LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, ELURU ETC.versusSMT. JASTI ROHINI AND ANR. ETC.

A                LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, ELURU ETC.
                                    v.
                     SMT. JASTI ROHINI AND ANR. ETC.

                               OCTOBER 27, 1994

B             [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

         Land Acquisition Act, 1894- Section 23 (1)- Determination of
    compensation- Fixation of market value on basis of basic valuation
    register- Jllegal and unsustainable- Court's consideration should alone
    be confined tp market value prevailing on date of notification u/s 4 (1) -
c   Acquisition of vast area~- Reliance of small extents of land does not furnish
    satisfactory basis for fixation of market value.

        Land Acquisition Act, 1894- Section 23 (1) - Determination of
    compensation- Acquisition of land for providing house sites to poor-
    Lands situated near Municipality- No building activities · in
D   neighbourhood- No rise in market condition- Lands being agricultural
    lands, fixation of market value as agricultural lands is just and fair-
    Notifications 1983 and 1985- Market Value fixed at Rs.65,000 per acre
    and Rs.80,000 per acre respectively.

         Notifiction issued u/s 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the
E   first case was published in the year 1983 for acquiring 9.47 acres to
    provide house sites tp the poor. Agaian, 14.10 acres of land was
    acquired in the second case for the same purpose in the year 1985. The
    Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.40,000 per acre
    in both the cases. On reference, the market value was enhanced. The
    reference court relied upon the Basic Valuation Register maintained
F
    by the municipalities on the basis of the notification issued by the
    Government 11/s 47 A of the Stamp Act. On appeal, the High Court
    further enhanced the market value in respect of land in the second case
    but upheld in the first case the market value of the land at Rs.150 per
    sq. yard. Hence these appeals.
G
      · It was submitted by the claimants that the fixation of market value
    of acquired lands as prevailing in 1983-85 at Rs.150 was not high. In
    the first case claimants had relied upon two sale deeds from the very
    same acquired land. Since the claimants themselves had sold those
    lands to others, they would reflect the market value of lands as
H   prevailing near about the date of acquisition.
                                        232
                 LAND ACQN OFFICER v. JASTI ROHINI                   233

    The question, therefore, was what would be the markt value A
prevailing as on the respective dates of notifications,viz 1983 and 1985.

    Allowing the appeal, this Court

     HELD 1.1 It is settled law that the- market value should be
determined on the hypothesis of the price fetched in the bonafide sale B
by a willing vendor who would agree to sell the lands to a willing
vendee of the acquired land or the land in the neighborhood possessed
of similar features. The notification u/s 47 (A) of the Stamp Act which
is meant to be a guide for collection of revenue cannot form the basis
for determination of market value of the Land under Sec. 23 (1) of the
Land Acquisition Act. (236-C)
                                                                           c
    Jawajee Naqnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, A. P., [1994) 4
sec 595, relied on.
     1.2 While fixing market value, future suitability or adaptability of
the land for any purpose shall not be taken into account. The
compensation must, therefore, be determined by reference to the price D
which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a
willing purchaser as on the date of the notification published u/s 4 (1).
The disinclination of the seller to part with his land and the urgent
necessity of the vendee to purchase the land must, be considered as
acting under compulsion. (236-H, 237-A)
                                                                           E
     1.3 The reasonable method to determine the market value of the
a!!quired land is on the evidence of transactions of bona fide sales of
acquired land, but not on evidence of sales of such land got up having
had knowledge of the proposed acquisition, the former would furnish
 reasonable basis to determine the compensation. In its absence, bona
fide sales but not manipulated sales of the lands in the neighbourhood F
possessed of same or similar quality and having the same or similar
advantages would give an unerring assurance to the Court to determine
just and proper compensation. Such sales must not only be proved but
also be bona fide transactions etc. These factors must be established as a
fact by examining either the vendor or the vandee. Marking of certified
copies of sale deeds are not proof of either the contents or the G
circumstancs in which it came to be executed. Bona fide sale or series of
sales of small pieces of land do not furnish the sole basis to determine
 market value. Bona fide sales may furnish evidence of the market
conditions for consideration. Fixation of market value on the basis of
the basic valuation register is, therefore, illegal and unsustainable.
                                      .                           (237-B-D) H
    234                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS          (1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A       1.4 For an acquisition of a vast area of land, reliance of small
    extents of land does not furnish any satisfactory basis for fixation of the
    market value. (238-A)

