PRAKASH NARAIN ( 1 ) THIS will dispose of the two connectedappeals. Regular First Appeal No. 214 of 1969 and Regular First Appeal No. 338 of 1969, which are in the nature of cross-appeals againstthe same judgment of an Additional District Judge disposing of a referenceunder section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referredto as "the Act" ). ( 2 ) A notification under section 4 of the Act was issued by thedelhi Administration on 26/05/1960 in respect of land and buildingsof a property commonly known as Ludlow Castle Estate. A declarationunder section 6 of the Act was made in respect of the said propertyon 8/08/1961. After inviting claims the Land Acquisition Collector gave his award in respect of 54 bighas and 12 biswas of landbut did not give his award in respect of the land under the petrolpump and the Swiss Hotel. The petrol pump, it may be noted, wassituated on land forming part of the Ludlow Castle Estate. He alsomade an award in respect of compensation to be pad for the buildingstanding on the said land and the wells therein. Before the Land Acquisition Collector Smt. Hero Bibi and others, the appellants in R. F. A. No. 214 of 1969 claimed compensation for the land at Rs. 100. 00per Sq. Yd. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation forthe land at the rate of only Rs. 15. 00 per Sq. Yd. He awardedrs. 1,29,116,00 as compensation for the superstructure andrs. 4864. 00 as compensation for the trees. Dissatisfied with the awardsmt. Heero Bibi and others moved an application under section 18of the Act for a reference to be made to the District Judge. Thereference as noticed earlier was answered by the impugned judgmentof an Additional District Judge, Delhi. Before the Additional District Judge Smt. Heero Bibi and others claimed compensation for land at Rs. 100. 00per Sq. Yd. , for the two wells at Rs. 5000. 00 each and for the superstructure they claimed the sum of Rs. 4,00,000. 00. The Additional Districtjudge by the impugned judgment dated 24/12/1968 awardedcompensation for land at the rate of Rs. 20. 40 per Sq. Yd. an enhancement of Rs. 5. 40 per Sq. Yd. For the superstructure he enhanced thecompensation by Rs. 6826. 00 but rejected the claim for enhancementof compensation for wells etc. 4,00,000. 00. The Additional Districtjudge by the impugned judgment dated 24/12/1968 awardedcompensation for land at the rate of Rs. 20. 40 per Sq. Yd. an enhancement of Rs. 5. 40 per Sq. Yd. For the superstructure he enhanced thecompensation by Rs. 6826. 00 but rejected the claim for enhancementof compensation for wells etc. not being satisfied by the enhancement inthe compensation for the land Smt, Heero Bibi and others have cometo this Court in appeal and claim that the market rate Rs. 65. 00 persq. Yd. No enhancement is claimed for the building or the wells. Weare, therefore, only concerned with the question as to what enhancement, if any, is to be granted to Smt. Heero Bibi and others for theirland acquired by the Government. ( 3 ) THE Union of India is also dissatisfied with the compensationgranted by the judgment of the Additional District Judge. It has, therefore,filed R. F. A. No. 338 of 1969 against Smt. Heero Bibi and others withthe prayer that enhancement in the market rate of land granted by theaddl. District Judge be set aside and it be held that the correct marketvalue of the acquired land of Smt. Heero Bibi and others is Rs. 15. 00per Sq. Yd. , as was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. ( 4 ) IN asmuch as these are cross-appeals by Smt. Heero Bibi andother and the Union of India it will be convenient if instead of the partiesbeing referred to as appellants or respondents Smt. Heero Bibi and othersare referred to as the claimants and the Union of India and the Landacquisition Collector, the appellants in R. F. A. No. 338 of 1969, collectively as the Government. ( 5 ) THE claimants in support of their claim produced evidence ofsales of properties in the vicinity and even part of the Ludlow Castleestate and an agreement to sell pertaining to a part of the acquired landitself. The Government on the other hand has produced evidence ofonly one sale in the vicinity. The learned Additional District Judge rejectingthe entire evidence produced by the claimants has based his decisiononly on the sale transition evidenced by the copy of a sale deeddated 