Holding

All relevant sale deeds must be taken into account for determining market value under Section 23, building potentiality is a relevant factor, and the market value should be fixed at Rs.115 per square yard for the acquired lands.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the compensation awarded to landowners whose lands were acquired for a thermal power plant in Sarna, Muradpur, Uttar Pradesh. The Court held that, under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, all relevant sale deeds must be considered to determine the market value of the land, and that factors such as building potentiality, irrigation facilities, and location are pertinent. It rejected the High Court’s selective reliance on a single deed and its refusal to consider numerous other deeds, finding no valid reason for such exclusion. The Court also clarified that certified copies of sale deeds are admissible evidence under Section 51A of the Act and that the presumption of genuineness can be rebutted. Consequently, the market value was fixed at Rs.115 per square yard for both groups of cases, and the compensation award was adjusted accordingly. The appeals were allowed, with costs, and the respondents were ordered to pay the determined compensation promptly.

Issues considered

The High Court’s refusal to consider all relevant sale deeds for market value determination under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether building potentiality and other land characteristics are relevant factors in assessing market value.
The admissibility and evidentiary weight of certified copies of sale deeds under Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 90A of the Evidence Act.
The appropriate method of valuation (sale deed comparison) and whether the highest sale deed should be the benchmark.
The correct quantum of compensation – whether Rs.115 or Rs.155 per square yard should apply uniformly.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 64, s. 65, s. 90A
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 17(3A), s. 17(4), s. 23, s. 4, s. 51A, s. 6, s. 9
Registration Act, 1908s. 57

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensationMarket valueSection 23Sale deedsBuilding potentialitySection 51AEminent domainValuation methodsSupreme Court

Judgment

(2009] 11 S.C.R. 65

SATISH & ORS. A
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6230-6251 of 2002)
JULY 16, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s. 23 - Compensation -
Method of valuation - Relevant factors - Held: The market
value of land, nature, quality and evenness, presence of fruit C
bearing trees, location of the land, facilities for irrigation,
closeness to any road or highway, existence of any building
or structure, building potentiality are relevant factors to be
considered while determining compensation - On facts, High
Court without any valid and adequate reason refused to take D
into consideration a large number of sale deeds which were
relevant for arriving at the amount of compensation.

A Notification under s.4 of Land Acquisition Act was
issued on 6.9.1984, for setting up of thermal plant at E
Sarna, Muradpur. The possession of the lands was taken
on 16.11.1984. After considering number of sale deeds,
the Collector relied on sale deed executed on 2.6.1983.
The lands under the said sale deed were similar to the
acquired lands. The circle rate for 'Dakar Doyat Khaki F
· lands was determined at Rs.3.19p and for 'Dakar Doyat
Aabi' lands at Rs.4.37p. The amount of compensation on
the said basis was determined as Rs.60,189.72 per bighas
for the former category and Rs.82,454.20 per bighas for
the latter. Reference Court considered the reference
cases in two bµnches. In the first group consisting of 22 G
cases, compensation @ Rs.115 per square yards was
awarded as market value of the ~cquired land
irrespective of quality of land recorded in revenue

65 H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

A records. In the second group of references consisting of
25 cases, however the amount of compensation was
determined @ Rs.155 per square yard. Aggrieved NTPC
filed appeals before the High Court. The landholders did
not appeal. High Court however opined that the Collector
B rightly placed reliance on the deed ofsale dated 2.6.1983
as the other sale deeds were executed in respect of the
lands which were measured in terms of square yards
only. Aggrieved land owners filed these appeals.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court
c
HELD: 1. All the deeds of sale which were brought
on record subject to the applicability thereof, therefore,
should have been taken into consideration. The 'State' in
acquiring land of another State or a private person
D exercises its power of Eminent Domain which envisages
that expropriation of one's property is permissible if it is
in public interest and a reasonable amount of
compensation a.s provided for in a statute is paid to the
owner thereof. Keeping in view this principle in mfrrd, the
E provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act
laying down the factors enumerated therein must be
taken into consideration. The first factor which the
Parliament mandates to be relevant therefor is the market
value of the land at the date of publication of the
F notification under Section 4(1 ). Market value of .a land
would mean a free seller of a land would transfer his right
in tbe property to a free buyer. It is only for the said
purposes, deeds of sale or other transfers made in
respect of similar types of land in the sur~ounding areas
G assume significance. [Para 21) [83-G-H; 84-A-D]

Hindustan Oil Mills Ltd. v. Special Deputy Collector (Land
Acquisilion)AIR 1~90 SC 731_; A.P. State Road Transport ,'
Corporation, Hyderabad, Managing Director v. P. Venkaiah &
Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 128; LandAcquisition Officer & Manda/
H
SATISH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 67

.. Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah (2001) 3 SCC 530; Rao A
Narain Singh (Dead) by LRs. v. Union of India (1993) 3 SCC
60; Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs. v. State of
Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789; State of Bihar v.Madheshwar
Prasad (1996) 6 SCC 197; A.P. State Road Transport
Corporation, Hyderabad, represented byMenaging Director B
v. P. Venkaiah & Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 128; Land Acquisition
. Officer & Manda/ v. V. Narsaiah (2001) 3 SCC 530; Cement
~
Corporation of India v. Purya & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 270;
Special DeputyCollector & Anr. v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao &
Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 41 andHindustan Oil Miffs Ltd. v. Special c
Deputy Coffector (Land Acquisition) AIR 1990 SC 731,
referred to.