        1.5 The lands under acquisition are situated near Municipality.
    The finding recorded by the LAO in the award was that there is no
B   upward trend in the prices. The High Court also accepted the finding of
    the reference court that the lands are interior though about the main
    road. It was also found that there were no developmental activites in
    the neighbourhood as on the date of notificatio~ .. The LAO, therefore,
    rightly treated these lands as agricultural lands. (238-F)

C       Gulzara Singh v. State of Punjab, [1993) 4 SCC 245 and Jnder Singh
    and Ors. v. UO.l [1993) 3 SCC 240, distinguished.

         1.6 In the first case the notification was of the year 1983 and in the
    second case it was of the year 1985. The market value for the lands
    covered in the first case could be determined at Rs. 65,000 per acre and
D   for the lands in the second case the market value could be determined
    at Rs. 80,000 per acre. (24_0-E)

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 8743-45 of
    1994.

E       From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.93 of the Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in A.P.Nos, 497 and 645of1991.

       K.Madhava Reddy, G.Prabhaker and G.Nageswara Reddy for the
    Appellants.

       A. Subba Rao, A.D.N.Rao, Y.B.Tatarao, A.V.Sivaiah, B.Kanta Rao,
F   Ms.Sudha Mathur, B.Rajeshwar Rao and Vimal Dave for the Respondents.

          The follwing Order of the Court was delivered:

          Leave granted.
                                                                                   ...
G        Ir. disposal of the three appeals by this common judgment, we shall
    refer to SLP (C) No. 12300/94 as first case and to SLP (C) Nos.3528-29 as
    second case.

         Notification issued under s.4 (l) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in
    the first case was published on June 16,1983 for acquiring 9.47 acres near
H   Eluru town of West Godavari Dist. of Andhra Pradesh to provide house
                  LAND ACQN OFFICER v. JASTI ROHINI                       235

sites to the poor. Again, 14.10 acres ofland was acquired in the second case     A
for the same purpose by publishing the Notification under s.4 (1) on March
23, 1985. The land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation under s.11 at
Rs. 40,000 per acre in both the cases. On reference, the Sub-ordidnate
Judge, Eluru, enhanced the market value in the first case to Rs.105 per sq.
yard by deducting 30% for developmental charges out of Rs. 150 per sq.
yard fixed as its value, with usual solatium and interest. In the second case,   B
he enhanced to Rs. 70 per sq. yard as claimed by the claimants therein. On
appeal, the High Court, by the impugned separate judgments dated
September 29, 1993 enhanced the market value to Rs. 150 in respect of
land in the second case but he upheld in the first case the market value of
the land at Rs. 150 per ·sq. yard granting the usual solatium and interest.
Thus, these appeals by special leave.                                            C
     We have heard learned counsel on both sides and considered the
reasoning of the High Court and also of the reference court vis-a-vis the
evidence on record. Both the Courts committed manifest error of law. The
main thrust of the arguments for the claimants is that the award of the Civil
Court in Ex.A-3 marked in the second case relating to notification dated         D
January 10, 1977 acquiring 2.17 acres ofland in T.S. No.135 of the nearby
lands, the LAO had awarded at Rs. 8.75 per sq. yd. and the reference court
determined its compensation at Rs. 50 per sq. yd., which was upheld on
appeal by the High Court. The fixation of market value of acquired lands as
prevailing in 1983-85 at Rs. 150 is not high. Claimant also relied upon          E
another award on reference which is the subject matter in the first case and
yet another award Ex.Al2 in O.P. No. 6/85 which is pending in appeal in
the High Court apart from the sale deed Ex. A 10 relied on and accepted by
the High Court in both the cases and Ex. A 16 and 17 in the first case.