25/02/1960, Ex. R. 4. In our opinion, the learned Addl. District Judge wrongly rejected the evidence of the claimants andwas not justified in relying on Ex. R. 4. We will, therefore, discuss theentire evidence. R. 4. In our opinion, the learned Addl. District Judge wrongly rejected the evidence of the claimants andwas not justified in relying on Ex. R. 4. We will, therefore, discuss theentire evidence. ( 6 ) BEFORE we proceed to discuss the evidence it would be appropriate to note the situation of the claimants acquired land. On page 93of the paper book is a note pertaining to the inspection of the siterecorded by the Additional District Judge himself. He records : "the land of the reference of Smt. Heero Bibi and others issituated on the junction of Alipur and Ludlow Castleroads. The office of the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration, is on the other side of this land. . . . . . . . . . . . Theland of the reference of Bishamber Nath Ram Sarup hasalso been visited. It is on Ludlow Castle Road, whichformed a part of the out-houses of the Ludlow Castleestate, now a subject matter of reference made by Smt. Heero Bibi and others. The Land of M/s. Bishamber Nathram Sarup is comparatively low-lying and a drain, throughwhich sullage water flows, passed on one side. "thus we see that the land in question is bounded by Alipur Road,one of the two main roads in Civil Lines, and Ludlow Castle Roadon which as is well-known is situate the raj Niwas . Oppositeto the land in question are the office of the Delhi Administrationand the land is better located than the land covered by the referenceof Bishamber Nath Ram Sarup which also was in the Ludlow Castleestate. ( 7 ) THE first piece of evidence that the claimants produced was the copy of a sale deed (Ex. A. 8) dated 2/11/1960 in respectof the property known as the Bombay House, situate on Ludlow Castleroad, Delhi. This sale deed was in furtherance of an agreement tosell dated 4/08/1960. The property sold fetched a price ofrs. 2,50,000. 00. The land in this property was 6000 Sq. Yds. with abungalow constructed on it. ( 8 ) EX. A. 4 is the copy of the deed dated 9/11/1959 bywhich property bearing Municipal No. 12 in Commissioner s Lane,delhi was sold for Rs. 1,40,000. 00. This property comprised of 23,00sq. Yds. of land with a bungalow thereon. ( 9 ) EX. The land in this property was 6000 Sq. Yds. with abungalow constructed on it. ( 8 ) EX. A. 4 is the copy of the deed dated 9/11/1959 bywhich property bearing Municipal No. 12 in Commissioner s Lane,delhi was sold for Rs. 1,40,000. 00. This property comprised of 23,00sq. Yds. of land with a bungalow thereon. ( 9 ) EX. A. 5 is the copy of a sale deed dated 25/01/1960 bywhich half of the property known as No. 10, Ludlow Castle Roadwas sold for Rs. 65,000. 00. This property comprised of land measuringa 1400 Sq. Yds. with a superstructure thereon. The agreement to sellthis property culminating in the sale was entered into on 23/12/1959 while the earnest money was paid by the vender to the vendeeon 17/11/1959 and 23/12/1959. ( 10 ) EX. A. 6 is the agreement to sell executed on 3/04/1959between the claimants and the Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. ,calcutta. By this agreement the claimants agreed to sell land measuring12,440 Sq. Yds. forming part of the propertyknown as Ludlow Castleestate for Rs. 3,35,880. 00 at the rate of Rs. 27. 00 per Sq. Yd. A sumof Rs. 10. 000. 00 by way of earnest money was paid by the companyto the claimants by cheque dated 3/04/1959 (Ex. A. I) for whicha proper receipt dated 3/04/1959 was executed by the claimants. It may be noted here that on account of the acquisition of the landcovered by Ex. A. 6 the agreement to sell did not mature into a saleand the earnest money of Rs. 10,000. 00 received by the claimants wasrefunded to the company. Ex. A. 7 is a receipt issued by the companyfor refund of Rs. 10,000. 00 and cancelled the receipt of Rs. 10. 000. 00given by the claimants to the Imperial Tobacco Co. on 3/04/1959 (Ex. A. S ). ( 11 ) EX. A. 9 is the copy of a sale deed dated 14/09/1959by which 1214 Sq. Yds. of land with a bungalow on it on Ram Kishoreroad, Delhi was sold for Rs. 43746. 00. Ex. A. 10 is the copy of asale deed dated 14/01/1961 by which a plot of land, originallyforming part of the property known as annexe to Ludlow Castle,situate on 2 Ludlow Castle Road, Delhi was sold for Rs. 1,26,000. 