2. For determination of the amount of compensation
in terms of Section 23 of the Act, the methods of valuation
which can be. adopted for ascertaining market value are D
~
- (1) opinion of experts; (2) the price paid within a
reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of
the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands
acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (3)
number of years purchase of the actual or immediately E
prospective profits of the lands acquired. While adopting
the second method, the transactions which are relevant,
thus, are required to be taken into consideration. The
¥ Collector, the Reference Judge or the High Court without
assigning appropriate reasons would not be entitled to F
discard one deed of s~le and rely upon the other. It must
be done on some legal principle, rationality and cogent
reasons. Some other factors which are relevant for
determination of the amount of compensation are - the
nature and quality of land, whether irrigated or G
unirrigated, facilities for irrigation, presence of fruit
~ bearing trees, location of the land, closeness to any road
~ or highway, evenness of the land, existence of any
building or structure and a host of other factors bearing
H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

1--·
A on the valuation of the land. [Paras 23 and 24] [84-F-H;
85-A]

3. The claimant made a claim of Rs.160/- per square
yard in one bunch of cases and Rs.200/- per square
yards in the other bunch. Before the District Judge, the
B
first bunch of cases·, as many as 22 deeds of sale were
taken into consideration. The question is as to whether
).,
the acquired land had any building potentiality. Upon
consideration of various deeds of sale including the one
dated 31.5.1983 involving 192 per square yards, it was
c opined that the valuation thereof would be Rs.155/- per
square yard. For arriving this figure, the Reference Judge
took into consideration a circular letter issued by the
State of Uttar Pradesh itself directing that the Land
Acquisition Officers "that the highest sale deed should
D be made as the basis for determination of the market
value". However, in the second bunch of cases. while
taking into consideration 25 deeds of sale, the Land
Acquisition Judge took into consideration the deed of
sale dated 3.9.1984 involving 50 yards of land wherefor
E the amount of compensation fixed was Rs~10,327/-, i.e.,
Rs.206.50 p. per square yard. In respect of the said sale l-
deed an agreement was entered into by and between the
parties in the year 1981 and not in 1983 as noticed by the
y
High Court at 10% increase per year for a period of three
F years, the Reference Judge held that the· flat rate would
come to Rs.128 per square yard. From the ,-said amount,
however, 30% was deducted as the lands in question
were agricultural lands and on that basis the market
value at the rate of Rs.55/- per square yard was found to
G be sufficient. The High Court relied upon a deed of sale
dated 27.7.1983 involving Khasra No.1354 and 1355
rejected the deed of sale deed 27.7.1982. Relying on a
deed of sale dated 2.6.1983 in terms whereof 1 Biswas 9
BisWas in and 15 ·Kachhwansi land pertaining to Khasra
I..
..
1

No.1054 and 1064 was sold for a sum of Rs.1,35,000/-, the
H
SATISH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 69

~ Land Acquisition Collector opined that the market value A
of the land would come to Rs.1,81,512.60 p. per big ha, i.e.,
at the rate of 9.62 p. circle rate. The High Court, however,
while rejecting all the other deeds of sale opined that
reliance should be placed on the deed of sale dated
2.6.1983 in terms whereof the value of the land was B
determined at Rs.58.11 p. per square yard. Opining,
however, that the Special Land Acquisition Officer was
-1 not justified in reducing the compensation on the basis
of fertility of the soil and the circle rate, the High Court
upon adding 10% increase·to the said road held that the c
net rate would come to Rs.63.92 p. per square yard, i.e.,
Rs.641- per square yard. It was furthermore held that the
building potentiality would not be a relevant factor for
calculating the market value of the land. Building
potentiality of land is a relevant factor. National Thermal D
., Power Corporation intended to set up an industry. For the
1 said purpose, they had built up a large number. of offices

quarters. [Paras 25 and 28] [85-8-E; 87-8]

, Hindustan Oil Mills Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Deputy
Col/ector(Land Acquisition) AIR 1990 SC 731, referred to.

4. Submission that market value of the land should
not have been determined on square yard basis may not
E

y be entirely correct. Some of the landholders have very
small holdings. Even the High Court determined the F
valuation on that basis only. Most of the deeds of sale are
in respect of small holdings. Even the deed of sale dated
2.6.1983 involves land measuring 1 Biswas, 9 Biswasin
and 15 Kachhwansi. One Biswa is equal to 151.25 square
yards; one Biswasi is equal to 7.5625 square yards; and
G
one Kachwasi is equal to 0.378 square yards. Calculating
in terms of square yards, it is about 224.98 square yards .
.J
-I,_ The Reference Judge relied upon a deed of sale which
rr involved transfer of 190 square yards. If the 1983 deed of
sale is to be taken into consideration, there is no reason
I. H
.;
70 SUPREME COURT REPQRTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

A as to why the deed of sale dated 2.6.1983 whereupon the ~
Reference Judge placed reljance was kept out of
consideration. The High Court without any valid and
adequate reason refused to take into consideration a
large number of deeds of sale which were relevant for the
B purpose of arriving at the amount of compensation upon
taking into consideration the market value of the land:
[Para 29] [87-C-E]

Rao Narain Singh (Dead) By Lrs. v. Union of India (1993)
c 3 sec 63, referred to.

