Holding

Each acquired plot must be valued independently using the comparable‑sales method, selecting the sale or award most closely comparable, and not by applying a uniform rate or averaging disparate prices.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined compensation for several plots of land acquired for a printing‑machinery factory. The lands, owned by three different claimants, differed in location, size and shape. The Land Acquisition Officer and the Punjab‑Haryana High Court had fixed a uniform market‑value rate per unit area, and had also averaged prices from various comparable sales and awards. The claimants challenged this, arguing that each plot required separate valuation. The Court held that when acquired plots have dissimilar features, the market value must be determined independently for each plot using the comparable‑sales method, selecting the sale or award that most closely matches the plot, rather than averaging disparate prices. Accordingly, the Court fixed specific per‑kanal rates for each plot, enhanced the compensation, awarded a 15% solatium and 6% interest, and dismissed the company’s appeals while partly allowing the claimants’ appeals.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court correctly applied the principle of valuation by fixing a uniform rate per unit measure for plots with differing features
Whether the High Court correctly determined market value by averaging prices from different comparable sales and awards
If the above principles are incorrect, what method and rate should be used to determine the market value of each acquired plot

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 12, s. 17, s. 18, s. 23(1), s. 4(1)
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act

Subjects

Land acquisitionValuation of landComparable sales methodMarket value determinationUniform rate per unit areaCompensationSection 23Section 4Section 18SolatiumInterest

Judgment

A PRINTERS HOUSE PVT. LTD. ETC.ETC.
v.
1
MST. SAIADAN (DECEASED) BY L.RS. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

OCTOBER 14, 1993
B
[J.S. VERMA, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND VENKATACHALA, JJ.)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23 (1}-Principles of valuation of
land acquired-Acquisition of plots of lands with dissimilar features-Deter-
C mination of market value at unifonn rate per unit measure-Whether legally
sustainable-Held, Na-Adoption of Comparable Sales Method-Method of
Averaging market value fetched for different lands under sale deed and pre-
vious awards-Not a correct method of valuation-Court to choose that sale
or award which closely or nearly compares with plot of land acquired.

D Several plots of land with differing salient features, belonging to
different persons needed by appellant company, to set up its factory for
the manufacture of printing machinery were acquired by preliminary
notification u/s 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition
1>•
Officer determined the market value of certain acquired lands at the rate
I·'
of Rs. 3,600 per acre and other acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 1,600 per
E acre. Since the claimants did not accept the said award, they made applica- \
tions u/s 18 for referring their cases to the Civil Court for grant of higher
amounts of compensation for their acquired lands. The Reference court
made a common award and separate decrees. The claimants as well as the
State, dissatisfied with the common award and separate decrees of the
F - Reference Court, preferred appeals in the High Court. The appeals before
the High Court were heard by a Division Bench. As the said Judge
rendered differing judgments on the amount of compensation awardable
to the claimants, the appeals were placed before a third Judge. That judge
determined the market value of almost all the acquired lands at an
G uniform rate. The appeals of the claimants were partly allowed and the
appeals of the State were dismissed. The State did not prefer any appeals
against the said judgment. The Company for whose benefit the lands were
acquired, filed civil appeals. The claimants also filed appeals against the
judgment of the High Court.

H The points which arose for colllsideration were :
296

\
PRINTERS v. SAIYADAN 297

1. Did the High Court apply the correct principle of valuation of · A
land, in proceeding to determine the market value of separate plots of
acquired lands of the three claimants, with differing features at an uniform
rate per unit measure ?

2. Did the High Court apply the correct principle of valuation of land
in determining the market value of the acquired plots of land by fixing B
their unit rate by averaging the market value fetched for different lands
under- sale deed and previous awards?

Disposing of the matter, thi~ Court

HELD 1.1. Where the acquired plots of land belong to different C
persons and do not have similar feature they should not be treated as a
single unit for awarding a uniform rate of market value. Where there is
evidence of sales or awards of land(s), which could be compared with the
acquired land(s), the court, as a matter of course adopts the 'Comparable
Sales method of Valuation of land', in preference to other recognised D
methods of valuation of lands for determining the market value of the
acquired land. This method generally holds good for determination of the
market value of several acquired plots of land if acquisition of all such plots
of land is made pursuant to the same notification. But, if any of the factors,
such as, location, shape, size, potentiality of tenure of one plot of acquired E
land wide'· . differs from the other plot(s) of acquired land(s), then the
market value of each plot of land acquired has to be determined inde-
pendently of the other (s) even if all of them had been acquired }.mrsuant to
the same preliminary Notification since the differential factors relating to
different acquired plot greatly affect their value. [311-G-H, 304-bJ
F
1.2. The market value of the acquired land when is determined by
adoption of the 'comparable Sales Method' the same has to be done with
reference to the price fetched in a sale or market value given in an award,
as the case mr.y be, of a land which is closest or nearest to the acquired
land and not with reference to average price fetched by several comparable G
sale deeds or awards of different types of lands. Where there are several
comparable sales or awards produced for determining the marl t value of
the acquired plots of land by 'Comparable Sales Method of Valuation', it
is not the average price reflected in such comparable sales or awards which
should form the 'price basis' but it is the price reflected in the sale or
award pertaining to a land closest or nearest to the acquired land, in all H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A its feature. When several sale-deeds or previous awards are produced in
Court as evidence of comparable sales, court has to necessarily examine
every sale or award to find out as to what is the land which is the subject
matter of sale or award and as to what is ~he price fetched by its sale or
.by the award made therefore, if it is found that the land covered by the
basis •ir
award, as the case may be, is almost identical _with the acquired
B land under consideration, the land under the sale or the market value
determined for the land in the award could be taken by the court as the
'price basis' for determining the market value of the acquired land under
consideration. If there are more comparable sales or awards of the same
type, the 'price basis' to be got from them would be common. But when the
C comparable sales or awai"ds are not of the same kind and when each of
them furnish a different 'price basis', the market the value of the acquired
land could not be determined by averaging the prices fetched by all the
comparable sales or awards for getting the 'price basis'. It is so, for the
reason that such 'price ha.sis' may very largely depending even on com-
parable sales or awards. Moreover; 'price basis' got by averaging com-
D
parable sales or awards which are not of the same kind, cannot be a correct
reOection of the price which the willing seller would have got from the
willing buyer, if the acquired land had been sold in the market. Therefore,
when there are are several comparable sales or awards pertaining to
different lands, what is required of the court is to choose that sale or award
E relating to a land which closely or nearly compares with the plot of land
tb,e market value of which it has to determhu~':;"'nd total~ the,pri£e of land
of such saie or award as the basis for determining the market value of the
land under consideration. [307-F, H; 308-A-H; 309-A]

. F CIVIL APPELLATE 'URISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 369 of
1976 etc. etc. '

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.8.i.975 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in R.F.A. No. 78 of 1965.

G Rajinder Sachar, R.K. Maheshwari and Vivek Maheshwari for the
Appella.ryts. ·

Ms. S. Janani for Respondents.

