GAFAR AND ORS.versusMORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.

A                               GAF AR AND ORS.
                                          v.
            MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.

                                 AUGUST 17, 2007

B               [P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]


          land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4 and 18-land Acquisition-
    1n villages Harthala, Mukkarrabpur and Sonakpur-Compensation-Award
C   of-Enhancement by Reference Court-Set aside by High Court and restoration
    of award by land Acquisition Officer-Interference with-Held: lnt{!rjerence
    not called for since claimant did not establish their case for enhancement of
    compensation-There was absence ofevidence to justify the claim-Reference
    Court failed to give any adequate or tenable reasons for enhancement-LAO
    assessed compensation on basis of evidence of comparable sale of lands in
D   the locality, thus, was generous in. his award.

          In terms of Land Acquisition Notifications, most of the lands in village
    Harthala, Mukkarrabpur and Sonakpur were acquired at the instance of the
    Development Authority. Land owners were awarded compensation. In respect
    of lands in village Harthala, Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation
E   at Rs. 80 per square meter. Reference Court enhanced the co~pens&tion to
    Rs. 270 per square meter. In respect ofVillage Mukkarrabpur, LAO awarded
    Rs. 17.05, Rs. 117/-, Rs. 170/- and Rs. 92.59 per square meter and Reference
    Court enhanced the same to Rs.192/-, Rs.350/- and Rs..350 per square meter.
    In respect of village Sonakpur, LAO awarded Rs. 11.59 and Rs. 22 per square
F   meter and the Reference Court enhanced it to Rs. 290 and in the range of         :;.
    Rs. 350 to Rs. 390 per square meter respectively. However, High Court set
    aside the awards of Reference Court and resto~ed the awards made by Land
    Acquisition Offi~er. Hence the present appeals.

          Appellant-land owners with regard to lands in Harthala village,
G   contended that the High Court misdirected itself into thinking t~at sale
    instances of small plots had no evidentiary value or were not relevant in
    determining the compensation due for larger extents o'r lands; that the
    Awarding Officer ignored the transactions involving sales of land in acres or
    of larger extents, without giving adequate reasons except vaguely stating that

H                                        32
               GAFAR v. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                       33
they were distantly located; ihat those sale instances would have provided a        A
basis for assessing the compensation due in respect of the acquired lands
subject to adjustments for the distance or other disadvantages or advantages
compared to the acquired lands; that the sale deed relied on by Awarding
Officer was in respect of sale of a portion of his property by a seller which
had an extent of only 100 square meters and the price fetched was only Rs.          B
80 per square meter; that the evidence of P.W.1 showed that the lands involved
were agricultural lands and did not have any electricity or other facilities
available; and that some of the sale instances indicate that the prices were
only in the range of Rs. 11 per square meter up to Rs. 27 per square meter.

      Dismissing the appeals, the Court                                             c
      HELD: 1.1. The burden is on the claimants to establish that the amounts
awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Officer are inadequate and that they
are entitled to more. That burden nad to be discharged by the claimants and
only if the initial burden in that behalf was discharged, the burden shifted to
the State to justify the award. The Reference Court could not give any adequate     D
or tenable reasons for adopting the value it did. No evidence was dearly or
properly discussed to justify a finding that the claimants had made out a case
for enhancement of compensation. High Court held that it appears that on the
materials available, even the amount awarded by the Awarding Officer was on
the high side since he adopted the sale instance of a small extent of land and      E
applied it to the larger extents that had been acquired under these notifications
even without any deduction. The submission that it is not as if sale instances
of small extents had to be completely ignored, does not lead the claimants far.
In any event, it cannot be held that the High Court was in error in not relying
on sale instances of small extents in assessing the compensation payable.
                                                 (Paras 8 and 9) (40-E, F, G, DJ
                                                                                    F

       1.2. The sale instances referred to by Reference Court are all instances
of sale of developed lands and the further discussion is about the use to which
the authority intended to put the land that was being acquired, which obviously
was an element which had to be discarded while determining the compensation         G
for the lands acquired. Therefore, it is clear on the facts of the case that the
Reference Court was not justified in granting the enhancement of land value
to the claimants. (Para 10) (40-G, H; 41-AI

      1.3. With re.gard to interference with the decision of the High Court
holding that the amount awarded by the Awarding Officer itself is more than         H
adequate compensatinn, it is relevant to notice that some of the similarly
                                                                                       -~.