5. This case has some special features. The acquired
lands although pertain to the administrative jurisdiction
of Gaon Sabha, enough evidence was placed on record
to show that the entire area is commonly known as
D Murad pura area. On the one side of the road is Gaon.
Sabha and on the other side of the road is the
municipality. Assuming that that make some difference
but then the difference is not such which would lead to
a conclusion that the said factor should not be taken into
E considerati?n at all. [Para 31) (88-0-E]

Viluben Jhalenjar Contractor (Dead) by LRs. v. State of
Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789, referred to.

6. There may not be any quarrel with the proposition·
F that circulars of the State Government that highest sale
deed should be taken into consideration for
determination of the fair market value of the land by itself
may not be decisive insofar as the doctrine of
compatibility by reason thereof would be given a
G complete go by. But when comparable exemplars are
brought on record, the one carrying the highest market
value amongst them may be followed. Therefore, the \.- 1-

H
determination of market value at the rate of Rs.115/- per
square yard as arrived at by the High Court cannot be •
SATISH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 71

i held to be on a higher side. There was no reason for the A
Reference Judge to determine the market value of the
land in the other bunch of cases at the rate of Rs.155/-
per square yard. The market value of the land of both the
bunch of cases is determined at Rs.115/- per square yard.
[Paras 32 and 33] (88-G-H; 89-A-C] B

Case Law Reference:
AIR 1990 SC 731 referred to Para 10
(1997) 10 sec 128 referred to Para 15
c
(2001) 3 sec 530 referred to Para 15
(1993) 3 sec 60 referred to Para 16
(2005) 4 sec 789 referr~d to Para 16
D
-; (1996) 6 sec 197 referred to Para 17
(1997) 10 sec 128 referred to Para 17
(2001) 3 sec 530 referred to Para 17
(2004) 8 sec 210 referred to Para 18 E

(1997) 6 sec 41 referred to Para 18
AIR 1990 SC 731 referred to Para 25
'y'
(1993) 3 sec 63 referred to Para 30 F
(2005) 4 sec 789 referred to Para 32

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.'
6230-6251 of 2002.
G
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.07.1999 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal Nos. 80, 81,
,..i
83, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105,
111, 112, 114, 117, 120 and 126of1994.

If H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 11 S.C.R.
r

A WITH t-
C.A. No. 6300 of 2002.

C.A. Nos. 6253-6299, 6301-6321 of 2002.

B Raju Ramachandran, Kailash Vasudev, Ranjit Kumar,
Rakesh Dwivedi, Geetanjali Mohan, Jamshed Bey, Parmanand
Gaur, Ankur Saigal, Bina Gupta, Gaurav Singh Binu Tamta,
Mukti Chowdhary, Shantanu Krishnan, R.K. Gupta, Manoj Kr. ~-

Dwivedi (for Gunnam Venkateswara Rao), Naresh K. Sharma,
c Kamlendra Mishra (NP) and Ashok K. Srivastava(NP) for the
Appearing Parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.S. SINHA, J. 1. These appeals, involving similar
D questions of fact and law, were taken up for hearing together
and are being disposed of by this common judgment. J,-

2. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. is a Public
Sector Undertaking and is engaged, inter alia, in generation
E of electricity. With an intention to set up a thermal power plant
at Sarna, Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar
Pradesh and nearby villages, a requisition was sent to the
Collector of the District for the purpose of acquisition of some
lands belonging to the appellant herein. Pursuant to or in
furtherance of the said requisition and having regard to the fact v
F
that setting up of a thermal power plant was to be treated to
be a public purpose within the meaning of provisions of the
J_and Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called and referred to
for the sake of brevity as 'the Act'), the State of Uttar Pradesh
(the State) on or about 6.9.1984 issued a notification in terms
G of Section 4 thereof.

3. The lands in question are situated in villages Sarna, )..__
Khurrar:npur, Sultanpur, Jalalpur and Mohiuddinpur. Herein, we
are concerned with the lands situated in village Sarna only.
H )
SATISH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 73
[S.S. SINHA, J.]
The said notification was published in the official Gazette A
on 8.9.1984. Keeping in view the fact that generation of
electricity was of urgent and imminent need, a notification under
Section 6 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act was also
issued by the State on 26.9.1984. The said notification was
. published in the Gazette published by the State of Uttar B
Pradesh on 29.9.1984.

4. Notices were issued to the claimants for settlement of
their claims in terms of Section 9 of the Act on 27 .10.1984.
80% of the amount of compensation, as provided for under C
Section 17(3A) of the Act, as determined, was also paid to the
appellants by way of advance.