H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PRINTERS v. SAIYADAN [VENKATACHALA,J.) 299

VENKATACHALA, J, These appeals arise a common judgment and A
separate decrees dated August 27, 1975 made by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana, whereby R.F.A.'s Nos. 76, 77 and 78 of 1965 filed by the
claimants seeking enchanced compensation for their acquired lands were
partly allowed, and R.F.A. Nos. 68, 69 and 70 of 1965 of the State of
Haryana seeking reduction in the compensation awarded to the claimants B
for their acquired lands were dismissed.

Civil Appeals Nos. 369-371 of 1976 are not filed by the State of
Haryana but are filed by Messrs Printers House Pvt. Lld. a company for
whose benefit the lands were acquired and in them reduction in the amount
of compensation awarded by the High Court, is sought. Civil Appeals Nos. C
946-948 of 1977 are that of the claimants and in them further enhanced
compensation for the acquired lands is sought from the State and the
company for whose benefit the State acquired the lands.

Material facts which have given rise to these appeals lie in a narrow D
compass:

(i) Certain land situated in the Village Ranhera, Tehsil Bal-
labhgarh, District Gurgaon (Haryana), abutting Delhi-
Mathura Road (G.T.Road) were needed by Messre Printers
House Pvt. Ud., hereinafter referred to as 'the Company', to E
set up its factory for the manufacture of printing mat t',nery.
A request was made by the Company to the Punjab Govern-
ment to acquire tht said ~.mds, for its benefit. The Punjab
Government, which conceded to the request of the Company,
by a preliminary notification under section 4(1) of the Land p
Acquisition ·.ct, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',
publishc '. in the Punjab Gazette of April 7, 1961, proposed
the acquisition of the said lands. Those !ands measuring about
12 acres 3 kanals 4 marlas, comprised of 8 kanals 6 marlas
(5020.50 Sq. Yds.) and 1kanal19 marlas (1179. 75 Sq. Yds.) G
of lands owned by Mst. Saiyandan, 9 kanals 2 marlas (5505.50
Sq. Yds.) and 6 kanals 15 marlas (4083.75 Sq. Yds.) of lands
owned by Messrs Cold Stornge and Food Products and 73
kanals 2 marlas (44225.50 Sq. Yds.) of the lands owned by
the Masjid of Village Ranhera. The possession of the said 1.
land was taken over from their owner by the Sub-Divisional H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Collector, hereinafter
referred to as 'the L.A.C.', acting under section 17 of the Act.•
Notices under section 9 of the Act were, thereafter, issued by
the L.A.C. to the owners of the said lands calling upon them
to prefer claims for compensation. The owners, responding
to the s_aid notices, preferred their claims before the L.A.C.,
B seeking determination of the market value_ of the acquired
lands at the rate of Rs. 10 per Sq. Yard.

(ii) The L.A.C., by his common award dated August 19,1961
made under section 12 of the Act, determined the market
c , value of certain acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 3,600 per
acre and other acquired land at the rate of Rs. 1,6000 per
acre. He awarded 15 per cent solatium on the market value
of the acquired lands. He also awarded interest at 4 per cent
per annum on the amount of compensation payable to the
claimants for their acquired lands from the date of takfug
D their possession until the date of his award.

(iii) Since the claimants did not accept the said award of the
LA.C., they made applications to him under section 18 of the
Act for referring their cases_ to the Civil Court for granting
E higher amounts of compensation for their acquired lands.-The
LAC., accordingly, sent three References to the Court of
Additional District Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Judge,
hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court', for deter-
mination of the just amount of compensation awardable to
F each of the claimants for the concerned acquired land.

(iv) The Reference Court, on consideration of the evidence ad-
duced be for it by t_he claimants on one side and the State
and the Company on· the other side, made a common award
and separate decrees dated October 13, 1964 determining the
G market-value of 8 kana1s and 6 maria:: of the acquired land
of Mst. Saiyadan comprised in Killa No. 13p. at Rs. 6,000 an
acre and of 1 kanal and 19 marlas of acquire(,f land of the
same claimant comprised in the same Kil1a at Rs. 4,800 an
acre. By the same common awara, it determined the market-
H value of 9 kana1s 2 marlas of the acquired land of Messrs
PRINTERS v. SAIYADAN [VENKATACHALA, J.] 301

Cold Storage and Food Products comprised in Killas Nos. 11 A
and 12 at Rs. 6,000 an and of 6 Kanals and 15 marlas of the
acquired land of the same claimant comprised in Killa Nos.
21 and 22 at the rate of Rs. 4,800 an acre. Besides, it deter-
mined the market-value of 73 kanals and 2 marlas of the
acquired land of the Masjid in Village Ranhera at the Rate B
of Rs. 4,800 an acre. In addition, it awarded solatium at 15
per cent on the enhanced amount of market-value of the
acquired lands and interest at 4 per cent per annum on the
enhanced compensation of the acquired lands from the date
of taking their possession until the date payment or deposit
of the amount of compensation. C
(v) However, the claimants as well as the State, who were dis-
satisfied with the common award and separate decrees of the
Reference Court, preferred appeals therefrom in the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana, as adverted to by us already. D

(vi) The said appeals before the High Court were heard by a
Division Bench comprised of Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia
and Mr. Justice Man Mohan Singh Gujaral. As the said judges
rendered differing judgments on the amount of compensation
awardable to the claimants for their acquired lands, the E
. learned Chief Justice of the High Court placed the appeals
for hearing before a third judge, Mr. Justice Bhopinder Singh
Dhillon. That learned judge, by his Judgment dated August
27, 1975, since rendered a judgment concurring with the
judgment of Mr. Justice Man Mohan Singh Gujaral determin- F
ing the market-value of almost all the acquired lands at an
uniform rate of Rs. 3 per Sq. Yd., the appeals of the claimants
were partly allowed and the appeals of the State were dis-
missed, as already adverted to. Although the State did not
prefer any appeal against the said judgment, the Company
for whose benefit the lands were acquired, preferred three G
Civil Appeals in this Court. So also, the claimants preferred
three Civil Appeals in this Court against the very judgment
of the High Court and they are in the nature of cross-appeals.

The Civil Appeals which, therefore, required our consideration, are H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A .. those directed against the judgments of the High Court rendered by Mr.
Justice Bhopinder Singh Dhillon and Mr. Justice Man Mohan Singh
Gujaral. The oral argumentu .'f learned counsel appearing for the opposing
parties in the Civil Appeals were heard. The written submissions filed by
respective learned counsel are also seen.

B From the oral arguments h..,.;.rd and the written submissions seen, we
find that for a proper disposal of the said appeals, consideration and
decision is necessary on the following points :

1. Did the High Court apply the correct principle of valuation
of land, in proceeding to determine the the market-value of
c separate plots of acquired lands of the three claimants, with
differing features at an uniform rate per unit measure?

2. Did not High Court apply the correct principle of valuation
of land in determining the market-value of the acquired plots
D of land by facing their unit rate by averaging the market value
fetched for different lands under sale deeds and previous
awards?

3. If the said two principles of valuation of acquired lands
applied by the High Court for determining the market-value
E of different plots of the acquired lands, were not correct, can
such determination of market-value be sustained? If not, is it
necessary for this Court to determine the market-value of
each plot of the acquired lands and if so, at what rate?