    34                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A   situated land owners whose lands were covered by the same Notification were
    content to receive Rs. 100 per square meter towards compensation by filing
    affidavits in that behalf before the concerned authority. No attempt was made
    to show by the claimants that they received those amounts not under their
    free will but under coercion or in view of any other cir:cumstance, which
B   compelled them to receive compensation at that rate. The normal inference
    would be that they received the amounts since they found it proper
    compensation for their lands. Surely, that fact would furnish some evidentiary
    value regarding the market value of the lands in the locality. Furthermore,
    some of the sale deeds at the approximate point of time relating to agricultural
    lands indicated sales even at Rs. 11 per square meter.
C                                                         (Para 11) (41-B, C, D, E)

          1.4. The Awarding Officer took note of a sale deed, which was at a time
    proximate to the date of notifications in these cases and it related to a piece
    of land, though a small extent, which was not distant from the acquired lands,
D   to borrow the language of the Awarding Officer. There is some force in the
    stand adopted by the High Court that the Awarding Officer himself had been
    generous in his award. (Para 12) (41-E, Fl

          1.5. On such appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case as
    a whole, the sum of Rs. 80 per square meter awarded as compensation in these
E   cases is just compensation paid to the land owners. Once it is found the
    compensation to be just, there arises no occasion for this Court to interfere
    with the decision of the High Court restoring the award of the Land Acquisition
    Officer relating to lands in Village Harthala. (Para 12) (42-BJ

           2. In respect of the lands at Mukkarrabpur, the claim for enhancement
F   was allowed by the Reference Court in spite of the finding that the evidence
    of P. Ws. 1 and 2 adduced on behalf of the claimants was unreliable. It also
    found that the two sale deeds relied on by the claimant in support of the claim
    for enhancement were also not comparable or reliable and that it has not been
    shown that the lands involved therein were comparable to the lands acquired.
G   In spite of it, the Reference Court granted an enhancement only based on its
    award in a Land Acquisition case. The award in that case was set aside by the
    High Court. Hence, the award of the Reference Court in the case on hand
    became untenable. Once no reliance could be placed on that award to enhance
    the compensation, it is clear that even on the finding of the Reference Court,
H   no claim for enhancement had been made out by the claimants. In that
    situation, the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the award of the
               GAFAR v. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                      35
Reference Court and in restoring the award of the Land Acquisition Officer.        A
The lands were agricultural lands being used for cultivation and even the
method ofvaluing it on the basis of price per square meter does not appear to
be justified. All the same, the award has adopted that method and the State
cannot go back on it In the absence of any acceptable legal evidence to support
the claim for enhancement, no grounds are made out for interference with
the decision of the High Court in the appeals relating to village Mukkarrabpur.    B
                                                    (Para 14] (42-C, D, E, F, GJ

      3.1. Regarding the acquisition of lands in Village Sonakpur, in spite of
the lands being recorded as agricultural lands, the Reference Court proceeded
to award compensation on the basis that the lands are 'Abadi lands'. Other         C
than the oral evidence of certain witnesses, which, cannot form the foundation
for any enhancement, what was relied on was the award made in some other
cases. The documents produced were not shown to be sale of lands comparable
to the lands acquired. The Reference Court proceeded to enhance the
compensation to Rs. 290/- per square meter without any acceptable legal
evidence in support. The High Court found that there was no basis for              D
enhancement and that the claimants had not been able to show that the Land
Acquisition Officer did not award the proper compensation. The High Court
was right in proceeding on the basis that the burden was on the claimants to
prove their claim for enhancement. Thus, the High Court took the view based
on the materials, that it was a fit case where the award of the Land Acquisition   E
Officer should be restored. (Para 15) (42-H; 43-A, B, C]