Possession of the said lands in question was taken on
16.11.1984.
D
The Collector made an award on or about 24.9.1986.

The lands in question were classified in two categories,
namely, 'Dakar Doyat Khaki' and 'Dakar Doyat Aabi' purported
to be having regard to the nature thereof as also the extent of
fertility. E

Before the Collector, a large number of sale deeds in
respect of the lands situated in the said village and/or
neighbouring village were produced. A large number of sale
deeds were kept outside the purview of considera.tion by the F
Land Acquisition Collector for the purpose of making the award
on the premise that the consideration therefor had been paid
in terms of square yards of land and, thus, the rate would be
on higher side.

5. The Collector took into consideration 29 deeds of sale G
in respect of the areas which were within the Murad Nagar
Municipality on the premise that they were more useful and the
rate being on the higher side, the same should also be kept
out of consideration;
H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.
'),.

A He took into consideration only five deeds of sale being I>-
No.34, 254, 480, 629 and 635. Out of the said five sale deeds,
three deeds of sale being No.480, 629 and 635 were again
kept outside the purview of consideration having regard to the
distance factor as also the fact that the lands under the said
B deeds were situated on the other side of the village. So far. as
·
sale deed No:34 is concerned, the Collector was of the opinion
that the amount of consideration stated therein was deliberately
)-
kept low to avoid stamp duty.

6. He took into consideration a deed of sale which was
6 c executed on 27.7.1982, i.e., two years prior to the issuance of
notification under Section 4 of the Act being sale deed No.254
in respect of Khasra No.1354 and 1355.

7. Yet again, on the premise that the lands were very close
D to the area of municipality and it was sold at a very low rate,
the same also had not been taken into consideration. The only +
.deed of sale which was, thus, considered for the purpose of
determination of the amount of compensation was sale deed
No.423. It was executed on 2.6.1983. The land transferred by
E reason thereof admeasured 1 Biswas, 9 Biswansi and 15
Kachhwansi pertaining to Khasra No .1054 and 1064. The
amount of consideration for the said lands was shown as
Rs.13,500/-, wrongly stated in the award as Rs.1,35,000/-. Inter
alia, on the premise· that the deed of sale was executed in ..,.
F respect of a piece of land which was situated outside the
municipal area, the market value therefor was calculated at
Rs.1,81,512.60 per bigha, the circle rate wherefor was to be
Rs.9.62 p. Although it was held that the lands under the said
deed were similar to the acquired lands but according to the
Collector, the circle rate should be determined for 'Dakar Doyat
G
Khaki lands at Rs.3.19p. and for 'Dakar Doyat Aabi' lands at
Rs.4.37 p., the amount of compensation on the said basis was
determined as Rs.60, 189. 72 p. per big ha for the former " \._,,...
category and Rs.82,454.20 p. per bigha 'for the latter.

H The amount of compensation for the land in question was
SATISH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 75
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
i determined at Rs.64,59,429.63 p. on that basis. A

Over and above the said amount of compensation, other.
sums as were admissible in law were also granted which is in
the following term :

"1. Amount of Compensation Rs.64,59,429.63 B

2. House, tree etc. Rs.21,005.00
I
3. 30% Solatium Rs.19,44, 130.39

4. 12% additional from 8.9.84 c
i.e. from the date of notification
till the date of possession
i.e. on 16.11.84 Rs. 1,46,531.69

5. Amount of Interest Rs. 4,10,740.06 D
Total: Rs.89,81,836.77"

8. Appellants filed applications before the Collector for
reference to the District Judge in terms of Section 18 of the
Act. Reference Cases were considered by the Reference Court E
in two bunches, i.e., (1) Baljit's Bunch; and (2) Kanti's Bunch.

9. In the first group consisting of 22 cases, compensation
at the rate of Rs.115/- per square yards was awarded as
('. "' market value of the acquired land irrespective of quality of land
I
F
recorded in the revenue record. In the second group of
references consisting of 25 cases, however, the amount of
compensation was determined at the rate of Rs.155/-· per
square yard.

I 10. In the first award upon consideration of the oral G
~ evidence adduced by the parties, it was opined :
;,/
_.,( "Thus, from this statement it is clear that village Sarna and
~ town Murad Nagar are not distinguishable."
H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S;C.R.

A It was furthermore held that in view of the fact that
Muradnagar is situated on one side of the road and village
Sarna is situated on the other, the administrative distinction that
whereas village Sarna was administratively being controlled by
Gaon Sabha and Muradnagar was being administratively
B controlled by Nagar Palika (Municipalty) was held to be not a
relevant factor. With regard to the categorization. of land, it was
held:

"Keeping this situation in mind, the.belting system even on
the basis of quality of land will be relevant. In Indra Singh
c & Ors. V. Union of India [JT 1993 SC page 653], D.B.
Belting system under these circumstances has been
proper. But in the present case there is no such evidence
from the side of the State or NTPC that some land is likely
to be used as commercial complex on the best quality."
·D
. The. learned Judge, having regard to the Khasra records .;-
and maps opined that Sarna-Muradnagar is a composite name
written on all the revenue papers and, thus, the acquired land
must be treated to be an adjoining land covered by the sale
E deed dated 31.5.1983 in terms whereof the market rate was
worked out to be Rs.155/- per square yard. For determining
the amount of compensation, however, although, the reference
court referred to a decision of this Court. in Hindustan Oil Mills
Ltd. v. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) [AIR 1990 .,.
F SC 731] stating that the value of tlie land doubles in five years ..
but opined that increase at the rate of 10% per year only should
be allowed. The rate, therefore, according to the learned
Judge, could be calculated at the rate of Rs.170/- per square
y~rd. However, having regard to the fact that the said sale deed
related to a small area, a deduction of 30% was made
G
therefrom in terms whereof the ar:nount of compensation came ,.
to Rs.119/- per square yard. It is on that basis that the
)..
compensation at the rate of Rs.115/- per square yard was
arrived at. ~,

·H 11.. In the second reference, however, the learned Judge
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

A failed to take into consideration that even the sale
deed dated .2.6.1983 was in respect of 1 Bigha, 9
biswansi and 15. Kachhwansi of land which would
come to Rs.331/- per square ya ..d and there is no
reason as to why the sale deed in respect of 190
B square yards of land could not have been taken into
consideration as both the said deeds involved
transfer of small portions of land.

(2) The amount of compensation must be determined
on the concept of a value which a free seller would
c receive from, a free buyer and in that view of the
matter as some of the !and owners have small
holdings, there was absolutely no reason as to why
botih the deeds of sale could not have been taken
into consideration' for the purpose of arriving at a
D correct amount of compensation. t

(3) The fact that the High Court itself granted
compensation in respect of the lands on square
yards basis, it could not have upheld the awards of
E the Collector as it had rejected the said method.

(4) The High Court could not have refused to consider
the deed of sale only relying on or on the basis of
the decision of this Court in A.P. State Road ':I
Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, represented
F by Managing Director v. P. Venkaiah & Ors.
"
[(1997) 10 sec 128] as the said judgment was
overruled by this Court in Land Acquisition Officer
& Manda/ Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah [(2001)
3 SCC 530] which view was reiterated in Cement
G Corporation of India Ltd. v. Purya & Ors. [(2004)
8 SCC 270]. Refusal on the part of the courts below
to consider the deeds of sale produced before the
~
~ '
Collector and consequentially before the High Court "
cannot be held to be correct in view of Section 51 A
H of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 90A of the
.....'
SATISH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 79
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
Indian Evidence Act as amer.ded by the State of A
Uttar Pradesh.

(5) The directives issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh
that the sale deed involving the highest
consideration should be taken into consideration
8
having not been followed by the Collector, he must
be held to be guilty of administrative discipline. The
sale deed of the year 1983 having admittedly been
executed in terms of an agreement for sale
executed in the year 1981, the amount of
consideration should have been enhanced keeping C
in view the development of land which was
expected in three years and not one year.

16. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, supported the D
judgment of the High Court contending :

(1) the High Court has rightly relied upon the sale deed
dated 3.5.1984 in view of the fact that the
consideration mentioned therein took into E
----consideration all relevant criterias including Its
building potentiality as has been held by this Court
in Rao Narain Singh (Dead) by LRs. V. Union of
India [(1993) 3 sec 60].
(2) The Reference Court having committed a serious F
error in relying upon the deeds of sale which had
been rejected by the Collector as no reason in
support thereof was assigned, the High Court has
rightly placed reliance on the said deed of sale,
particularly, where some amount of guess work in G
fixing the quantum of compensation is legally
.permissible as has been held by this. Court in
Viluben Jha/ejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs. V.
State of Gujarat [(2005) 4 SCC 789].
H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

A (3) The land under acquisition being within the
administrative jurisdi~tion of Gaon Sabha, the
same could not have been considered to be
similarly situated as the lands within a municipal
area for the purpose of arriving at the mar:ket value
B of the acquired lands.

(4) The administrative circular issued by the State of
. Uttar Pradesh would be applicable only when the
,,.
reliance is placed on a sale deed which is
comparable with the lands under acquisition and
c not otherwise.

(5) The judgment of the reference court must be held
I
to be suffering from a legal infirmity as in two
'
different awards, two different yardsticks for
D calculating the amount of compensation, namely,
fr
Rs.115/- per square yard and Rs.155/- per square
yard respectively had been taken in two different
bunch of cases.

17. At the outset, it must be noticed that the learned
E Reference Judge as also the High Court refused to take into .
'I
consideration a· large number of deeds of sale relying on.or on
the basis of a decision of this Court i.n P. Venkaiah (supra).
..,
Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act construction of
F which fell for consideration before this Court therein reads as
under:

"51A Acqeptance of certified copy as evidence.-:-ln any
proceeding under this Act, a certified copy of a document
registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908),
G
including a copy given under section 57 of that Act, may
be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in ),> ,)

such document."

This Court in .P. Venkaiah (supra) opined that in absence
H
SATISH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 81
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
i of any evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants that the A
amount of consideration mentioned in respect of deeds of sale
are correct either by examining the vendor or the vendee, the
documents per se cannot be relied upon.