We shall now consider and decide the said points in their serial
F order.

Point - 1:

If the amount of compensation awardable for the lands acquired
under the Act is required to be determined by a Civil Court, such amount
G of compensation has to be determined by taking into consideration the
market-value of the lands on the date of publication in Government
Gazette, of the preliminary Notification under sub-section (1) of section 4
of the Act, as is envisaged under the First Clause of sub-section (1) of
section 23 of the Act admits of no controversy. Such market~value of the
H acquired land which has to be determined by the Courts ought to be the
- PRINTERS v. SAIYADAN [VENKATACHALA, J.) 303

price which a willing vendor of the land might reasonably expect to obtain A
from a willing purchaser, has been a well accepted principle of valuati(\n
of acquired lands, ever since that the principle was expounded by the Privy
Council in the case of Vyricherala Narayana Gajapatiraju Bahadur v.
Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatnam, A.l.R. (1939) P.C. 98, known as
'Chemudu case'. In fact, this Court has approved the correctness of that B
principle by stating that the market-value means the price that a willing.
purchaser would pay to the willing seller fqr a property, having due regard
to its existing condition, 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 vide : Rafjiubans Narain v. U.P. Govt., A.LR. (1967) C
S.C. 465, Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of M.P., (19'77) 1 S.C.C. 684.

Where there is evidence of sales or awards of land(s), which could
be compared with the acquired land(s), the Court, as a matter of course,
adopts the 'Comparable Sales Method of Valuation of land', in preference D
to other recognised methods of valuation of lands, such as 'capitalisation
of net income method' or 'Expert Opiilion Method' for determining the
market value of the acquired land(s). 'Comparable Sales Method' is the
most favoured method, since the prices paid within a reasonable time in
bona fide transactions of purchase or sale of the very acquired land or a
portion thereof, or of the land adjacent to those acquired and possessing E
similar advantages, could furnish to the Court the 'price basis' for deter-
mination of the market value of the acquired land, in that, there can be no
better evidence of what the willing purchaser would pay for the acquired
land if it had been sold in 'the market at the time of publication of
preliminary Notification'. Evidence of prices fetched by sale of lands p
similar to the acquired land will be taken by the Court to be the price which
a willing purchaser would have paid for the acquired land, if the same had
been sold to him in the open market. However, if the price under com-
parable sale to be taken by the Court, as furnishing the 'price basis' for
determination of the Jllarket yalue of the acquired land, the comparable
sale must, firstly be genuine, secondly it IQ.list have taken place at a time G
proximate to the date of publication of the preliminary Notification under
section 4(1) of the Act, thirdly the land sold under the sale must be similar
to the acquired land, and fourthly the land sold under the sale must be in
the vicinity of the acquired land. It has, therefore, to be noted that the
location size, shape, tenure, user or potentiality of land under comparable H

I
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A sale, if do not compare favourably with the acquired land, price fetched in~
comparable sale cannot furn;~t.. the 'prices basis' for determining the
market value of the acquired land. ri::>wever, if any differing feature of
factor in a land covered by comparable sale admits of adjustment in terms
of money, depending on whether !t is plus factor or minus factor, the
B market-value of the acquired land if. ::etermined either by increasing it
price or decreasing its price vis-a-vis the price fetched for land under
comparable sale. What applies to comparable sale, equally applies to
comparable award, if such award is relied upon as that furnishing a
price-basis for determination of the market-value of the land, cannot be
disputed. Thus, the best evidence for determining the market-value of the
C acquired land could be an authentic transaction of sale relating to the very
acquired land or a portion thereof of any other land which could be
favourably compared with the acquired land. The same would be. the
position when the available evidence relates to land covered by a previous
award.
D If 'Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land' is adopted for
· determining the market-value of an acquired plot of land, it generally holds
goods determination of the market-value of several acquired plots of land
if acquisition of all such plot of land is made pursuant to the same
prelitllinary Notification. But, if any of the factors, such as, location shape,
E size, potentiality or tenure of one plot of acquired land widely differs from
the other plot(s), acquired land(s) then the market-value of each plot of
land acquired has to be determined independently of the other(s) even if
all of them had been acquired pursuant to the same preliminary Notifica-
tion. The reason is not far to seek since the differential factors relating to
F different acquired plots greatly affect their value. Hence, if any salient
factors of different acquired plots of land, which greatly affects their value
is ignored or is not taken into consideration by the Court while determining
the market-value of acquired lands, it will have failed to apply the correct
principle of valuation adoptable in valuation of different types of acquired
lands.
G
Whether the High Court has, in valuing several plots of acquired
lands with differing salient factors, ignored the aforesaid principle of
valuation of such acquired lands is the point which needs our consideration
now. The locations, sizes and shapes of the several acquired plots of land,
H the market ~ue of which had to be determined by the High Court w~re
PRINTERS v. SAIYADAN [VENKATACHALA, J.] 305.

not at all comparable, becomes apparent from its judgments. The concur- A
.. ring judgment of Mr. Justice Bhopinder Singh Dhillon, shows that several
acquired plots of land with the market-value of which he was concuned
were different, for be states that :

"Another relevant question, which has to be considered is whether
the entire block of the acquired land could be assessed at a flat B
rate of there is justification for assessing at a flat rate or there is
justification for assessing the market value by dividing the land into
blocks."

But the leaned Judge proceeded to value the different plots of C
acquired lands, as a compact block on his view that all the plots of acquired
lands even if treated as a single block, would be smaller in size than some
of the instances of sales with which it has to be compared. In so proceeding
to value the different plots of acquired lands, the learned Judge overlooked
the important aspect that three were in reality 5 different types of plots of
acquired lands belonging to there different persons and the unit rate which D
each of the owners (Claimants) could have by sale of their respective plots
in the open market, could n\lt have been the sam.e, for the features (factors)
i.e., advantages and disadvantages, possessed by each plot varied greatly.

Mst. Saiyadan (Appellant in C.A. No. 946 of 1977), Masjid of Village E
Ranhera (Appellant in C.A. No. 947 of 1977) and M/s. Cold Storage &
Food Products (Appellant in C.A. NO. 948 of 1977) are the owners of the
several acquired plots of land aggregating to 99 kanals and 4 marlas.

.. Relying upon the evidence of C.W.1, Dyal Dass Patwari, Halqua Bal-
labhgarh, who was called as Court witness to the exact location of the
acquired plots of lands with reference to a plan prepared by him, S.S. F
Sandhawalia, J. has referred to the fact situation in his judgment, thus :

"No serious challenge is posed to the correctness of the plan,
Exhibit C.1 prepared from the official records and this would show
that an Saidy~dan, land-owner abut$ on the Delhi- Mathura road
with a fromtage of nearly 23 karems or 44 yards thereon. The G
southern block of the land of Messrs Cold Storage and Food
Products measuring 9 kanals and 2 marlas is in an identical
situation because it adjoins the G.T. Road with a frontage of nearly
40 yards. In sharp contrast thereto, however, is the situation of the
land of the third claimant the Masjid of village Ranhera. This area H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A of 73 kanals and 2 marals is compeletely locked on all sides and
has no direct ingress to the G.T. Road above-mentioned. Indeed
C.W.1, Dayal Das deposed that the distance of the Masjid Ranhera
is about 100 to 105 Yards from the main road and no portion
thereof adjoins the highway. Similarly, a small portion of Mst.
Saiyandan's land comprising 1 Kanals and 19 Marlas is situated
B equally away from the road and thus falls in the same class as the
Masjid land. The identical situation exists as regards the northern
portion comprising an area of 6 kanals 15 marlas belonging to
Messrs Colds Storage and Food Products which also has no proper
access to the road and an insignificant comer thereof merely
c touches the same. This area is also irregular in shape and in no
way superior to the land belonging to the Masjid.•

The fact situation as to the location, size and shape of the acquired
plots of lands referred to as above by Sandhawalia, J. is unassailable for
it is based on the unrebutted evidence of Court Witness, C.W.1. If that be
D so, two learned Judges of the High Court, by their judgments under appeals
could not have proceeded to determine the market-value of almost all the
plots of the acquired lands which varied .greatly in situation (location),
shape and size, at a uniform rate per unit measure of land.