00. The property comprised of 3000 Sq. Yds. of land having some servantquarters and garages in the back portion. 43746. 00. Ex. A. 10 is the copy of asale deed dated 14/01/1961 by which a plot of land, originallyforming part of the property known as annexe to Ludlow Castle,situate on 2 Ludlow Castle Road, Delhi was sold for Rs. 1,26,000. 00. The property comprised of 3000 Sq. Yds. of land having some servantquarters and garages in the back portion. Ex. A. II is the copy ofa sale deed dated 21/03/1960 by which 7052 Sq. Yds. of landbeing portion of premises bearing municipal No. 2 on Ludlow Castleroad, Delhi were sold for Rs. 2,46,820. 00. This property like theproperty covered by Ex. A. 10 had land with some quarters on it. Itmay be noticed that in Ex. A. II it is mentioned specifically that theland in question was covered by a notification issued under section of the Act though no declaration under section 6 had been made. The vendees had purchase this land and paid a price of Rs. 35. 00 persq. Yd. for the land and superstructure thereon, the land being 2052sq. Yds. and had taken the risk of getting the land denotified. ( 12 ) EX. A. 12 is the copy of a sale deed by which property atii, Metcalf Road, Delhi, was sold. The land in this propertywas 1484 Sq. Yds. and it had a superstructure on it. The sale transaction was for Rs. 1,32,500. 00. ( 13 ) EX. A. 13 is the copy of a judgment in land Acquisition Cases Nos. 207 of 1964 and 172 of 1964 given by the same Additional Districtjudge in respect of compensation to be paid for land notified foracquisition in June, 1961 situate at Mori Gate, Delhi- We need notcomment upon this piece of evidence because in our opinion it iswholly irrelevant. The land in respect of which this judgment wasgiven was situate in a thickly populated area within the city wallsand was in no way similar to the land with which the present appealsare concerned. ( 14 ) THE only instance of sale produced on the record on behalfof the Government is a copy of the sale deed dated 25/02/1960pertaining to 6282 Sq. Yds. of land with 16 servant quarters builtthereon. This property was sold for Rs. 88,941. 50m pursuance of anagreement of sale dated 12/06/1959. The rate at which the land wassold is mentioned in the sale deed as Rs. 15 per Sq. Yd. Yds. of land with 16 servant quarters builtthereon. This property was sold for Rs. 88,941. 50m pursuance of anagreement of sale dated 12/06/1959. The rate at which the land wassold is mentioned in the sale deed as Rs. 15 per Sq. Yd. and the totalprice was paid for land and the superstructure thereon. This documentis Ex. R. 4. ( 15 ) THE Additional District Judge rejected the evidence of Ex. A. 3 on the ground that the transaction had taken place about 6 month after thesec. 4 notification and the price paid included the price of the superstructure as well as the land and it was difficult to find out as to whatwas the price of the land alone. For the same reason he rejected theevidence contained in Ex. A. 4 though the claiments had producedphool Chand Goel an architact who had evaluated the superstructureas per plan Ex. AW4/1 and given an estimate Ex. AW4/2was also rejected. The claimants had submitted that out of thetotal consideration of Rs. 1,46,000. 00 paid by the vendee to thevendor, as mentioned in Ex. A/4 dated 9/11/1959 the valueof the superstructure which came to Rs. 37,615. 00 according to Shri Phoolchand Goel had to be deducted leaving a balance of Rs. 1,03,385. 00as the value of the land, giving a market price of Rs. 47. 00 persq. Yd. The Additional District Judge rejected this contention because thismethod of finding out the price of land with superstructure thereonwas, according to him cumbersome. It is not understood how the learnedaddl. District Judge made this observation because in assessing" thecompensation to be paid to the claimants for their property he reliedupon the evidence of the Government regarding the value of superstructure which was evaluated separately vide Ex. R. 1. and Ex. R. 3. Inour opinion, if in a property comprising land and superstructure, theonly known factor is the total price paid for the entire property, a goodmethod of finding out the value of the land comprised in the propertyis to get the superstructure valued and to deduct that value from thetotal price paid. It is certainly