 174/90 " 211-1 0.50.25 125625.00 17587.50 75375.00 57787.00 86103.37
1424-1 0.29.34
1424-2 0.29.45
---------
0.58.74 146975.00 20576.50 88185.00 67608.50 1O0736.6O
1935/92 176/90 " 874-1 0.00.37
874-2 0.10.50
875 0.44.49
----------
0.55.36 138400.00 19376.00 83040.00 63664.00 94859.36
1936/92 177/90 " 240 0.45.25 113125.00 15837.50 67875.00 52037.50 77535.87
1937/92 178/90 " 202 0.79.70 309875.00 43382.50 185925.00 142542.00 212388.32
253-1 0.44.25
-------
1938/92 179/90 " 1497 0.04.70 11750.00 1645.00 7050.00 5405.00 8053.45
1939/92 180/90 29-8-1986 1442-2 0.11.85 29625.00 4147.50 17755.00 13627.50 20304.97 1940/92 181/90 " 1438 A + B 0.89.51 223775.00 31328.50 134265.00 102936.50 153375.38 1941/92 182/90 " 1100 1+2 0.22.95 57375.00 8032.00 34425.00 26392.50 38005.20 1942/92 183/90 " 1099 0.41.88 104700.00 14658.00 62820.00 48162.00 71761.38 1943/92 184/90 " 876 0.65.40 163500.00 22890.00 98100.00 75210.00 112062.90 1944/92 185/90 " 930 0.08.96 22400.00 3136.00 13440.00 10304.00 15352.96 1945/92 186/90 " 903 0.31.89 79725.00 11161.50 47835.00 36673.50 54643.51 1946/92 187/90 " 205 1+2 0.01.50 3790.00 525.00 2250.00 1725.00 2570.25 1947/92 188/90 " 880 0.31.36 862 --------
0.47.48 118700.00 16618.00 71220.00 54602.00 81356.98
1948/92 189/90 " 884 1+2 0.20.44 51100.00 7154.00 30660.00 23506.00 3503.94
1949/92 190/90 " 1436 0.99.88
1437 0.04.37
-------
1.04.25 260875.00 36522.50 156525.O0 120OO2.50 178803.72
1950/92 191/90 " 201-3 0.59.10 147750.00 20685.00 88650.00 67965.00 101267.85
9. The learned Government Pleader, Mr. Trivedi, has seriously 'criticised the additional amount of compensation of Rs. 11.50 per sq. mt. awarded by the trial Court. He has contended that the sale instances are wrongly relied on by the trial Court in fixing the market value of the lands under acquisition. Thus, according to the contention of the learned Government Pleader, the award based on the sale instances is not just and proper. In that, it is also contended that non-agricultural lands and lands of 'gamtal which are compared by the trial Court are non-comparable ones. It is also submitted that village Samarkha has no future development plan and no chance for development of land on account of canal etc. In short, the learned Government Pleader, on behalf of the appellants/original opponents, has supported the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, whereas the Learned Counsel for the original claimants, Mr. Amin, has questioned with equal vehemence the adequancy of the amount of compensation assessed by the trial Court only at Rs. 11.50 per sq. mt. He has submitted that in view of the evidence on record, the trial Court has committed serious illegality in fixing the additional amount of compensation per sq. mt. in the References. He has relied on the documentary evidence produced at Exhs. 74 to 96, which are certified copies of the sale transaction in respect of lands situated in village Samarkha.
10. Both sides have also relied on the case law on the point of determining the amount of compensation to which reference is required to be made at an appropriate stage.
11. The claimants have placed reliance on the aforesaid seven witnesses and also on documentary evidence produced at Exhs. 74 to 96. The original opponents have relied solely on the evidence of one witness, Prabhatsinh Chauhan, who is a Talati-cum-Mantri, at Ex. 99.
12. Having examined the facts circumstances emerging from the evidence on record, are we are broadly agreement with the conclusions reached by the learned trial Court Judge in all the References under challenge in this group of appeals. It cannot be contended that the assessment of the market value made by the trial Court is either excessive or inadequate. In the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record, we find that the additional amount of compensation assessed by the learned trial Court Judge, at Rs. 11.50 per sq. mt. is just and reasonable for the following reasons and in the light of the relevant case law.
13. Section 23 of the Act enumerates the matters to be considered for determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under the Act. The market value to be considered by the authority or the Court concerned is as on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Thus, for awarding the compensation, the authority has to consider the sale price of the land on the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The lands came to be acquired by a common notification dated 29-9-1986 under Section 4 of the Act. Thus, the market value of the land shall be the market value on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act.