E Thus, when the evidence in the case clearly established that the
different plots of lands of three claimants acquired, varied greatly as to
_their sizes, shapes and location (situation) they could not have fetched a
uniform rate, if the same had been sold in the open market by each of the
claimants. That being the correct position, two learned Judges of the High
Court did err on a principle of valuation applicable to valuation of different
F types of acquired land, when they by their judgments under present appeals
..
determined the market-value of almost all the acquired plots of lands at a
uniform rate, on the wrong assumption that all the 5 plots of acquired lands
would have fetched the same rate if sold in the open market.

G Point- 2:

This point relates to making the choice of sales when market value
of the acquired land has to be determined by 'Comparable Sales Method'.
If a land sold under a sale-deed is comparable with the acquired land, then
the courts will have, ordinarily, recourse to 'Comparable Sales· Method of
H Valuation' to determine the market value of.the acquired land, cannot be
PRINTERS v. SAIYADAN [VENKATACHALA, J.) '307

doubted. What is done under the 'Comparable Sales Method' of valuation A
of land is to find out the price fetched for sale of land under the sale-
deed claimed to be comparable sale and take that price as that which the
acquired land would have fetched, if its sales had been effected in the open
market and determine the market value of the acquired land accordingly.
The 'Comparable Sales Method of Valuation' of land is preferred to other
known methods of valuation of land since the variety of factors appertain- B
ing to the land, which require adjustment by th~ Court (valuer) in deter-
mining the market value of the acquired land, would be the least. Where,
however, certain factors appertaining to the land in a comparable sale has
to be adjusted, it is done by varying the price of land covered by the sale,
i.e. by adding certain amount to the price fetched for the land sold or by C
deducting a certain amount in such price, depending on the nature of the
factor concerned being a plus factor or a minus factor. Whatever it be, the
genuineness or authenticity of the sale is a factor which permits no adjust-
ment in price.

As the price fetched under a genuine Sale-deed could form the basis D
for determining the market value of. the acquired land, the market value
determined by an award made under the Act for an earlier acquired land,
by either the umd Acquisition Officer or the Court could also form the
basis for determining the market value of subsequently acquired land.

If the comparable sales or previous awards are more than one, E
whether the average price fetched by aii the comparable sales should form
the 'price basis' for determination of the market value of the acquired land
or the price fetched by the nearest or closest of the comparable sales
should alone form the 'price basis' for determination of the market value
of the acquired land, being the real point requiring our coiisideration here, F
we shall deal with it. When several sale-deeds or previous awards are
produced in Court as evidence of comparable sales, Court has to neces-
sarily examine every sale or award to find out as to what is the land which
is the subject of sale or award and as to what is the priee fetched by its
sale or by the award made therefor.
G
If the sale if found to be a genuine one or the award is an accepted
one, and the sale or award pertains to land which was sold or acquired at
about the time of publication of preliminary Notification under the Act in
respect of the acquired land, the market value of which has to be deter-
mined, the Court. has to mark the location and the fe!ltures (advantages H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A and disadvantages) of the land covered by the sale or the award. This
process involves the marking by Court of the size, shape, tenure, poten-
tiality etc. of the land. Keeping in view the various factors marked or
noticed respecting the land covered by the sale or award, as the case may
be, presence or absence of such factors, degree of presence of degree of
B absence of such factors in the acquired land the market value of which has
to be determined, should be seen. When so seen, if it is found that the land
covered by the sale or award, as the case may be, is almost identical with
the acquired land under consideration, the land under the sale of the
market value determined for the land in the award could be taken by the
CourJ as the 'price basis' for determining the market value of the acquired
C land under consideration. If there are more comparable sales or awards of
the same type, no difficulty arises since the 'price basis' to be got from them
would be common. But, difficulty arises when the comparable sales or
awards are not of the same kind and when each of them furnish a different
'price basis'. This difficulty /cannot be overcome by averaging the prices
D fetched by all the comparable sales or awards for getting the 'price basis'
on which the market value of the acquired land could be determined. It is
so, for the obvious reason that such 'price basis' may very largely depending
even no comparable sales or awards. Moreover, 'price basis' got by averag-
ing comparable sales or awards which are not of the same kind, cannot be
E a correct reflection of the price which the willing seller would have got
from the willing buyer, if the acquired land had been sold in the market~
For instance, in the case on hand, there are three claimants. The,plots of
their acquired land, which are five in numbers, are not similar, in that, their
location, size, shape greatly vary. One plot of land of one claimant and
another plot of another claimant appear to be one type. ~~ther plot of
F land of one of them appear to be of a different type. Yet ~other plot of
the second of them appears to be different. If so far as thjrd claimant's plot
of land is concerned, it appears to be altogether diff~rent from the rest.
Therefore, if each of claimants were to sell her/his r~pective plots of land
in the open market, it is impossible to think th~ they would have got a
G uniform rate for their lane. The position cannot be different if the com-
parable .sales or awards when relate to different lands. Therefore, when
there are several comparable sales or awards pertaining to different lands,
what is required of the Court is to choose that sale or award relating to a
land which closely or nearly compares with the plot of land of market value
H of which it has to determine, and to take the price of l~d of such sale or
. PRINTERS v. SAIYADAN [VENKATACHAlA, J.) 309
I

award as the basis for determining the mar.ket value of the land under A
consideration.