The said ratio was reiterated by this Court in State of Bihar B
v. Madheshwar Prasad ((1996) 6 SCC 197] and A.P. State
Road Trnsport Corporation, Hyderabad, represented by
""/' Managing Director v. P. Venkaiah & Ors. [(1997) 10 SCC
128].

Correctness of the aforementioned proposition of law, c
however, was doubted.

A different view was taken in Land Acquisition Officer &
Manda/ v. V. Narsaiah [(2001) 3 SCC 530]. Noticing the
conflict between two three Judge Benches' decision of this D
c; Court, the matter was referred to a Constit1,1tio.n Bench.
. . .
j
~

18. A Constitution Bench of this Cowrt in C~ment
Corporation of India v. Purya & Ors. [(2004) 8 SCC 270]
opined that by reason of the insertion of Section 51A, the
Parliament merely enabled a party to get over the problem, E
namely calling for the original from the vendor or the vendee
and proving the same and, thus, the decision of this Court in
Special Deputy Collector & Anr. v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao &
~
Ors. [(1997) 6 SCC 41] was held to be not laying down the
correct proposition of law, holding : F

"18. From the above, it is seen that till the judgment of the
three Judge Bench in Narasaiah's case (supra), the
consensus of judicial opinion was that Section 51A was
enacted for the limited purpose of enabling a party to G
produce certified copy of a registered sale transaction in
evidence only and for proving the contents of the said
document the parties had to lead oral evidence as
contemplated in the Evidence Act.

19. A careful perusal of the judgment in Kurra Sambasiva H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 11 S.C.R.

A Rao's case and other cases which fall in line with the said
· view discloses that they proceeded on the basis that prior
to the insertion of Section 51Ain the LA Act, the Evidence
Act did not permit the production of a certified copy of the
registered sale transaction in evidence. Therefore, by the
B insertion of Section 51 A the legislature merely enabled a
party to get over that problem. Thereafter, according to the
said judgments, the party concerned had to prove the
contents of the document by adducing oral evidence
separately to prove the contents of the document.
c 20. The above view of the Court in Kurra Sambasiva Rao's
case, in our opinion, is not the correct position in law. Even
prior to the insertion of Section 51 A of the Act the
provisions of the Evidence Act and the Registration Act did
permit the production of a certified copy in evidence. This
D has been clearly noticed }n the judgment in Narsaiah's case
wherein the court relying on Sections 64 and 65(f) of the
Evidence Act read with Section 57(5) of the Registration
Act held that production of a certified copy of a registered
sale document in evidence was permissible in law even
E prior to insertion of Section 51A in the LA Act. We are in
agreement with the said view expressed by this Court in
Narasaiah's case."

The Constitution Bench, thus, laid down the law that for
F praying a certified copy of a registered deed of sale, the vendor
and vendee thereof need not be examined.

19. In the aforementioned backdrop, the Court opined that
Section 51A of the Act seeks to make an exception to proof of
document through primary and secondary evidence stating that
G in the acquisition proceedings, sale deeds are required to be
brought on record for the purpose of determining market value
payable to the owner of the land when it is sought to be
acquired. It was held :

H "35. A registered document in terms of Section 51A of the
SATISH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 83
... [S.B. SINHA, J.]

t Act may carry therewith a presumption of genuineness. A
Such a presumption, therefore, is rebuttable. Raising a
presumption, therefore, does not amount to proof; it only
shifts the burden of proof against whom the presumption
operates for disproving it. Only if the presumption is not
rebutted by discharging the burden, the court may act on B
the basis of such presumption. Even when in terms of the
Evidence Act a provision has been made that the court shall
.., presume a fact, the same by itself would not be irrebuttable
or conclusive. The genuineness of a transaction can always
fall for adjudication, if any question is raised in this behalf." c
20. The Constitution Bench held that a presumption as to
the genuineness of the contents of the document has to be
raised and, thus, reliance can be placed thereon unless it is
rebutted by other evidence.
D
-ti Apart from Section 51 A of the Act, we may notice that State
of Uttar Pradesh, inter alia, has inserted Section 90A in the
Evidence Act which reads as under :

"90A.(1) Where any registered document or a duly certified
E
copy thereof or any certified copy of a document which is
part of the record of a Court of justice, is produced from
any custody which the Court in the particular case
considers proper, the Court may presume that the original
l'
was executed by the person by whom it purports to have
been executed. F

(2) This presumption shall not be made in respect of any
document which is the basis of a suit or of defence or is
relied upon in the plaint or written statement."
G
21. This legal position, thus, being neither in doubt nor
dispute, all the deeds of sale which have been brought on
;I
record subject to the applicability thereof, therefore, in our
opinion should have been taken into consideration . •
H-~
The 'State' in acquiring land of another State or a private
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.
...
A person exercises its power of Eminent Domain which -t
envisages that expropriation of one's property is permissible
if it is in public interest and a reasonable amount of
compensation as provided for in a statute is paid to the owner
thereof.
B
Keeping in view the aforementioned principle in mind, the
provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act laying
down the factors enumerated therein must be taken into
consideration. The first factor which the Parliament mandates
C · to be relevant therefor is the market value of the land at the date
of publication of the notification under Section 4 sub-section (1}.
Market value of a land would, inter alia, mean the value for
which a fee seller of a land would transfer ti is right in the property
to a free buyer. It is only for the aforementioned purposes,
deeds of. sale or othertransf~rs. mµde in r~spect bf similar types
D of land in the surrounding ar~as assume significance.

