Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. With regard to the other document viz., Ex.A-1, wherein, an extent of 7 cents comprised in S. No.722/1 was sold at Rs.25,500/-, which would work out to Rs.3,400/- per cent, the learned Additional Advocate General would point out that the said transaction was in respect of an approved plot and that further more, on the face of it, it is evident that the said property should have been sold for a fancy price.

7. With reference to the document Ex.C-1 whereunder an extent of 11.5 cents comprised in S. No.751/2 was sold for a sum of Rs.16,777.65, which would work out to Rs.1458/- per cent, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that it was a sale in respect of an approved plot. According to him, it is common knowledge that approved plots will fetch a very high price compared to unapproved plots, like the acquired lands.

9. According to the leaned counsel for the claimants, even way back in the year 1983, under Ex.A-1, an extent of 7 cents was sold for a sum of Rs.25,500/-, which would work out to Rs.3400/- per cent, and these lands abut the acquired land on the north. In the absence of any claim made by the Revenue that the said property was sold for a fancy price, the Court may not ignore that sale simply because what was sold was an approved plot. When an unapproved plot is sold, at best, it may fetch some amount less than what an approved plot would fetch. Similarly, it is contended that the Court cannot just brush aside Ex.C-1, wherein an extent of 11.5 cents comprised in S. No.751/2, which is also a land in an adjoining Survey Number on the west, on the ground that it is an approved plot. In fact, according to the learned counsel, the Reference Court ought to have awarded more compensation and that being so, no interference is called for by this Court.