one of the well-known methods and areasonable one to follow. ( 16 ) EX. A. 5 was rejected by the Additional District Judge as irrelevant piece of evidence for the same reasons which prompted him to reject. Ex. It is certainly one of the well-known methods and areasonable one to follow. ( 16 ) EX. A. 5 was rejected by the Additional District Judge as irrelevant piece of evidence for the same reasons which prompted him to reject. Ex. A. 4 despite Shri Phool Chand Goel s report about the value ofthe super structure proved by him as correct when he appeared as AW4. According to the report Ex. AW 4/3 the superstructure on the land wasof the value of Rs. 6779. 00 leaving a balance of Rs. 48,211. 00 as theprice of land, giving an average of Rs. 34. 60 per Sq. Yd. ( 17 ) EX. A. 9 was rejected on the ground that the property was situate on Ram Kishor Road which was about 3 furlongs from the land inquestion. It was noticed that the average price of land accordingto that transaction came to Rs. 39. 00 per Sq. Yd. That transaction took place 8 months prior to the notification under section 4 ofthe Act issued in respect of the land in question. ( 18 ) EX. A. 10 was rightly rejected because the value of the superstructure was not proved. Ex. A. II was similarly rejected as the valueof the superstructure was not proved Ex. A. 12 has rightly been notcommented upon because it is in respect of a transaction on Metcaiferoad which is far away. ( 19 ) EX. A. 6 has been rejected on rather peculiar grounds whichwe must hold to be purely conjectural and not based on any evidence. The learned Additional District Judge has held that the agreement to sell (Ex. A. 6) was void abi initio as it was not acted upon by the partiesfor 14 months and a close scrutiny of the terms show that sub-clauses (a) and (b) and clause 4, sub-clause (a) of clause (5) and clause 9of the said agreement gave untramelled power to the purchase torescind the contract and not to purchase the land in question eventhough all conditions were fulfilled by the seller. In our opinion, thisobservation was uncalled for and unjustified. As noticed earlier onthe execution of agreement Ex. A. 6 the intending purchaser paidrs. 10,000. 00 as earnest money by cheque Ex. A/i to the claimants. When the agreement fell through on account of acquisition of landthe earnest money was refunded. Receipts Ex. A. 7 and Ex. In our opinion, thisobservation was uncalled for and unjustified. As noticed earlier onthe execution of agreement Ex. A. 6 the intending purchaser paidrs. 10,000. 00 as earnest money by cheque Ex. A/i to the claimants. When the agreement fell through on account of acquisition of landthe earnest money was refunded. Receipts Ex. A. 7 and Ex. A. 8besides the fact that it was an agreement for sale entered into by apublic limited liability company leaves no doubt that it was a genuinetransaction. With regard to sub-clauses (a) and (b) and clause 4 wefind nothing unnatural in them. The agreement was executed,. inter-aliaon behalf of minors. It was, therefore, perfectly legitimate for thevendee to have got a clause inserted that the vendors will obtain suchpermission or sanction as in their opinion may be necessary for thesale of the land to the company on behalf of the minors. Sub-clause (b) was a precautionary clause which a normally prudent purchaserwould have inserted when part of an estate of plot is being sold by subdivision of the entire estate or plot. Similarly we do not find clause5 (a) clause 9 to be unconcionable or giving untrammelled powers tothe purchaser. Clause 5 (a) provides that the vendors undertake andagree to provide an approach road. This was necessary because theestate was being divided and only a part of it was being sold to thecompany. Clause 9 provides that the company would have power torescind the agreement in any of the contingencies mentioned therein,one of them being that in case the land is notified for acquisition by thecentral or State Government or anyother body authorised in law toacquire land before the completion of the sale deed the company mayrescind the contract. It is a precautionary clause which cannot be saidto be a clause giving untrammelled powers to the intending purchaser. Similarly the other sub-clauses in clause 9 are precautionary clauseswhich would be got inserted by any intending purchaser. It is worthnoticing that