      3.2. Normally, in an appeal against the award of compensation by the
High Court, this Court interferes only ifthere has been a misapplication of
any principle of assessing compensation. Regarding the lands in Sonakpur,
it cannot. be said that the High Court committed any error in principle            F
justifying interference under Article 136 of Constitution of India.
                                                         (Para 16) (43-D, El

      4. Assessment of compensation for lands acquired involves an amount
of gue~ work, no doubt, based on the evidence available regarding comparable
sale of lands in the locality and so on. Thus, the finding that the Awarding       G
Officer had been generous in his award of compensation in all the instant
cases is accepted. (Para 17) (43-FI

     Ravinder Narain and Anr. v. Union of India, (2003) 4 S.CC 481 and
Thakur Kanta Prasad Singh (dead) by LRs. v. State ofBihar, AIR (1976) SC
                                                                                   H
     36                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2007) 9 S.C.R.
                                                                                         ....
A 2219, referred to.
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5355 of2006.

           From the Final Order dated 3.3.2004 of the High Court of Judicature at
    · Allahabad in F.A. No.253/1997.
B
                                          WITH

           Civil Appeal Nos. 5356-8 I, 5383, 5390, 5392, 5393, 5396, 5398,-541l,5413-
     16, 5418, 5420, 5422-25, 5427, 5430, 5431, 5433-35, 5437-43, 5447, 5449-51, 5453,
     5454,5456,5458-91,5497,5498,5503,5505,5509,5510,5512-22,5524,5527,
C    5531, 5532, 5534-68, 5630, 5575, 5577-83, 5585-90 of2006.

           Sunil Gupta, Jatin Zaveri and Raju Sultan for the appellants.

         A.Sharan ASG, K. Ramamurti, Ajay K. Agrawal, Anamika Agrawal, Alka
    Agrawal, M.P. Shorawala, Vipin K. Saxena, Jyoti Saxena, Shashi Kiran, Amit
D. Anand Tiwari, P. Narasimhan, Punit Dutt Tyagi, T. Mahipal, Reema Singh,
  · Abha R. Sharma, Syed Ali Ahmad, Syed Tanweer Ahmed, S. S. Bandyopadhyay,
    Mohd. Shahnawaz, S. Raja Ahmad, Shabana Saifi, Mohan Pandey and K.C.
    Dua, for the Respondents.

          S. Wasim A. Qadd, Kamlendra Mishra and Rajeev Dubey for the State
E    ofU.P.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered

           P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. I. These appeals involve the correctness
     of the determination of the compensation payable to the land owners in
F    acquisitions under the Land Acquisition Act at the instance ofthe Moradabad
     Development Authority in respect of the lands comprised in three villages,
     Harthala, Mukkarrabpur and Sonakpur. The Notification under Section 4(1) of
     the Act in respect of most of the lands in Harthala village was issued in the
     month of March, 1990 and in respect of one block of lands on 13.9.1991. The
G    Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award determined the compensation
     at Rs. 80 per square meter. This was enhanced to Rs. 270 per square meter
     on references made under Section 18 of the Act. On appeals, the High Court
     set aside the enhancement given by the Reference Court and restored the
     award made by the Land Acquisition Officer. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the
     land owners have come up with most of these appeals.
H
   GAFAR v. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 37


       2. In respect of village Mukkarrabpur, the Notifications were dated         A
18.9.1982, 18.7.1984 and 16.8.1991. Under Awards, Rs.17.05, Rs. l 17/-, Rs.170/
- and Rs.92.59 per square meter were awarded, which were enhanced to
Rs. l 92/-, Rs.350/- and Rs. 350 per square meter by the Reference Court. The
High Court set aside the awards of the Reference Court and restored the
awards of the Collector. Hence, the appeals relating to the acquisition of land    B
in village Mukkarrabpur by some of the land owners.