     The question, therefore, is what would be the market value prevailing
as on the respective dates of notification. In the first case claimants have F
relied upon two sale deeds Ex. Al6 and 17 sold on February 2, 1983 from
the very same acquired land and claimed to be on the basis of a lay-out said
to have been obtained from the competent authorities. According to the
claimants, it would work out at Rs. 150 per sq. yd. Since the claimants
themselves had sold those lands to others, they would reflect the market G
value to lands as prevailing near about the date of acquisition and could be
of assistance to determine the compensation as on 1983. In the other case,
the claimants relied upon the very same award as also sale deed Ex.A. I 0 in
which the land sold is 120 sq. yd. for a sum of Rs.16,000 working out at
Rs.133 per sq. yd. The reference court relied upon the Basic Valuation
Register maintained by the municipalities on the basis of the notification H
    236                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   issued by the Government under s.47-A of the Stamp Act. In fact, the
    reference court mainly relied upon that documant and awarded
    rompensation on its basis.

         The admissibility and evidentiary value of the entries in the Basic
    Value Register was considered by this Court in Jawajee Nagnatham v.
B   Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P., 1994 (4) SCC 595. After an
    elaborate consideration this Court held that the Basic Value Register is
    maintained only for fiscal purpose of collecting stamp duty and registration
    charges. The market value mentioned therein cannot form a foundation to
    determine the compensation u/s. 23 (l) of the Act. It is settled law that the
    market value should be determined on the hypothesis of the price fetched in
c   the bona fide sale by a willing vendor who would agree to sell the lands to a
    willing vendee of the acquired land or the land in the neighborhood
    possessed of similar features. The notification u/s. 4 7 (A) which is meant to
    be a guide for collection of revenue cannot form the basis for determination
    of market value of the land under s.23 (l) of the Act. The question of
    fixation of market value is a paradox which lies at the heart of the law of
D   compulsory purch&.;e of land. The paradox lies in the facts that the market
    value concept is purely a phenomena evolved by the courts to fix the price
    of land arrived between the hypothical willing buyer and willing seller
    bargaining as prudent persons without a medium of constraints or without
    any extraordinary circumstances. But the condition of free market is the
    very opposite of the condition of the compulsory purchase which is ex-
E   hypothesis, a situation of constraints. Therefore, to say, that for compulsory
    purchase, compensation is to be assessed and market value is to be
    determin·ed in that state of affairs has to be visualised in terms by its direct
    opposite. To solve the riddle, courts have consistently evolved the principle
    that the present value as on the date of the compulsory acquistion
    comprised of all utility reached in a competitive field as on the date of the
F   notification and the price on which a prudent and willing vendor and a
    similar purchaser would agree. The value of the land shall be taken to be
    the amount that the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might
    be expected to realise from a willing purchaser. A willing seller is a person
    who is a free agent to offer his land for sale with all its existing advantages
G   and potentialities as on the date of the sale and willing purchaser taking all
    factors into consideration would offer to purchase the land as on the date of
    the sale. Future suitability or adaptability of the land for any purpose shall
     not be taken into account. The compensation must, therefore, be determined
     by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to
     obtain from a willing purchaser as on the date of the notification published
H    under s.4 (I). The disinclination of the seller to part with his land and the
                  LAND ACQN OFFICER v. JASTI ROHINI                      237

urgent necessity of the vendee to purchase the land must, alike, be A
disregarded and neither of them must be considered as acting under
compulsion.

     Th~ reasonable method to determine the market value of the acquired
land is on the evidence of transactions of bona fide sales of acquired land,
but not on evidence of sales of such land got up having had knowledge of B
the proposed acquisition, the former would furnish reasonable basis to
determine the compensation. In its absence, bona fide sales but not
manipulated sales of the lands in the neighbourhood possessed of same or
similar quality and having the same or similar advantages would give an
unerring assurance to the court to determine just and proper compensation.
Such sales must not only be proved but also be bona fide transactions etc. C
These factors must be established as a fact by examining either the vendor
or the vendee. Marking of certified copies of sale deeds are not proof of
either the contents or the circumstances in which it came to be executed ..
Bona fide sale or series of sales of small pieces of land do not furnish the
sale basis to determine market value. Bona fide sales may furnish evidence
of the market conditions for consideration. Fixation of market value on the D
basis of the basic valuation register is, therefore, illegal and unsustainable.