· 22. For determination of the amount of compensation in
terms of Section 23 of the Act, the methods of valuation which
can be adopted for ascertaining market value are - (1) opinion
E of experts; (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona
fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands
adjacent. to the lands acquired arid possessing similar
advaqtages; and (3) number of years purchase of the actual or
imm~diately prospective profits of the lands acquired.
F
23. While adopting the second method, the transactions
·which are relevant, thus, are required to be taken into
consideration. The Collector, the Reference Judge or the High
Court without assigning appropriate reasons would not be
entitled to discard one deed of sale and rely upon the other. It
G must be done on some legal principle, rationality and cogent
reasons.

24. Some other factors which are relevant for determination
of the amount of compensation are - the nature and quality of
H land, whether irrigated or unirrigated, facilities for irrigation,
SATISH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORs'. 85
• [S.B. SINHA, J.]
t
presence of fruit bearing trees, location of the land, closeness A
to any road or highway, evenness of the land, existence of any
building or structure and a host of other factors bearing on the
valuation of the land.

25. The claimant made a claim of Rs.160/- per square
B
yard in one bunch of cases and Rs.200/- per square yards in
.., the other bunch. Before the learned District Judge, the first
bunch of cases, as many as 22 deeds of sale were taken into
consideration. The question is as to whether the acquired land
had any building potentiality. Upon consideration of various
deeds of sale including the one dated 31.5.1983 involving c
192'Yi square yards, it was opined that the valuation thereof
would be Rs.155/- per square yard. For arriving at the
aforementioned figure, the learned Reference Judge took into
consideration a circular letter issued by the State of Uttar
""'!' Pradesh itself directing that the Land Acquisition Officers "that D
the highest sale deed .should be made as the basis for
determination of the market value". Reliance was also placed
on a decision of this Court in Hindustan Oil Mills Ltd. & Anr.
v. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) [AIR 1990 SC
731] wherein it has been held that the value of the land doubles E
in five years to opine that the increase of 20% per year is a
normal phenomenon. However, the Land Acquisition Judge give
only 10% increase per year for the aforementioned purpose.

26. However, in the second bunch of cases while taking
F
into consideration 25 deeds of sale, the learned Land
Acquisition Judge took into consideration the deed of sale
dated 3.9.1984 involving 50 yards of land wherefor the amount
of compensation fixed was Rs.10,327/-, i.e., Rs.206.50 p. per
square yard. The Court, however, notice that in respect of the
said sale deed an agreement was entered into by and between G
\i the parties in the year 1981 and not in 1983 as noticed by the
High Court at 10% increase per year for a period of three years,
the learned Reference Judge held that the flat rate would come ·
to Rs.128 per square yard. From the said amount, however,
H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 11 S.C.R.

i
A 30% was deducted as the lands in question were agricultural
lands and on that bases the market value at the rate of Rs,55/
- per square yard was found to be sufficient. The High Court
relied upon a deed of sale dated 27. 7 .1983 involving Khasra
No.1354 and 1355 rejected the deed of sale deed 27.7.1982.
B Relying on a deed of sale dated 2.6.1983 in terms whereof 1
Biswas 9 Biswasin and 15 Kachhwansi land pertaining to
Khasra No.1054 and 1064 was sold for a sum of Rs.1,35,000/
-, the Land Acquisition Collector opined that the· m;:irket value
of the land would come to Rs.1,81,512.60 p, per bi9ha, i.~L at
the rate of 9.62 p. circle rate. It was held:
c
"Now only sale deed No.423 remained. This sale deed is
executed on 2.6.83. From this 1 Biswa, 9, Biswasi, 15
Kachwasi land·of Khasra No.1054 and 1064 was sale for
135000. This sale deed is outside the area of municipality
D and it is sell in bigha, biswa and biswasi which comes to
1,81,512.60 paise per bigha at the rate of 9.62 paise
circle. This sale deed is similar to the acquired land. But
the circle rate of this land is suitable to amend according
to the circle rate of the acquired land which is suitable and
E justified to select this. The acquired land is of two. types
i.e. Dakar Dayam Khakhi whose circle rate is 3.19 paise
and dakan doyam Awi whose circle rate is 4.37 paise~ On
the basis of selected sale deed at the rate of Rs.3.19 circle --{
rate it comes to 60, 189.72 and at the rate of Rs.4.37 it
F comes to 82,454.26 which is right and justified. The
compensation of the acquired and estimated to
64,59,429.63 which is payable to the land owner."