      3. In respe~t of village Sonakpur, the Notifications were dated 4.5.1982
and 13.3.1990. In the Award, lands valued at Rs.l l.59 and Rs.22 per square
meter were respectively· awarded. These were enhanced to Rs.290 and to
between Rs.350 to Rs.390 per square meter by the Reference Court. On appeal,       C
the decision of the Reference Court was set aside and the awards of the
Collector were restored. Hence, those appeals by land owners relating to the
lands in village Sonakpur.

       4. We shall first deal with the appeals relating to acquisitions of lands
in village Harthala. In respect of these lands, as noticed, the award was at the   D
rate of Rs.80 per square meter and the same was enhanced to Rs. 270 per
square meter by the Reference Court. Taking the view that the claimants have
not established a case for enhancement of compensation from that awarded
by the Land Acquisition Officer, and that the award of the Land Acquisition
Officer was itself at a higher rate than justified, the High Court set aside the
decision of the Reference Court and restored the award made by the Land            E
Acquisition Officer observing that in view of Section 25 of the Act, the State
could not seek a reduction of the compensation below that awarded by the
Awarding Officer. While passing the award, the Awarding Officer scrutinised
the various sale deeds from the concerned Sub-Registry covering a period of
three years upto the date of the notification under Section 4( I) of the Ac~.      F
It was found that 19 sale deeds have been registered in respect of lands in
that area. Of these, the sales were mostly in acres and not in square yards
or square meters. In other words, the prices were reckoned on the basis of
acres and not on the basis of square meters. The Awarding Officer found that
the per square meter rate in 12 sale deeds were very less. Giving the reason
that they relate to lands located at a distance, but without specifying how        G
distant, the Land Acquisition Officer brushed aside these sale deeds on the
ground that the lands were situated at quite a far distance from the acquired
lands. Regarding certain other sale deeds which were proximate to the date
of notification, the Awarding Officer found that the rates ranged between Rs.
l .83 per square meter to Rs. 28.39 per square meter and that in one sale deed,    H
    38                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A the value was shown at Rs. 17 per square meter. It was conceded that these
    lands were not at a far distance from the acquired lands. But it was stated
    by the Awarding Officer that it did not appear justifiable for him to adopt
    these rates. For what reason, it was not disclosed. We must say that the
    approach of the Awarding Officer in rejecting these sale instances is open to
B   very serious criticism. The least that was expected of him, was for him to give
    cogent and sustainable reasons for discarding these sale instances. He
    thereafter proceeded to rely upon a sale deed dated 25. I 0.1989 under which
    one Ramshankar Tandon sold I 00 square meters to one Usha Thama for Rs.
    8,000/- From this, he found that the land value came to Rs. 80 per square
    meter. He only noticed that the sale was in respect of a piece of land which
C   was near the lands acquired. He did not otherwise undertake a comparison
    of the lands. He thus based his award on this sale deed and adopted th'e rate
    therein even without making any deduction in view of the fact that the sale
    related only to a small extent of I 00 square meters of land.

          5. It appears that the acquisition was by invocation of the urgency
D   clause under Section 17(1) of the Act and possession was taken. There was
    some delay in distributing the compensation. Some of the land owners whose
    lands had been acquired had agreed to receive Rs. I 00 per square meter as
    compensation for their lands acquired under these notifications. The Awarding
    Officer took note of that fact also while making the award. He thus awarded
E   for lands in class-I category, compensation at Rs. 80 per square meter and for
    class-III category at the rate of Rs.8 per square meter.