In the judgments of learned Judges of the High Court, which are
under appeals, what is taken as the basis for determining the market value
of the acquired plots of lands of the three claimants is to take the average B
of prices fetched by several sale-deeds and awards relating to different
types of lands and determine the market value of the acqUired plots of land
accordingly. The relevant passage in the concurring judgment of Dhillon,
J. which needs to be seen in the context reads. :

"While assessing the market value of the acquired land as com- C
pared to the instances of sale of acquisition which furnish guide
line for assessing the market value, the sizes of the plot of land,
subject matter of sale or acquisition, which have been found to be
relevant, and their locatirn has to be compared with the acquired
land. It would be noticed that the land of Nawal Singh measured D
8 kanals only but it similarly situate as the acquired land. However,
this being a small plot, the value of this plot also goes quite deep
towards the railway lines and its depth is a little less than the
acquired land. However, this being a small plot, value of this plot
is bound to be higher than the acquired which is quite a big chunk
of land. The land purchased by the Globe Motors measures 99 E
kanals and 4 marlas. The area is thus more of less the same as the
same as that of the acquired land. As regards the location, its
frontage does not touch the G.T. Road but touches the Bal-
labhgarh Road. The situation of this plot can not be termed in any
way better than the acquired land. The area acquired for the p
Gurgaon canal is with a very little width the quite a good length,
and, therefore, it can not be compared with the acquired land in
the sense of its dimensions. The land sold by Shaha-bu-din
(A.W.18) measuring 6 kanals, for Rs. 4,000 is again a small area.
It would thus be seen that out of five instances, which have been
found to be useful for' arriving at the market value of the acquired G
land, three instances are of small plots whereas two are of big plots.
It would thus be appropriate to draw the average and work out
the price per sqnare yard on the basis of the said transactions
which comes to Rs. 4.60 per Sq. Yard. But some reduction has to
be made on account of the acquired land being low lying. It would H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R..

A appear appropriate that the deduction of Rs. 1.60 per square yard
be made from the average price as the entire land is 6 or 7 feet
below the road. The land fallen in Killa No. 14 Rectangle No. 11,
has been proved to be a Jauhar. T~e market value of Killa No. ·14
. which is a Jauhar, awarded by the learned Additional District
· Judges, appears to be a fair compensation. Therefore, Rs. 3 per
B Sq. Yard would be a reasonable price of the acquired land except
the land falling in Killa No. 14 Rectangle No. 11."

The comparable sales and awards which are made the basis for
fmding average price of lands covered by them by Gujaral, J. with whose
C judgment Dhillon, J. has concurred are 5 number and are these:·

"SI. Description of ' Approximate price
Area Total Price
No. land per Sq. Yard.
1. Sale by N awal 6 Kanals Rs. 40,000. Rs.10
Singh (Mutation
D
No. 63}
2. Land purchased lOOKanals Rs.2,84,000 Rs. 5.50 (Only the:
by Globe amount paid before
Motors (Ext. the Sub-Registrar i::
A.W. 14/1} accepted as the price)
E
·3. Land acquired Assessed by the Land
for Spun Pipe Acquisition Collector
Factory at Rs. 4 per Sq. Yard.
4. Land acquired The portion situated
for the Gurgaon between G.T. Road
F
canal (on 20.9.60 and railway line
vide Exhibit P- assessed by the Land
26) A~uisition Collector
at Rs. 3.25 per Sq.
Yard.
G 5. Sale by Shah-bu- 6 Kanals Rs. 4,000 Rs. 1.33"
din dated 11th
August, 1959
(Exhibit R-8)

H The relevant sentence in his judgment which needs to be seen in t~e
PRINTERS v. SAIYADAN [VENKATACHALA,J.) 311

co'ntext reads : A
"I am clearly of the view that the average price worked out on the
--.
basis of the five transactions mentioned above would fairly repre-
sent the market value of the land in the vicinity of the acquired
land on the relevant date "
B
When the rate per Sq. Yd. of land in the said 5 instances relied upon
by the learned Judge for averaging the price, showed the highest rate in an
instance was Rs. 10 per Sq Yd. and the lowest rate in another instance was
Rs.1.33 P., he should have seen that averaging of prices could bring about
unrealistic results. For instance, if the sale in item-5 related to 600 kanals
of land instead of 6 kanals of land, the average price of all transactions
c
could be even below Rs. 2.

The determination of market value of the acquired plots of lands
made by the High Court on average price basis, therefore, is incorrect, in
that, it overlooks the important principle of valuation that the market value D
of the acquired land when is determined by adoption of the 'Comparable
Sales Method' the same has to be done with reference to the price fetched
in a sale or market value given in an award, as the case may be, of a land
which is closest or nearest to the acquired land and not with reference to
average price fetched by several comparable sale deeds or awards, of
different types of lands.
E

p,·u-3:

Both the leaned Judges (Gujral, J. and Dhillon, J.) who·rendered
their judgments under appeals, as is pointed out by us, in dealing with F
Points 1 and 2, have failed to determine the market value of the acquired
•( lands by applying the warranted two principles of valuation of land - the
first of them being that where the acquired plots of land belong to different
persons and do not have similar feature they should not be treated as a
si.i.~e unit for awarding a uniform rate of market value and the second of
them being that where there are several comparable sales or awards G
produced for determining the market value of the acquired plots of land
by 'Comparable Sales Method of valuation', it is not the average price.
reflected in such comparable sales or awards which should form the 'price
basis' but it is the price reflected in the sale or award pertaining to a land
closest or nearest to the acquired land, in all its features. As could be seen H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A from their judgments, an obvious mistake is committed in determining the
market value of acquired lands possessed of dissimilar features by applying
the unwarranted principle of valuation adaptable in valuation of agricul-
tural lands in a large tract of acquired agricultural land or vast extent of
non-agricultural land or strip of agricultural or non-agricultural acquired
B land comprised of several plots of similar land on the basis of price
fetched by a comparable sale of a similar plot of land or amount awarded
in a comparable award for a plot of acquired land. Consequently, the
market value of the acquired plot:; of lands with dissimilar features, deter-
mined by the two learned Judges of the High Court in their judgmentS
under appeals become unsustainable. This situation, should have, in th~
C normal course, led us to make an order _setting aside the judgments under
appeals and remitting the cases to the High Court for their fresh disposal
by application of the appropriate principles of valuation relating to valua-
tion of dissimilar plots of l~ds although such plots adjoining each other
were acquired pursuant to a common preliminary notification and for a
D common purpose. But the period of 32 years during which the parties are
in litigation has made us feel that we should ourselves decide the matter
finally and save the parties from the agony of further litigation.

In the judgment of Sandhawalia, J. we find reference to Ex.1 plan
prepared from the official records by C.W.1 Dyal Das Patwari and his
E evidence where the acquired lands, the market value of which is to be
determined by us, are described ~ detail thus :

"........... This (Ex.C-1) would show that an area of 8 kanals 6 marlas
belonging to Mst. Saiyadan, land-owner abuts on the Delhi-
F Mathura road with a frontage of nearly 28 Kana1; of 44 yards r.
thereon. The Southern block of the land of Messrs C.Jld Storage '
'
and Food Products measuring 9 kanals ad 2 marlas is in an
identical situation because it adjoins the G.T. Road with a
Frontage of nearly 40 yards. In sharp contrast thereto, however, is
the situation of the land of the third claimant t~e Masjid of village
G Ranhera. This area of 73 kanals and 2 marlas is , ..impletely locked
on all sides and has no direct ingress to the G.T. Road above-men-
tioned. Indeed C.W.1, Dyal Das deposed that the distance of the
Masjid Ranhera is about 100 to 105 yards from the main road and
no portion thereof adjoins the highway. Similarly, a small portion
H of Mst. ~aiyadan's land comprising 1 kanal and 19 marJU is
PRINTERS v. SAIYADAN [VENKATACHALA, J.) 313

situated equally away from the road and thus falls in the same class A
as Masjid land. The identical situation exists as re.;o.rds the north-
ern portion comprising an area of 6 kanals 15 marlas belonging to
Messrs Cold Storage and Food Products which also has not proper
access to the road and an insignificant corner thereof merely
touches the same. This area is also irregular in shape and in no B
way superior to the land belonging to the Masjid."