14. Needless to mention that the expenssion "market value" as stated under 1 Section 23 of the Act has assumed a definite connotation by catena of judicial ' pronouncements. Market value is required to be ascertained so as to award just and reasonable amount of compensation for the acquisition of the land under the Act. It may also be mentioned that the land has to be valued not only with reference to its conditions at the time of declaration of notification under Section 4 of the Act but its potential value is also required to be taken into consideration. The market value to be estimated or assessed ought to be the value of me land in the open market which a willing seller might expect to realiser. There are several methods of valuation of market price of the land. The market value may be ascertained on the basis of-
(i) the opinion of the expert
(ii) the price of the land within a reasonable time of any bona fide transactions of purchase of land acquired or the land adjacent to the land acquired and possessing similar advantages, and
(iii) the number of years purchase of the actual or immediately perspective parts of the land acquired.
The aforesaid methods are illustrative and not exhaustive for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation for the acquisition of the land under the Act. It may also be stated that the market value is to be assessed not merely by existing utility of the land but the best use to which a willing purchaser would like to put it.
15. The principles and the facts required to be considered for the assessment of market value are extensively explored and very well settled by several decisions of the Apex Court of the land. We deem it expedient to reiterate the guidelines and the factors enumerated and discusssed by the Apex Court for the purpose of determining die market value in the case of Chimanlal v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer Poona . Accordingly to the said decisions, the following factors must be considered:
(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not as appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court.
(2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the reference. It is merely an offr made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court.
(3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into for this purpose.
(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant).
(6) The dtermination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value.
(8) Only genuine instance have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land).
(9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into account (1), if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaserto pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects.
(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle
(ii) proximity from situation angle.
(11) Having identified the instances which proved the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.
(12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do.
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors.
In the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court has also illustrated the following plus and minus factors. No doubt, they are illustrative and not exhaustive.
Plus factors Minus factors
(1) smallness of size (1) largencess of area.
(2) proximity to a road (2) situation in the interior
at a distance from the road.
(3) frontage on a road (3) narrow strip of land with very
small frontage compared to depth.
(4) nearness to developed area (4) lower level requiring the depressed
portion to be filled up.
(5) regular shape (5) remoteness from developed
locality.
(6) level vis-a-vis land under (6) some special disadvantageous factor
acquisition. which would deter a purchaser.
(7) special value for an owner
of an adjoining property to
whom it may have some very
special advantage.
16. The authority or the Court concerned must address itself to the facts of a given case in the light of the aforesaid guidelines which are illustrative and not exhaustive. No doubt, common sense is the best and most reliable guide for the purpose of evaluation of the market price of the land acquired under the Act.
17. In the case of Chimanlal v. Dist. Deputy Collector reported in (1962) III GLR 787, Division Bench of This Court has held that the initial burden is on the claimant whose land is acquired under the Act and the claimant must adduce evidence in the first instance. But if he has adduced evidence and has shown that there are materials on the record on the basis of which the land under acquisition can be valued and that if those instances are found to be reliable, the offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer can turn out to be inadequate. Even if there are counter-instances which are more reliable and which can support the award, it is the Land Acquisition Officer to adduce that evidence before die Court and in the absence of such evidence, if the materials which are brought on the record by me claimant are found to be reliable, there is no reason why the Court should not act upon those materials even though in some cases in assessing the value on the basis of those materials some guess work or conjecture may habe to be done.
18. It was further held in the said decision by This Court that in evaluating agricultural lands, though distance is a factor to be taken into consideration, the distance does not play, in ordinary, cases, such an overriding and important role as to render the instance altogether useless. If a land happens to be near a village, it has advtantages of that proximity, such as less transport charge and greater facilities for access and watch. But a distance of about half a mile or even a mile from one field and another is not in itself of much importance, though due allowance must be made for that particular fact. It was also held in the said case mat the important point so far as the agricultural lands are concerned is the fertility of the soil. This is factor which weighs more with an agriculturist, in ordinary circumstances than any other single factor which would go to compose the price of an agricultural land. The facts that the two sets of land are of equal fertility, that they are separated in the case of one lot by half a mile and in the case of another lot by less that a mile, are circumstances which render the instance of that sale a comparable instance. In the group of cases on hand, the comparable instances are situated in the same village, mat is, Samarkha.
19. Reliance is also placed on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Shamalbhai Lallubhai Patel v. Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (1977) XVIII GLR 465. In that case it was held that a person whose land has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act is entitled to receive compensation computed in terms of the market value of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is also stated as to what the market value is. According to the said decision, the market value means, the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property, having due regard to its existing conditions with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when laid out in the most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. It is further observed that the disinclination of the vendor to part with the land and the anxiety of the purchaser to buy should also be disregarded. There is an element of guess work in assessing the market value of the acquired land and the essential thing is to keep in view the relevant facts prescribed under Section 23 of the Act.