     Section 24 of the Act puts an embargo on the court that it shall not take
into consid~ration the degree of urgency for the acquisition; disinclination
of the person interested to part with possession of the acquired land; any
increase in the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to E
which it will be put when acquired; any increase to the value of the other
land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land
acquired will be put to; any layout or improvements on or disposal of the
land acquired etc. without the sanction of the Collector or after s.4 (l)
notification was published, special suitability or adaptability of the land for
any purpose or any increase in the value of the land on account of its being F
put to any use which is forbidden of law are opposed to public policy.
Therefore, in determining the market value and fixation of the
compensation, the court should be alive to these factors and keep them at
the back of the mind and should not be influenced by the future or later
development in the locality or neighbourhood and should not get influenced
by the prevailing situation as on the date of the detennination of the G
compensation. Its consideration should alone be confined to the market
value prevailing as on the date of the notification under s.4 (I) .

    The question then is whether the High Court is right to determine
market value on the basis of Ex.A.10 ; reference awards and potential
values as house sites. It is seen that in the first case 9.49 acres of land was H
    238                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   acquired and in the second case 14.10 acres of land was acquired. For an
    acquisition of such, vast area, reliance of small extents of land of 120 sq. yd.
    does not furnish any satisfactory basis for fixation of the market value.
    Ex.A. IO is of a small extent and its value at Rs. 133 per sq. yd. offers no
    assistance. The High Court, therefore, was clearly in error in determining
    the market value solely on the basis of Ex.A. I 0 marked in the second case
B   to determine the market value at enhanced rate of Rs. 150, It is at the height
    of the illegality. The same document was marked in the first case. Ex.A-16
    and Ex.A-17 no doubt relate to the lands under acquisition in the first case.
    It would be obvious that the proposal for acquisition would t ake long time __
    for its taking final shape culminating in the issuance and publication of the
    notification under s.4 (I) . The proposed acquisition would be invariably
c   within the knowledge of the owners of the land. It is apparent from the
    dates of sale that they were not bona fide sales between a willing vendor to
    a willing vendee and price shown in the sale deeds were inflated to boost up
    the market condition for determination of compensation. Ex.A.3, the award
    and decree of the civil court of 1977 acquisition wherin compensation at
    Rs.50 was fixed is also based on the got up sales . These factors were not
D   critically examined either by the Reference court or the High Court. So
    these sales also do not assist the claimants. Equally Ex.A.12 in O.P. No.56
    of 1985 is also based on the basic value register and its foundation is
    knocked of at its bottorri by the decision of this court. For the said reasons
    determination of compensation is vitiated by application of wrong
    principles of law.
E
         When we exclue these documents from consideration, we do not have
    any other evidence except the fact that the lands are situated near Eluru
    Municipality within the master plan prepared for the municipal town. The
    finding recorded by the LAO in the award was that there is no upward trend
    in the prices. The High Court also accepted the finding of the reference
F   court that the lands are interior though abut the main road. It was also found
    that there are no developmental activities in the neighbourhood as on the
    date of notification, the LAO, therefore, treated these lands as agricultural
    lands. In our view, he is right in treating these lands correctly as agricultural
    lands.
G        Shri Tata Rao, the learned Senior counsel for the claimants in the
    second case placed reliance on the judgment .of this Court reported in
    Gulzara Singh v. State of Punjab, [l 993] 4 SCC 245, and contended that
    this Court had accepted the potential value as a basis to determine the
    market value, and accordingly, he contended that the lands being siruated
H   within the municipal limits, have potential value and that therefore, market
                  LAND ACQN OFFICER v. JASTI ROHINI                      239