27. The High Court, however, while rejecting all the other
deeds of sale opined that reliance shoulq be placed on the deed
G of sale dated 2.6.1983 in terms whereof the value of the land
was determined at Rs.58.11 p. per square yard. Opining,
however, that the Special Land Acquisition Officer was not
justified in reducing the compensation on the basis of fertility
of the soil and the circle rate, the High Court upon adding 10%
H
SATISH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 87
"'
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
1"
increase to the said road held that the net rate would come to A
Rs.63.92 p. per square yard, i.e., Rs.64/- per square yard.

28. It was furthermore held that the building potentiality
would not be a relevant factor for calculating the market value
of the· land. Building potentiality of land, in our opinion, is a B
relevant factor. National Thermal Power Corporation intended
i to set up an industry. For the said purpose, they have built up
a large number of offices quarters.

29. Submission of Mr. Dwivedi that market value of the
land should not have been determined on square yard basis c
may not be entirely correct. Some of the landholders have very
small holdings. Even the High Court, as noticed hereinbefore,
determined the valuation on that basis only. As noticed
hereinbefore, most of the deeds of sale are in respect of small
_., holdings. Even the deed of sale dated 2.6.1983 involves land D
measuring 1 Biswas, 9 Biswasin and 15 Kachhwansi. One
Biswa is equal to 151.25 square yards; one Biswasi is equal
to 7.5625 square yards; and one Kachwasi-is equal to 0.378
square yards. Calculating in terms of square yards, it is about
224.98 square yards. The Reference Judge relied upon a deed E
of sale which involved transfer of 190 square yards. If the 1983
deed of sale is to be taken into consideration, there is no
reason as to why the deed of sale dated 2.6.1983 whereupon
"" the learned Reference Judge placed reliance was kept out of
consideration. As indicated hereinbefore, the High Court has F
without any valid and adequate reason refused to take into
consideration a large number of deeds of sale which were
relevant for the purpose of arriving at the amount of
compensation upon taking into consideration the market value
of the land. G
~
30. Mr. Dwivedi places strong reliance upon a decision of
this Court in Rao Narain Singh (Dead) By Lrs. v. Union of India
[(1993) 3 sec 63] wherein it was held :
'
r.'
"Building potentiality of the acquired land, claimed to be H
'/

88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 11 S.C.R.
..
A possessed by the acquired land, can assume no 't

significance in· the instant case ;:iS 'the comparable sales
method' of valuation of land is resorted to by the High
Court. Such method is resorted to, as the acquired land
was found to be comparable in its essential features with
B land(s) respecting which evidence of certain sale deed(s),
was produced. Hence, the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant raised to establish that the
acquired land had building potentiality at the time of its
acquisition, need not engage our consideration."
c 31. No legal principle has been laid down therein. This
Court ha~ riot dedared the law that building potentiality is an
irrelevant consideration. This case has some special features.
The acquired lands although pertain to the administrative
jurisdiction of Gaon Sabha, enough evidence had been placed
D ·on record to show that the entire area is commonly known as
,....
Murad pura area. On the one side of the road is Gaon Sabha
.'
and on the other side of the road is the municipality. We assume
that that make some difference but then the difference is not
such which would lead us to a conclusion that the said factor
E should not be take.n into consideration at all.

32. Reliance has also been placed by Mr. Dwivedi on a
decision of this Court in Viluben Jhalenjar Contractor (Dead)
by LRs. v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 4 sec 789). In that case,
F the lands in question were acquired only because they would
remain submerged under water and, thus, would not have any
potential value. It is only in the aforementioned context this
Court opined that the purpose for which the lands were acquired
would be a relevant consideration. In that case, the area was
not developed at all. No facility like internal roads, drainage,
G
etc. was available.

There may not be any quarrel with the proposition that
circulars of the State Government that highest sale deed should
be taken into consideration for determination of the fair market I
)

H value of the land by itself may not be decisive insofar as the ·'
SATISH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 89
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
doctrine of compatibility by reason thereof would be given a A
complete go by. But when comparable exemplars are brought
on record, the one carrying the highest market value amongst
them may be followed. We, therefore, are of the opinion that
the determination~of market value at the rate of Rs.115/- per
square yard as arrived at by the High Court cannot be held to B
be on a higher side.

33. We, however, are of the opinion that there was no
reason for the learned Reference Judge to determine the
market value of the· land in the other bunch of cases at the rate
of Rs.155/- per square yard. The market val~e of the land of C
both the bunch of cases is determined at Rs.115/- per square
yard.

34. Civil Appeal Nos.6230-6251, 6300, 6301-6321 of
2002 are, thus, allowed with costs and Civil Appeal Nos. 6253- D
6299 of 2002 are dismissed as not pressed for. Counsel's fee
assessed at Rs.50,000/- in each case payable by National
Thermal Power Corporation.

35. Before parting, however, we may notice that National E
Thermal Power Corporation had given an undertaking before
the High Court. The said amount has not yet been paid~ The
amount of compensation even as determined by the High Court
has not been paid. It is, thus, expedient that the amount of
compensation would be paid to the land owners as
expeditiously as possible. F

D.G. Appeals disposed of.