20. The Supreme Court has further held in the said case that if the judgment of the High Court is taken into consideration the relevant factors, the market value of the acquired land assessed by the High Court should not be disturbed. The fact that some other view of the matter could have also been taken would not justify interference with the judgment of the High Court.
21. Our attentio is also invited to a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer . In that case it was held that the land acquired if not required further development, then the principle of deduction for the purpose of comparison is not warranted. It is also true that the Supreme Court has also stated the principles relating to the market value and as to whether it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by small plot in a case of acquisition of large area of land. The principle enunciated in the said decision is no longer in controversy.
22. It may also be mentioned that the evaluation of the immovable property sought to be acquired is not an exact science. The Court is bound to consider the matter judiciously as far as possible and it should only guess when science or common sense will not point to a definite conclusion. The Judge must assess the evidence emerging from the record so as to determine the just and reasonable amount of compensation. The factors and principles for determination of the market value are thus very well explored and settled and the Court is required to consider the facts and circumstances in the light of the said principles while determining the market value for the purpose of awarding the compensation. Division Bench of This Court in the case of Bai Mani v. State reported in 1984 (2) XXV (2) GLR 1229 has held that there are two factors which the Court must bear in mind before the Court determines about the appropriate deduction which the Court should make from the basic price established in respect of the lands under acquisition. The guidelines for deduction from the price of similar plots while taking into account as comparable sale instances, This Court has held that there will be a deduction of 33% from the value of similar plots for determining the market value of the land under acquisition. Similar view is taken by This Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Devji Bechar .
23. In view of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and while viewed in the aforesaid legal scenario, we are unable to uphold the contentions raised by the learned Government Pleader Mr. Trivedi. It cannot be contended that the additional amount of compensation of Rs. 11.50 per sq. mt. granted by the trial Court is in any way excessive. The trial Court has relied on the relevant sale instances while enhancing the market value from Rs. 3.50 per sq. mt. awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs. 15/- per sq. mt. in all cases under Reference. There is nothing on record which would warrant the interference of This Court with the impugned awards passed by the trial Court. Not only that the evidence of the claimants is weighty and acceptable but the contentions of the claimants arc also reinforced by the evidence of the opponent-State. The opponent-State has relied on the evidence of only one witness, that is, Prabhatsinh Chauhan, at Ex. 99. We have carefully gone through the entire evidence and especially the evidence of the sand witness, Prabhatsinh Chauhan. The following points are succinctly established by the evidence; of the witness, Prabhatsinh Chauhan, who happened to be a Talati-cum-Mantri of village Samarkha since four years before he deposed:
1. The lands under acquisition at village Samarkha are irrigated lands and they are fertile.
2. There are as many as 81 wells with electric motors.
3. There is Mahi Canal facility since more than 25 years.
4. The lands are of Goraji and Kyari category which are high quality Lands
5. The population of the said village was 16,449 at the relevant time.
6. 2 to 3 crops are easily taken by the farmers of village Samarkha.
7. Co-operative society facility is available for the fertilizers, etc.
8. There is a Nagar Panchayat.
9. There are schools, street lights with pakka roads.
10. The farmers of the said village are progressive.
11. The lands are hardly at a distance of 1 Km. from the Bombay-Ahmedabad Highway.
The aforesaid facts are emerging from the evidence of the sole witness of the opponent-State, who is examined, at Ex. 99, and these facts are running counter to the contentions raised on behalf of the State.
24. The learned trial Court Judge has also given anxious thought to the oral evidence of the 7 witnesses and the documentary evidence produced on record. After having examined the viva voce and the documentary evidence, the learned trial Court Judge has rightly reached to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 15 per sq. mt. by way of compensation for the lands which are acquired. In our opinion, the conclusion reached by the trial Court is justified. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the awards under challenge are excessive.
25. With regard to the cross-objections, it may be mentioned that the claimants have claimed an additional amount of Rs. 5 per sq. mt. by way of compensation over and above the amount of Rs. 15 per sq. mt. awarded by the trial Court. The claimants in this connection have relied on the documentary evidence produced at Exhs. 74 to 96 and the oral evidence of 7 witnesses. The trial Court has considered the evidence led by the claimants and has reached to the correct conclusion that die claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs. 15 per sq. mt. by way of compensation for the lands which are acquired. The material facts and the relevant principles and the guidelines governing the amount of compensation under the Act are considered while determining the amount of compensation. We do not find any justification in the contention that the amount of compensation of Rs. 15 per sq. mt. awarded by the trial Court is inadequate or insufficient.