           6. Before the Reference Court, certain sale deeds were produced at the
     instance of the claimants and one witness P.W. I was examined. On behalf
    of the State, D. W. I was examined and a group sketch was produced. From
p   the evidence of P. W. I, it became clear that the lands acquired were agricultural
     lands and that agricultural operations were being carried on in them. There
     was no electricity connection or pucca road in the land. Though certain sale
    deeds were produced, the Reference Court did not advert to the nature of the
    lands involved in them and examine whether they were bona.fide transactions,
    whether they related to comparable lands and whether the prices indicated
G   therein could form the basis for award of compensation in respect of the
    acquired lands. Though, he noticed that the burden was on the claimants to
    establish that they were entitled to enhancement of compensation and the
    quantum of such enhancement, the Reference Court did not indicate how in
    its view, the claimants had discharged that burden and how the sale deeds
H   relied on provided a proper guide for enhancing the compensation. The
   GAF AR v. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.) 39


Reference Court noticed that the sale instances produced before the Court             A
related to developed lands with various facilities which the acquired lands
lacked and it was stated that the values therein could not be adopted, and
that a reduction of35 to 60% from the values shown was justified. We would
have expected the Reference Court to be more specific in dealing with such
an aspect. It was expected to discuss each of those sale instances, compare
the lands contained therein with those that were involved in the acquisition,         B
with reference to the advantages and disadvantages, the extents, the nature
of the land, the facilities available and other relevant matters before determining
what would be the just compensation payable to the land owners in the
present acquisition. We must say that no such attempt had been made by the
Reference Court and its reasoning smacks of special pleading. The Reference           C
Court concluded that Rs. 270 per square meter would be the compensation
payable and enhanced the compensation to that extent.

       7. The High Court referred to the decision of this Court which indicated
that the burden was on the claimants to establish that the compensation
awarded to them by the Award was not adequate and held that viewed fr.om              D
that angle, the claimants have failed to establish any claim for enhancement.
In fact, the High Court was inclined to find that even the sum of Rs. 80 per
square meter awarded by the Awarding Officer was on the high side or
excessive, but since Section 25 of the Act precluded the State from questioning
it, it was held that the argument of learned counsel on behalf of the State in        E
that behalf could not be accepted. It was thus that the High Court set aside
the decision of the Reference Court and restored the award made by the
Awarding Officer. The question is whether this decision of the High Court
calls for any interference.

      8. Learned Senior Counsel and other learned counsel appearing in the F
appeals relating to the lands in Harthala argued that the High Court has
misdirected itself into thinking that sale instances of small plots had no
evidentiary value or are not relevant in determining the compensation due for
larger extents of lands. It was also pointed out that though the extent as a
whole may be large, the ownership was several and that fact also could not
be forgotten especially when the test is to see what a willing buyer was G
willing to give and willing purchaser was willing to receive. Various decisions
were brought to our notice and particular emphasis was placed on the decision
in Ravinder Narain & Anr. v. Union of India, [2003] 4 S.C.C. 481, wherein it
was held that there was no absolute prohibition in taking note of the rates
fixed for sale of smaller plots and making it the basis for fixation of H
    40                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2007) 9 S.C.R.

A compensation for larger extents. There cannot be any quarrel with the
    proposition that there is no absolute prohibition. But the fact· remains that
    normally, when larger extents are involved in an acquisition, it will be. more
    prudent to rely on sale deeds of larger extents and not to base the assessment
    of the compensation on values fetched at sales of small extents. In this case,
B   transactions involving sales of land in acres or of larger extents were simply
    ignored by the Awarding Officer without giving adequate reasons for such
    exclusion except vaguely stating that they were distantly located. Even those
    sale instances would have provided a basis for assessing the compensation
    due in respect of the acquired lands subject to adjustments for the distance
    or other disadvantages or advanta.ses compared to the acquired lands. The
C   basic sale deed relied on by the Awarding Officer was in respect of sale of
    a portion of his property by a seller which had an extent of only IOO square
    meters and even there, the price fetched was only Rs. 80 per square meter.
    The evidence of P. W. I shows that the lands involved were agricultural lands
    and did not have any electricity or other facilities available. In fact, some of
    the sale instances indicate that the prices were only at the range of Rs. I I
D   per square meter up to Rs.27 per square meter. On the facts of this case, we
    are of the view that the contention that it is not as if sale instances of small
    extents had to be completely ignored, does not lead the claimants far. In any
    event, it cannot be held that the High Court was in error in not relying on
    sale instances of small extents in assessing the compensation payable.
E
          9. As held by this Court in various decisions, the burden is on the
    claimants to establish that the amounts awarded to them by the Land
    Acquisition Officer are inadequate and that they are entitled to more. That
    burden had to be discharged by the claimants and only if the initial burden
    in that behalf was discharged, the burden shifted to the State to justify the
F   award. The Reference Court, in our view, could not give any adequate or
    tenable reasons for adopting the value it did. No evidence was clearly or
    properly discussed to justify a finding that the claimants had made out a case
    for enhancement of compensation. As observed by the High Court, it appears
    that on the materials available, even the amount awarded by the Awarding
G   Officer was on the high side since he adopted the sale instance of a small
    extent of land and applied it to the larger extents that had been acquired under
    these notifications even without any deduction.