when Mr. E. C. Williams Accountant of Imperial Tobaccoco. appeared as AW3, and proved the agreement to sell Ex. A. 6, thepayment of the earnest money and the refund of the earnest money,no question whatsoever was put to him in cross-examination, muchlessa question doubting the intention of the parties to act upon the agreement Ex. A. 6. We, therefore, disagree with the observations of theaddl. District Judge about Ex. appeared as AW3, and proved the agreement to sell Ex. A. 6, thepayment of the earnest money and the refund of the earnest money,no question whatsoever was put to him in cross-examination, muchlessa question doubting the intention of the parties to act upon the agreement Ex. A. 6. We, therefore, disagree with the observations of theaddl. District Judge about Ex. A. 6 and hold that it was a relevantpiece of evidence, particularly, in view of the fact that it was enteredinter prior to the notification under section 4 of the Act and was inrespect of a part of the land covered by the present acquisition. ( 20 ) EX. R. 4 on which the Additional District Judge relied was inour opinion, not a very good piece of evidence to rely upon andcertainly not better than the other evidence adduced on the record. Admittedly, according to the inspection note of the Additional Districtjudge, land covered by Ex. R. 4 was not so well situated as theland in the present case. It seems that the Additional Districtjudge forgot to note that Ex. R. 4 and Ex. R. 6 are more or lesscontemperaneous. Between the two, Ex. A. 6 afforded better datafor arriving at the market value of the land. ( 21 ) THE estimate proved by AW4, Shri Phool Chand Goel wererejected by the Additional District Judge on the ground that Shri Goelwas an interested witness and the process of deducting the value ofsuper-structure from the price of the property was a cumbersomeprocess to arrive at the value of the land. In our opinion, the Addl. District Judge had no justification to arrive at that conclusion. Theestimates Ex. AW 4/2 and Ex. AW 4/3 were prepared after measurements had been taken and as AW 4 Shri Phool Chand Goel saidin his cross-examination, the rates adopted by him for arriving atthe per square foot cost of the super-structure were the 1955 C. P. W. D-schedule of rates. Looking at Ex. AW 4/2 and Ex. AW 4/3 we findthat rates given by Shri Goel are rather on the low side. Ex. R. 1and Ex. R. 2 produced by the Government in connection with theclaim for the super-structure on the required land are also based onthe 1955 C. P. W. D. schedule of rates. Therefore, there is noreasonwhy Ex. AW 4/2 and Ex. AW 4/3 should have been rejected. ( 22 ) ACCORDING to Ex. Ex. R. 1and Ex. R. 2 produced by the Government in connection with theclaim for the super-structure on the required land are also based onthe 1955 C. P. W. D. schedule of rates. Therefore, there is noreasonwhy Ex. AW 4/2 and Ex. AW 4/3 should have been rejected. ( 22 ) ACCORDING to Ex. A. 6, which we hold to be a very relevantpiece of evidence, market value of the land was Rs. 27 per sq. yd. Ex- A. 6 is, in point of time, 14 months prior to the section 4 notification in the preseat case and is in respect of part of the rearportion of the acquired land. It was also for a large parcel of land,viz. , 124405 Sq. Yds. The agreement shows that the intention ofthe intending purchaser was to build office-cum-residential property. Ex. A. 4 is the sale deed dated 9/11/1959, prior to thesection 4 notification in the present case. This was in respect of2400 Sq. Yds. with super-structure thereon. The total price paidwas Rs. 1,46,000. From this we must deduct Rs. 37,615, whichwas the value of the super-structure as per Ex. AW 4/2, leavinga balance of Rs. 1,08,385 as the price of 2300 Sq. Yds. This givesan average of Rs. 47 per Sq. Yd. ( 23 ) EX. A. 5 evidences sale of 1400 Sq. Yds. of land with superstructure thereon. Ex. AW 4/3 which shows the value of the buildingas Rs. 16,779 leaves the price of land as Rs. 44,211. This givesan average of Rs. 34. 