In the J\idgment of Gujaral, J. with which Judgment Dhillon, J. bas
agreed, reference to acquired plots of land is made thus :

"The acquired land measuring 99 kanals 4 marlas belongs to three C
different land-owners, namely, (1) Mst. Saiyadan widow of Jamal-
ud-din, (2) Messrs Cold Storage and Food Products and (3) Masjid
of Village Ranbera. The entire land is situated between the Grand
Trunk Road, leading from Delhi to Mathura and the railway line
connecting these two stations. A substantial part of the land of
Mst. Saiyadan is situated on the Grand Trunk Road while only a D
small portion is at the other end next to the railway line. As
regards the land of Messrs Cold Storage and Food Products, it is
all situated on the G.T. Road but is in two parts flanking the plot
of Mst. Saiyadan. The main plot which is on the south has a good
frontage on the G.T. Road but the plot on the north has hardly E
any frontage and is only accessible to the G.T. Road through a
small passage. So far as the land of Masjid is concerned, it is in
one block behind the main plot of Mst. Saiyadan and the two plots
of the Cold Storage and extends upto the railway line."

Plots of lands, the market value of which has to be determined by us F
are correctly described in the above judgment of learned Judges of the
High Court with reference to their location (situation) vis-a-vis Delhi-
Mathura Road (Grand Trunk Road) has been, in fact, endorsed by learned
counsel for opposing parties in their respective written submissions filed in
this Court. Hence it follows : G
(a) That the two acquired plots of lands of Mst. Saiyadan for which
market value has to be determined by us are :

(i) 8 kanals 6 marla.s (about 105 yards by 44 yards) of land
which abuts Delhi-Mathura Grand Trunk Road and has a H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R·.

A frontage of 44 yards to that G.T. Road.

(ii) 1 kanal 19 marlas of. land far away from the Delhi-
Mathura Grand Trunk Road with no access to that G.T.
Road .
.·
B (b) Thal the two acquired plots of lands of M/s. Cold Storage and
Food Products for which the market value has to be determined
by us are:

(i) 9 kanals 2 marlas (about 105 yards by 40 yards) of land
which abuts Delhi-Mathura Grand Trunk Road and has a
c Frontage of 40 yards to that G.T. Road.

(ii) 6 kanals 15 marlas of triangular land, adjoining the land
at a (i) but only corner point of the triangular land abutting
Delhi-Mathura Grand Trunk Road.
D
(c) That the acquired plot of land of the Masjid of village Ranhera
for which the market-value has to be determined by us is :

(i) 73 kanals 2 marlas of land situated beyond the acquired
lands of Mst. Saidayan and M/s. Cold Storage and Food
E Products - land locked with no access to Delhi- Mathura
Grand Trunk Road.

Having regard to the common features of the acquired plots of land
as to their location, size and shape, they could be grouped thus for the
F purposes of determining their market-value :
....
I
Group (1): a(i) Rectangular plot of 8 kanals 6 marlas of Mst.
Saiyadan.

b(i) Rectangular plot of 9 kanals 2 marlas of M/s. Cold
G Storage & Food Products.

Group (2): b(ii) Triangular Shaped plot 6 kanals 15 marlas or M/s.
Cold storage & Food Products.

Group (3): c 73 kanals 2 marlas of land of Masjid of village
H Ranhera.
__...., PRINTERS v. SA{YAf)~ (VENKATACHALA, J.) 315
/
a(ii) 1 kanal 19 marlas of Mst. Saiyadan. A
It is not disputed that the acquired lands were located in Ballabhgarh
Industrial and Commercial area and several lands in that area had been
acquired for industrial or commercial purposes an year or two earlier to
the date of publication of the preliminary Notification in respect of the
acquired lands under consideration. The evidence in the case shows that B
the acquired lands while had been located on one side of Delhi-Mathura
Grand Trunk Road, where several industries had been either set up or
were being set up, there .were on the other side of that Road, General
Hospital public part and public offices of the town of Ballabhgarh. It
cannot, therefore, be disputed that the acquired lands had the potentiality
for their user for industrial or commercial purposes.
c
Leaned counsel for the claimants, who arc appellants in their appeals
and respondents in the appeals or the opposite party, mainly relies upon
tow sale-deeds Ext. A.W. 14/1 and Ext. A.w. 6/1 to support the claimants'
claim for determination by us of the market value of the acquired lands at D
the rate of Rs. 19 per sq. yd. But, according to learned counsel for M/s.
,\

Printers House Pvt. Ud., the Company for whose benefit .the lands con-
cerned had been acquired and who appellants in their 1tppeals and respon-
dents in the claimants' appeals contends that the sale-deeds relied upon
on behalf of the claimants to ~ a higher market-value for the acquired E
land can be of no assistance to this Court in determining the market-value
of the acquired lands at the rate so claimed. His submission on the other
hand was that this Court has to rely upon the mutation extracts ·Ext. R-2
and Ext. R-8 to reduce the market value of the lands dctermip.cd by the
High Court.
F
. In the said situation, where the parties want the Court to determine
the market value of the acquired lands on the evidence of comparable

- Sales, it becomes necessary for us to have recourse to the 'Comparable
Sales Method of valuation of land' for determining the market-value of the
acquired plots of lands and we shall proceed, accordingly.
G
To begin with we have to find out which land covered by which
sale-deed could be said to closely or nearly compare with one or the other
group of acquired plots of lands of the three claimants. Such examination
is indispensable since the question of making the price fetched under one
or the other of the comparable sales, as the price-basis for determining the H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R'.

A market-value of the acquired lands would not be possible without knowing
whether the land sold under the sale compared, is closer or nearer to the
acquired land in its feature.