26. The claimants have placed reliance on die documentary evidence which can be conveniently tabulated as follows:
------------------------------------------------------
Sr. Ex. Survey No. Date Price per
No. No. sq. mt
1 2 3 4 5
------------------------------------------------------
1 74 737 & 738 19-1-1989 Rs. 18.53
2 75 823 plots
Nos. 11 & 12 23-5-1987 Rs. 15.50
3 76 823A 31-3-1987 Rs. 38.09
4 77 1476/2 15-1-1985 Rs. 25.00
5 78 1476/2 3-5-1983 Rs. 20.00
6 79 1476/2 3-6-1982 Rs. 20.00
7 80 1476/2 3-6-1982 Rs. 20.00
8 81 1476/2 4-4-1983 Rs. 20.00
9 82 1476/2 30-4-1982 Rs. 20.01
10 83 1476/2 30-6-1982 Rs. 20.00
11 84 826 30-9-1981 Rs. 30.15
12 85 826 30-9-1981 Rs. 30.15
13 86 826 22-9-1981 Rs. 30.15
14 87 428/1 19-2-1985 Rs. 33.78
15 96 1802/1 18-7-1986 Rs. 2.1.42
The market value of die land under acquisition is required to be considered at die time of me publication of notification under Section 4 of die Act. The notification in die present case was common which was published on 29-9-1986. The sale instances relied on at Sr. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are pertaining to die years of 1987 and 1989 and, therefore, they are rightly excluded from me consideration by me trial Court. There is no dispute about the fact mat die sale instances at Sr. Nos. 4 to 14 produced at Exhs. 77 to 87 are pertaining to die lands which were not exclusively and fully agricultural lands whereas the lands under acquisition in question are agricultural lands. No doubt, those sale instances at Exhs. 77 to 87 would assume importance only in me absence of comparable sale instances on record. So is not the case. It is also not in dispute that the sale instance at Sr. No. 15 in die aforesaid table, which is produced at Ex. 96, in respect of Section No. 1802/1 is comparable one and very near to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. That transaction at Ex. 96, took place on 18-7-1986 whereas notification under Section 4 of the Act is dared 29-9-1986. Thus, this sale instance is within the proximity of 3 months period. It is situated in the same village-Samarkha. Again, it is in respect of agricultural land.
27. In view of the aforesaid sale instance produced at EX. 96 dated 18-7-1986, the market value of the land was assessed and paid at Rs. 21.42 Ps. This instance is rightly relied on by the claimants. However, that sale transaction is in respect of a small parcel of agricultural land and most of the agricultural lands under acquisition are larger agricultural parcels of land. Therefore, obviously, appropriate deduction is required to be made for the purpose of comparing the value of the land. It cannot be gainsaid that the principle of valuation of lands not to value large areas of land on the basis of sales of small areas without making suitable deductions from sale price of small plots of land on account of the largeness of the size of the plot or area has been settled. This principle is very welt explored and established. This Court in the case of Fabrics Pvt. Ltd v. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (1971) XII GLR 319 has held that it would not be proper to adopt a dogmatic or doctrinaire approach in the matter of determination of the amount of compensation for the lands under acquisition. It is further held in the said decision that while evaluating a large plot of land by reference to the sale instance of a small plot of laud, several factors must enter into account and no definite rule can be laid down as to the exact extent of deduction to be made. The principle enunciated in that case is also followed by us in the case of State of Gujarat v. Devji Bechar . Under these circumstances, the amount of Rs. 21.42 per sq. mt. paid in the sale instance at Ex. 96 is required to be deducted appropriately so as to determine the market value in respect of lands under acquisition as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. la the facts and circumstances emerging from the record, in our opinion. 3.3% of the value of land assessed in sale transaction at Ex. 96 at Rs. 21.42 per sq, mt. will be reasonable and appropriate for determining the value of land under acquisition. If the sales price of Rs 21.42 per sq. rat. as per sale instance at Ex. 96 is sliced down by 33% then it would be very near to the amount of Rs. 15 per sq. mt. as assessed and fixed by the learned trial Court Judge. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the amount of compensation assessed and determined at Rs. 15 per sq. mt. by the learned trial Court Judge cannot he said to be either insufficient or inadequate or excessive or luxurious.
28. After having examined the entire conspectus of the testimonial and documentary collections, we arc of the opinion that the amount of compensation assessed and determined at Rs. 15 per sq. mt. in all the cases under Reference under Section 18 of the Act by the learned trial Court Judge is just and reasonable and we find no any reason whatsoever to interfere with the said awards declared under the common judgment. Nothing has been successfully pointed out which would call for the interference of This Court in this group of 43 appeals and the cross-objections in all the appeals. No illegality to spelt out. No irregularity is pointed out. There is no misreading or misappreciation of evidence.
29. In the result, the awards under challenge in this group of 45 appeals and the cross-objections are required to be dismissed. Therefore, all the 43 appeals and also the cross-objections in all the appeals are, hereby, dismissed with no order as to costs and the impugned awards passed by the trial Court are confirmed.