40 per Sq. Yd. The other instances are notso relevant because they give prices of land with super-structure andthe super-structures were not separately evaluated. All the samethe other instances do show that price of land in this area wasmuch more han what was awarded by the Additional District Judge. ( 24 ) IT was urged on behalf of the Government that what hasto be kept in view is that the acquired land is almost 55,000 Sq. Yds. and it is difficult to find one buyer for such a large parcel of land. It was submitted that instances of sales of smaller plots of landwould not be relevant. It is urged in the appeal filed by Governmentthat the enhancement granted by the Additional District Judge over theprice evidenced by Ex. R. 4 was not justified. We do not agree. It was submitted that instances of sales of smaller plots of landwould not be relevant. It is urged in the appeal filed by Governmentthat the enhancement granted by the Additional District Judge over theprice evidenced by Ex. R. 4 was not justified. We do not agree. It is no doubt true that smaller plots of land fetch higher price inresidential areas but the evidence as produced is not worthlessfurthermore, we have the evidence of a large tract of land over12000 Sq. Yds. having been agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs. 27per Sq. Yd. in Ex. A. 6. ( 25 ) WE have already held that Ex. R. 4 was not a piece ofevidence on which alone reliance could be placed. We also hold thatthe enhancement given by the Additional District Judge was not adequate. In this view of the matter the appeal filed by the Government cannotbe accepted and is hereby dismissed. ( 26 ) COMING now to the price of land in question we find thatthe maximum price in the area was Rs. 47 per Sq. Yd. for landcovered by Ex. A. 4. This property was situate on Ludlow Castleroad. It was a smaller plot of land than land with which we arcconcerned but situation-wise it could not be said to be better thanthe land in question. The land in question is definitely far superiorby way of location than the land covered by Ex. A. 4 Then there isthe market value of land evidenced by Ex. A. 5 which comes tors. 37 per Sq. Yd. This was rather a small plot of land againon Ludlow Castle Road but with several disadvantages, namely, itwas half the property known as 10, Ludlow Castle Road and notso well located as the land of the claimants. ( 27 ) A mean has to be found between the price evidenced byex. A. 6 and the price evidenced by Ex. A. 4 and Ex. A. 5 by keepingthe advantages and disadvantages of the land of the claimants andthe land covered by Ex. A. 6, Ex. A. 4 and Ex. A. 5in our mind. In our opinion considering that the land in question was such a largetract of land but better situate and quality-wise better than theland covered by Ex. A. 4, Ex. A. 5 and was notified for acqusition14 months after Exhibit A. 6, the price has to be more than Rs. A. 6, Ex. A. 4 and Ex. A. 5in our mind. In our opinion considering that the land in question was such a largetract of land but better situate and quality-wise better than theland covered by Ex. A. 4, Ex. A. 5 and was notified for acqusition14 months after Exhibit A. 6, the price has to be more than Rs. 27per sq. yard but less than Rs. 47 per sq. yard. The rising trend in pricesof land can be gauged from Exhibit A. 3, Exhibit A. 4, Exhibit A. 5,exhibit A. 9, Exhibit A. 1o and Exhibit A. 11. We, therefore, fix thefair market value of the claimants land to be Rs. 35 per sq. yard. We arrive at this figure because the claimants land now acquired hasto be adjudged as a compact plot of land which a willing purchaser maypurchase. Very few persons could have been found to buy such alarge tract of land. We cannot persuade ourselves to give more thanrs. 35 per sq. yard became once again we have to keep in view thearea of the land in question. A smaller plot though not so well situated. yet being almost opposite to Raj Niwas was sold for Rs. 47 per sq. yard. Similarly, Rs. 37 per sq. yard, as evidenced by Exhibit A. 5,could be paid for a smaller plot not so well located but not for such alarge tract of land as the claimants land in question. We, accordingly,enhance the compensation for the land of the claimants to Rs. 35 persq. yard. The claimants would be entitled to proportionate increase inthe solatium and interest on the enhanced compensation from the datethe Government took possession till the date of payment. The appealof Smt. Heero Bibi and others is accepted in terms of our observationsmade above. The claimants will also be entitled to proportionate costsin R. F. A. No. 214 of 1969. R. F. A. No. 338 of 1969 filed by thegovernment is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs inthis Court.