Ext. A.W. 14/1 is the registration copy :'of the Sale Deed dated
B 18.9.1960. The land sold thereunder measures 99 kanals 4 marlas of agricul-
tural and it is of Bisbedari Estate Ballabhgrah. The registration copy, when
see, no doubt says that the land sold under the deed is situated within the
boundary of village Bhallabhgrah, but does not say in which part of the
area of the village the land fii:ids its place. Boundaries of the land sold are
not mentioned ..This land has been sold by Smt. Dewan Kaur and others
C in favour of M/s. Globe Motors Pvt. Ltd., for a consideration of Rs.
4,00,000 as me.ntioned in the sale- deed. Neither the vendors nor any one
on behalf of the vendee under the sale-deed is examined to show where
exactly the land sold under the sale-deed lies within the boundaries of
village Ballabhgrah. A.W. 14, Ami Ram, said to be the attesting witness of
D this sale-deed, has given evidence in the case on behalf of the claimants.
He also does not say anything about the exact location of· the land sold
under the deed except stating that 'the land sold by Smt. Dewan Kaur
·adjoins the land of.Nawal Singh'. No doubt in the Map produced as Ext.
A.W. 4/1, an area ·th~ein shaded in orange colour is mentioned as Globe
Factory but that 1k!~J.~:found on the map at a distant place from that of
E the. land of Nawait~~gb.'.,and belies t4t;~tatement of Ami Ram in respect
to its \Q.Bttion. More<:>ye~., 'from the sai<f·~.ap, it is seen that the said land
neit~~t~~u~s the Dellii-Mathura Grand\r,{,uilk Road nor is in the. vicinity
of th~~{#ed lands. It was argued on behalf of the claimants that the
aforesaiidJaP,d covered by the sale-deed since does not abut the Delhi-
F Mathiira Grand Trunk Road, the market-value of the acquired lands which
abut the Delhi-Mathura Grand Trunk Road should be regarded as that of
higher value as compared with the land covered by the sale-deed. When
certain facts are shown to exist, eertain .amount of guess would, no doubt,
be there in drawing inferences while determining the inarket-value of land
G in acquisition cases. For instance, if the land sold to Globe Factory was
.show to adjoin the acquired land or show to have been situated in the
closer vicinity of the acquired land, it was possible to say that the value
fetched by land sold to G~obe Factory would bear on the value to be given
to acquired land. But, as pointed out earlier that is not the case here. Here,
the map EXA.W.4/1 is· not by Courts, as that whicli correctly reflects the
H, locations.of the plaees show thereunder. Hence, '\ve are constrained to hold ·
PRINTERS v. SAIYADAN [VENKATACHALA, J.) 317

that the land covered under the said sale-deed cannot in any way be A
compared with the acquired plots of land. In this view of the matter, we
find it unnecessary to examine the challenge made on behalf of M/s.
Printers House Pvt. Ltd. as to acceptance of the said sale-deed as a genuine
sale transaction.

Now, we shall deal with the land covered by Ext. A.W.6/1. This is a B
registration copy of the sale-deed dated 24.4.1961 executed by Nawal Singh
in favour of J aswant Rai. The land sold there under measures 8 kanals. It
is clarified in the sale-deed that the land sold thereunder measure 8 kanals
at the spot and it is bounded on the East by Mathura Road, on the West
by the land of Vendor, on the North by the land of vendor and on the C
South by M/s. Cold Storage and Food Products. In the sale-deed, there is
a specific mention made of the existence of a tube-well with the necessary
electric connection, on the land sold thereunder. The recital reads thus :

"Tube-well in working order has been installed in the aforesaid
land measuring 8 kanals and it is included in the sold land together D
with an electric connection."

There is also mention in the sale-deed that the land which was being
sold thereunder was surrounded by factories and it was sold since the
vendor did not have the know-how to set up a factory. There is also a
mention in the sale-deed that the land was purchased from its owner in the E
year 1956 since the vendor was an old tenant. The sale consideration of
this land mentioned in the sale-deed is Rs. 40,000. Sub-Registrar's endor-
sement in the deed is to the effect that Rs. 40,000 was counted in his
presence by the vendee and was handed over to the vendor. Nawal Singh
is examined in the case as A.W.7 on behalf of the clahnants. In his F
examination-in-chief, it is stated thus :

"The boundary of my land and the boundary of the acquired land
adjoins. I sold 8 kanals of my land to Dr. Jaswant Rai (A.W.6) for
Rs. 40,000 by means of a registered sale-deed. I have heard the
original sale-deed, it is correct and bears my signatures as well as G
my thumb impression. I received the whole of the sale price
amounting to Rs. 40,000 before the Sub-Registrar. The vendee paid
the expenses of the registration and the stamp paper. The quality
of my land sold to A.W.6 is at par with that of the acquired land.
A large number of factories have been set up near the acquired H
\ ~

318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A land during the last 2 years. The acquired land adjoins the road
as well as the railway line."

In his cross-examination this is what is elicited as to the amount of
Rs. 40,000 received by him :

B "I had deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000 in Punjab National Bank at
Ballabhgrah. I have spent Rs. 5,000 on the marriage of my daughter
and a sum of Rs. 5,000 was spent by me on the construction of my
pacca house ......."

The purchaser of the said land Dr. Jaswant Rai Chawala (A.W.6)
C has also been examined on behalf of the claimants. It is stated in his
examination-in-chief that sale money of Rs. 40,000 was paid to the vendor
before the Sub-Registrar. In his cross- examination, he said :

"It is wrong to suggest that only a sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid to
Nawal Singh, and the balance was taken back from him."
D
As seen from the copy of the registered sale-deed dated 24.4.1961,
the extent of the land sold thereunder us 8 kanals of land and it faces the
Delhi-Mathura Grand Trunk Road as the plot of 8 kanals and 6 marlas of
Mst. Saiyadan and the plot of 9 kanals 2 marlas of M/s. Cold Storage and
E Food Products, do. It also adjoins the acquired lands. Thus, the features
and location of land covered by the sale-deed well compares with the plot
of 8 kanals and 6 marlas of Saiyadan and plot of 9 kanals and 2. marlas of
M/s. Cold Storage & Food Products, covered by Group (1) lands above. l
Execution of the sale-deed and its contents have been duly proved by the J
vendor and vendee. In fact, the price paid under this sale-deed has been
F accepted by the leaned Judges of the High Court in their judgments under
appeals for purposes of averaging the prices of the land.

We shall now turn to sales relied upon for M/s. Printers House Pvt. 1
Ltd.
G Ext. R/8 is the extract taken from the register of mutation of village
Ballabhgrah. The entry shows that Shaha-bu-din h_ad sold 6 kanals of land
by registered sale-deed dated 11.8.1959 for a sum of Rs. 4,000 out of the
n~Id No. 15/1/l Maghda. An entry in the exhibit mentions about the
registration of the sale-deed. On behalf of M/s. Printers House Pvt. Ltd.
H for whom the lands under consideration were acquired, it was contended
PRINTERSv. SAIYADAN [VENKATACHALA,J.) 319

that the said entry Ext. R/8 relating to mention of sale of 6 kanals of land A
by Shaha-bu-din to Ram Chander for Rs. 4,000 in the year 1959 should
form the basis for us to determine the market-value of the acquired land
at that rate. We find it difficult to accept the contention. Shaha-bu-din,
whose name is found in the entry, is, in fact, examined as A.W.18. As seen
from his evidence in cross-examination not even a suggestion is made about B
his sale referred to the entry in Ext. R/8. In the absence of production of
sale-deed .and its proof by examining th~ appropriate persons, we cannot
say that land sold under the deed compares with the acquired plots of land
and the value for which it was sold should form the price-basis for valuing
t~e acquir:d plots of land. Hence. Ex. R-8 cannot be of any assistance in
determining the market-value of the acquired plots of lands. C

Ext. R/2, relied upon for M/s. Printers House Pvt. Ltd. is the extract
from the register of mutation relating to village Ranhera. An entry there-
under shows that on 11.8.60, 5 kanals and 15 marlas of land in Khasra No.
15/17 was sold by Smt: Saidan to Shadi for a sum of Rs. 427 .97 according D
to the order passed by the S.D.O. Palwal. What is argued now is, that the
amount of sale consideration mentioned in the. extract should form the
basis for determination of the market-value of the acquired land and
calculations in that regard must be made in accordance with the provisions
of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The argument so put-forth on
behalf of M/s. Printers House Pvt. Ltd., in our view, cannot be accepted. E
When the amount to be awarded for land acquired under the Act has to
be just market value to ·be determined on the basis of well recognised
principles of valuations, amounts payable under statutory provisions by
cultivating tenants for purchase of lands by them from the landlords, can
provide no guidance in the matter. Moreover, Shaha-bu-din, though is the F
vendor, according to entry, nothing relating to the said transaction is
suggested in the course of his cross-examination. Hence, this exhibit also
can be of no assistance to M/s. Printers House Pvt. Ltd. for <l~termination
of market value of the acquired plots of lands.