          I 0. The sale instances referred to by the Reference Court are all instances
    of sale of developed lands and the further discussion is about the use to
H   which the authority intended to put the land that was being acquired, which
   GAF AR v. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 4J

obviously was an element which had to· be discarded wh!le determining the         A.
compensation for the lands acquired. It is therefore clear on the facts of this
case that the Reference Court was not justified in granting the enhancement
of land value to the claimants.

       11. Then the question is whether we should still interfere with the
decision of the High Court holding that the amount awarded by the Awarding        B
Officer itself is more than adequate compensation. Though not conclusive,
the fact remains that some of the similarly situated land owners were content
to receive Rs. 100 per square meter towards compensation by filing affidavits
in that behalf before the concerned authority. Considerable time was spent by
learned Senior Counsel on arguing whether that came under Section 11(2) or        C
Section 11(3) of the Act. We find that it is not necessary to undertake the
exercise of deciding that aspect in these appeals. But what is relevant is to
notice that at least a set of claimants similarly situated whose lands were
covered by the same notification were content to receive Rs. l 00 per square
meter towards compensation. No attempt was made to show by the claimants
that they received those amounts not under their free will but under coercion     D
or in view of any other circumstance, which compelled them to receive
compensation at that rate. The normal inference would be that they received
the amounts since they found it proper compensation for their lands. Surely,
that fact would furnish some evidentiary value regarding the market value of
the lands in the locality. It must be remembered that .Jome of the sale deeds     E
at the approximate point of time relating to agricultural lands indicated sales
even at Rs. 11 per square meter.

        12. We find that the Awarding Officer had taken note of a sale deed,
which was at a time proximate to the date of notifications in these cases and
it related to a piece of land, though a small extent, which was not distant from F
the acquired lands, to borrow the language of the Awarding Officer. We are
inclined to see some force in the stand adopted by the High Court that the.
Awarding Officer himself had been generous in his award. Since he has
adopted such a rate, the question is whether this Court should interfere with
the decision of the High Court restoring that Award or award any further
compensation. The scope of interference by this Court was delineated by the G
decision in Thakur Kanta Prasad Singh (dead) by L.Rs. v. State of Bihar,
A.LR. (1976) S.C. 2219, wherein this Court held that there was an element of
guess work inherent in most cases involving determination of the market
value of the acquired land. If the judgment of the High Court revealed that
it had taken into consideration the relevant factors prescribed by the Act, in H
                                                                                      -+

    42                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2007] 9 S.C.R.

A appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution of India, assessment of market
    value thus made should not be disturbed by the Supreme Court. For the
    purpose of deciding whether we should interfere, we have taken note of the
    position adopted by the Awarding Officer, the stand adopted by the Reference
    Court and the relevant aspects discussed by the High Court. On such
B   appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case as a whole, we are
    of the view that the sum of Rs. 80 per square meter awarded as compensation
    in these cases is just compensation paid to the land owners. Once we have
    thus found the compensation to be just, there arises no occasion for this
    Court to interfere with the decision of the. High Court restoring the award of
    the Land Acquisition Officer.
c        13. In view of our conclusion as above, all the appeals relating to
    Harthala have only to be dismissed.