 value should be detennined on that basis. We find no force in the A
 contention. In fixing the market value on the basis of its potentilllity for use
for building purposes, it must be established by evidence aliunde that the
potential purpose must exitst as on the date of acquisition by other possible
purchasers in the market conditions, prevailing as on the date of the
notification; Existence of constructed house or construction activity in other
similar lands in the locality for the purpose contended for or of purchase for B
such purposes as on the date of proposed acquisition pri"ma facie indicates
that there is demand for and the possibility of the immediate user of the
land and it is a reasonable possibility to infer that the acquired lands also
are possessed of potential value. Therefore, the existence of a demand for
and a market at the time of acquisition for potential use must be established
as a fact from reliable and acceptable evidence to show that if the acquired C
land has been thrown into the market, others would have bought it for the
sepecial purposes or for building activity which would show the demand
for and a market to purchase the land possessed of potential value for the .
purpose of building activity at that time. On proof thereof the land must not ·
be valued as though it has already been built up but the possibility to use for D
building purpose existing as on the date of the notification must be taken
into consideration. The question whether the land has potential value as a
building site or not is primarily one of fact depending upon diverse faciors
as to its conditions, the use to which it is put or is reasonably capable of
being put and its suitability for building purpose. Its proximity to
residential, commercial or industrial area, existence of educational, cultural, E
industrial or commercial institutions, existence of amenities like water,
electricity, drainage and the possibility of future extension in that area, the
existence of or prospects of development schemes, the existencne or
absence of building activities towards the acquired land or in the
neighbourhood thereof are the relevant facts to be taken into consideration
in evaluating the market value on the basis of potential use of the land. It is F
true that an element of guess,in an estimate, would have a play in
determining the market value. But the present value alone falls to be
detennined and feats of imagination should not run riot or travel beyond.its
manifest limits nor be an arbitrary or whim of the court in detennining the
compersation or the fixation of the market value. The existing conditions,
the demand for the land in the neighbourhood and other related and G
relevant facts should be taken into consideration in detennining the
compensation of the basis of potential value of the land. In Gu/zara Singh's
case, it was found that the sale deed Ex.A.9 was a genuine sale deed
between a willing vendor and a willing vendee and it furnished the basis for
detennination of the market value. It was also found that the land was
situated in the developing area and accordingly this Court took those <factors H
    240                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   into consideration, and had fixed the market value on the basjs of potential
    value on existing conditions.
                                                                                       I
         Equally the decision in Inder Singh and Ors. v. UO./., (1993] 3 SCC           t
    240, renders little assistance. In that case also, it was found that abadi land
    fetched Rs.33,600 per acre and they had potential value for development,
B   such as for building houses etc. as in the immediate neighbourhood the
    lands were developed for industrial purpose. Taking those factor, this Court
    had determined the market value of abadi lands at Rs. 42,000 and of other
    barani lands at Rs.38,000 . In view of the nature of lands in that case, this
    court had determined the market value at the rates mentioned therein after
    recording the finding that the land possesed of potential value. In the
c   appeals on hand, if the sale deeds are excluded from consideration, there is
    no other evidence to consider that the lands are possessed of potential value
    for building purposes. Though the acquisition was for providing house sites
    to the poor, there is no building activities in the neighbourhood, there is no
    rise in the market condition and since the lands are admittedly agricultural
    lands as on that date, the fixation of the market value as agricultural lands is
D   just and fair, insteatt of remanding the case as contended for by Sri Tata
    Rao for further evid.ence.

         In the first case the notification was of the year 1983 and in the second
    case it was of the year 1985. Taking these factors into consideration, we
    find that the market value for the lands covered in the first case could be
E   determined at Rs. 65,000 per acre and for the lands in the second case the
    market value could be determined at Rs.80,000 per acre. The claimants are
    entitled to 12% additional compensation under S.23 (I-A) from the date of
    notification till date of taking possession till date of deposit into court. In
    the first case possession was taken on March 15, 1985 and in the second
    case on May 25, 1985. Therefore, 12% additional compensation shall be
F   paid to the claimants from the respective dates of S.4 (I) notification till the
    date of taking possession. The claimants are entitled to solatium under S.23
    (2) at 30% and the interest under S.28 at 9% on the enhanced comp$!nsation
    from the date of the taking possession for one year and 15% after the expiry
    of one year till date of deposit into the court.
G        The appeals are accordingly allowed. The award and decree of the
    reference court under s.26 and the judgment and decree of the High Court
    under s.54 are set aside. The claimants are entitled to the aforesaid amounts.
    In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own respective costs.

    A.G.                                                          Appeals allowed.