Thus out of the lands which are the subject-matters of the sales G
aforesaid, only the lands cover,ed by Ext. A.W.6/1 is comparable with the
plot of 8 kanals 6 marlas of Mst. Saiyadan and a plot of 9 kanals and 2
marlas of M/s. Cold Storage and Food Products.

Then as seen.from the registration copy A. W.6/1 o~ the sale-deed, 8 H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A kanals of land is sold for Rs. 40,000. This Rs. 40,000 cannot be the value
of the land itself for the land was purchased along with a tube-well in
working order with electric connections. The Rs. 40,000 includes the value
of working tube-well and all its electrical connections. Unfortunately, there
· is no evidence adduced in the case as to what was the actual value
attributable to the working tube-well in the land and the electric connec-
B
tions. Here a some amount of guess work becomes inevitable to find the
value of the working tube-well or its electrical connections. We feel that
their value could be safely put at Rs. 10,000. If that be so the value of 8
kanals of land sold under the sale-deed, becomes Rs. 30,000. As the sale
in the instant case had come into existence after about a month after
C publication of the preliminary notification in respect of the acquired land
with which we are concerned, we may make a deduction of Rs. 2,000 out
of Rs. 30,000 for the increased value to earlier acquisition of the adjoining
land and the time· elapsed. Thus, the market value of the 8 kanals of land
could be fixed at Rs. 28,000, i.e., Rs. 3,500 per kanals with reference to the
D date of publication of preliminary N:otification. In our view, this rate of Rs.
3,500 per kanals could be given for the plot of 8 kanals 6 marlas of Mst.
Saiyadan and plot of 9 kanals 2 marlas of M/s. Cold Storage & Food
Products i.e., Group (1) lands. \
I

1
In so far the triangular plot of 6 kanals 15 marlas of land of M/s.
E Cold Storage & Food Products covered in Group (2) above, only its corner
point touches the Delhi-Mathura
:
Grand
.
Trunif
/
Road. Hence, it cannot
stand on par with the plots covered by Group (1) lands above facing G.T.
Road to a width of 40 yards or 43 yards. We feel that the value of this land
could be fixed at about 3/4th the value of the plot of land covered by Group
F (1) above by making deduction of l/4th value because of minus factors of
being triangular in shape and only a corner point of triangular plot alone
facing G.T. Road. We accordingly determine the market value of the
triangular plot of 6 kanals 15 marlas of land owned by M/s. Cold Storage
& Food Products covered by Group (2) at Rs. 2,625 per kanal.

G Then comes plot of 73 kanals 2 marlas of land of Masjid of village
Ranhera and plot of 1 kanal and 19 marlas of land of Mst. Saiyadan, falling
under Group (3) above. Though these are two plots of lands, we can
consider the market-value of the plot of 73 kanals and 2 marlas of land,
__ .- for the market-value fixed for it could hold good in respect of an insig-
H nificant extent of 1 kanal 19 marlas in the Group. If 73 kanals 2 marlas was
PRINTERS v. SAIYADAN [VENKATACHALA, J.] 321

to be sold in the market, it could not have fetched the same price as those A
Group (1) lands as on the date of the publication of the preliminary
Notification. The reasons are obvious :

(i) That its location lies beyond industrial plots facing Delhi-
Mathura Grand Trunk Road covered in Group (1) lands
which are proper and suitable for setting up medium scale of B
industries.

(ii) That it has no access to either G.T. Road or any other road.

(iii) That its extent being as large as 3 kanals 2 marlas it will
involve loss of land of roads and expenditure in turning them C
into industrial plots of the size in Group (1) lands.

(iv) That it would involve also considerable cost in purchasing
valuable land for making a road to reach the G.T. Road.

The said minus factors, if are taken into account, necessarily they D
reduce the value of the land considerably and on a rough estimate its
reduced value could be put at three fifth value fixed by us for plots of lands
in group (1). Therefore, it would be safe and reasonable to determine the
market value of this land of 73 kanals 2 marlas of land at Rs. 2,100 per
kanal, in that, that could also be regarded to be reasonable whole sale price E
of the large extent of land. The same rate could be adopted for fixing the
value of 1kanal19 marlas land since it falls in Group (3) lands above, and
the minus factors appertaining to it cannot be any the less, as compared
with the other land of 73 kanals 2 marlas in that Group.

' However, we make it clear that the principles of valuation enunciated
hereinbefore are not intended to be exhaustive but are meant to serve as
F
merely guidelines.

Thus, we determine the market value of the acquired plots of land
of an extent of 8 k.inals 6 marlas (5020 Sq. Yds. facing Delhi- Mathura
G.T. Road, falling in Group (1), which was owned by Mst. Saiyadan at the G
rate of Rs. 3,500 per kanal (Rs. 5.79 per Sq. Yd.); of the acquired plot of
land of an extent of 1kanal19 marlas (1179.75 Sq. Yds.) without access to
Delhi-Mathura Road, (falling in Group-3) which was owned by Mst.
Saiyadan at the rate of Rs. 2,100 per kanal (Rs. 3.47 per Sq. Yds.); of the
acquired plot of land of an extent of 9 kanals 2 marlas (5505.50 Sq. Y ds.) H
322 SUPREME. COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A facing Delhi-Mathura Grand Trunk Road, (falling in Group-1), which was
owned by M/s. Cold Storage and Food Products at the rate of Rs. 3,500
per kanal (R.s ..5..79 per Sq. Yd.)); of the acquired triangular plot of land
of an extent of 6 kanals 15 marlas (4083.75 Sq.Yds.), its conical point alone
facing Delhi- 1'4athu~a Grand Trunk Road (falling in Group-2) which was
B owned by M/s. Cold StC?rage and Food Products at the rate of Rs. 2,625
per kanal (Rs. 4.34 per· Sq. Yd.); and of 73 k·anals 2 Marlas (44, 225 Sq.
Yds.) situated a.way from Delhi-Mathura Grand Trunk Road with no
access to it (follo\\'.ing in Gl'oup-3) which was owned by Masjid of village
Ranhera at the rate of Rs. 2,100 per kanal (Rs. 3.47 per Sq. Yds.).

C In the result we dismiss ~he· Civil Appeals Nos. '369-371 of 1976 and
partly allow the Civil Appeals Nos. 946-48 of 1977, enhancing the market-
value of the acquired lands as stated above and granting solatium at the
rate of 15 per cent per annum on such enhanced market-value together
with interest thereon ~t the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of
taking possession of· the :acquired plots of lands until payment, less the
amounts, if any, alreaay paid. No costs.

A.G. Matters disposed of.