           14. In respect of the lands at Mukkarrabpur, the claim for enhancement
    was allowed by the Reference Court in spite of the finding that the evidence
D   of P. Ws. l and 2 adduced on behalf of the claimants was unreliable. It also
    found that the two sale deeds relied on by the claimant in support of the claim
    for enhancement were also not comparable or reliable in the light of the
    evidence of the claimant himself and that it has not been shown that the lands
    involved therein were comparable to the lands acquired. In spite of it, the
    Reference Court granted an enhancement only based on its award in L.A.R.
E   No. 134of1988 and on that basis the award was made at Rs. 192/- per square
    meter. Obviously, the award in L.A.R. No. 134 of 1988 was set aside by the
    High Court. Hence, the award of the Reference Court in the case on hand
    became untenable. Once no reliance could be placed on that award to enhance
    the compensation, it is clear that even on the finding of the Reference Court,         >·
p   no claim for enhancement has been made out by the claimants. In that
    situation, the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the award of the
    Reference Court and in restoring the award of the Land Acquisition Officer.
    We may incidentally notice that the lands were agricultural lands being used
    for cultivation and even the method of valuing it on the basis of price per
    square meter does not appear to be justified. All the same, the award has
G   adopted that method and the State cannot go back on it. In the absence of
    any acceptable legal evidence to support the claim for enhancement, no
    grounds are made out for interference with the decision of the High Court in
    the appeals relating to village Mukkarrabpur.

          15. Same is the position regarding the acquisition of lands in Village
H
        GAF AR v. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J .] 43

     Sonakpur. The award was at Rs. 11.59 and Rs.22 per square meter respectively.      A
     They were enhanced to Rs. 290 per square meter and to Rs.350/- to Rs.390/
     - by the Reference Court. In spite of the lands being recorded as agricultural
     lands, the Reference Court proceeded to award compensation on the basis
     that the lands are 'Abadi lands'. Other than the oral evidence of certain
     witnesses, which, according to us, cannot form the foundation for any              B
     enhancement, what was relied on was the awards made in some other cases.
     The documents produced were not shown to be sale of lands comparable to
     the lands acquired. The Reference Court proceeded to enhance the
     compensation to Rs. 290/- per square meter without any acceptable legal
     evidence in support. The High Court found that there was no basis for
     enhancement and that the claimants had not been able to show that the Land         C
     Acquisition Officer did not award the proper compensation. The High Court
     was obviously right in proceeding on the basis that the burden was on the
     claimants to prove their claim for enhancement. The High Court thus took the
     view based on the materials, that it was a fit case where the award of the Land
     Acquisition Officer should be restored.
                                                                                        D
           16. We find on a scrutiny of the relevant materials in the light of the
     arguments raised that it cannot be said that the High Court has either made
     an erroneous approach to the claim for enhancement of compensation or that
     it has so erred as to warrant our interference under Article 136 of the
     Constitution of India. Normally, in an appeal against the award of compensation    E
     by the High Court, this Court interferes only if there has been a misapplication
     of any principle of assessing compensation. In the case before us regarding
     the lands in Sonakpur, we are not satisfied that any error in principle has been
     committed by the High Court justifying our interference.

          17. After all, assessment of compensation for lands acquired involves         p
     an amount of guess work, no doubt, based on the evidence available regarding
     comparable sale of lands in the locality and so on. Viewed from that angle,
     we are in agreement with the finding that the Awarding Officer has been
     generous in his award of compensation in all these cases.

           18. In the light of our above conclusion, no interference is called for      G
     with the decisions of the High Court in these cases. We confirm the decisions
>-   of the High Court and dismiss these appeals. We make no order as to costs.

     NJ.                                                       Appeals dismissed.