Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1876 (ALL)

Kiran Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-05-13

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Heard Sri Manish Goyal and Sri Prateek Tyagi, learned counsels for the appellant and Sri Siddhartha Singh Srinet, learned Standing Counsel. 2. These appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act have been filed against the common judgment and award dated 27.5.2002 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hapur, Ghaziabad in Land Acquisition Reference No. 479 of 1997 (Kiran Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) connected with 9 other references. Land of 10 villages for a total area of 260-06-17 was acquired for the construction of Hapur By-pass vide notification dated 21.5.1991 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 6 notification was issued on 11.10.1991. The possession of the land was taken on 2.1.993 and 27.2.1993. The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award on 6.6.1996. As per the list appended to the award containing the name of villages, market rate awarded, total compensation of the lands of village Rampur, wherein the land under this appeal exists was for total area of 31-1-18, which was acquired. 3. In all the references of one village, common evidence was led and common questions of law were argued. All the references were answered by the common judgment and award on 27.5.2002. 4. The grounds taken by the appellants to challenge the award are that the Reference Court has grossly under valued the land in assessing its market value at the circle rate fixed by the Collector and coming to the conclusion that the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer is perfectly justified. The references have been rejected ignoring the factors which are required to be taken into consideration for assessment of just and fair market value of the land. The lands in question come under the Regulated Area of City Board, Hapur declared as such vide notification dated 27.5.1993 and are lands of high building potential value. At the time of acquisition, the lands were well-irrigated lands having tube-well and other facilities. All the lands under reference were highly fertile lands producing rotational crops of vegetables in all four faslis. There existed fruit trees and woods over the lands. The location as per the village map is prime location as one side of the lands is abutting Nagar Palika Hapur Road. At the north, it opens on the By-pass road and the remaining boundaries are abutting villages Sabri and Imroti. 5. There existed fruit trees and woods over the lands. The location as per the village map is prime location as one side of the lands is abutting Nagar Palika Hapur Road. At the north, it opens on the By-pass road and the remaining boundaries are abutting villages Sabri and Imroti. 5. The exemplar sale deed chosen by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is of a barren land lying near a Bone Mill approximately at a distance of one km. from the acquired lands. The fertility of the land of the exemplar sale deed was not comparable to the lands under acquisition. It was full of phosphorus and was not suitable for agricultural purposes whereas the lands under the appeals were fertile lands having all facilities of irrigation. The exemplar sale deed of the nearest plot filed by the appellants was rejected by the Reference Court solely on the ground that it was a sale deed of small area. The sale deed dated 12.1.1990 Paper No. 18GA is of 2 Biswas of two plots namely 443 (4 biswa) and 446 (8 biswa) in Khata No. 202. On behalf of the State the plea is that such a small area could not have been sold for agricultural purposes rather it could only be said to have been executed for the construction of Abadi and, therefore, was not comparable. 6. The factors relevant for consideration of the exemplar sale deed that it should be nearest to the acquired lands in time and distance have totally been ignored. The appellants had also proved the execution of the sale deed by producing vendee in witness box. 7. The Reference Court has grossly erred in making the circle rate fixed by the Collector the basis for determination of market value more so ignoring the fact that the exemplar sale deed of the nearest plot, Paper No. 18-Ga, which was executed approximately 1½ years prior to the date of issuance of notification, was available. 8. This apart one award of the Reference Court dated 23.4.2001 for the land of village Sabri, adjacent to Village Rampur, acquired for same purpose by the same notification was also on record. The lands which were subject matter of the said award dated 23.4.2001 were also fertile lands having all amenities of irrigation. Three fasals in rotation were being sown therein. The market value of the said land was determined to Rs. The lands which were subject matter of the said award dated 23.4.2001 were also fertile lands having all amenities of irrigation. Three fasals in rotation were being sown therein. The market value of the said land was determined to Rs. 32/- per sq. yard on the basis of an exemplar sale deed of the year 1985 by giving 12% per annum enhancement in the valuation of the land. 9. The Reference Court in the impugned award had refused to consider the market value determined under the award dated 23.4.2001 on the ground that the exemplar sale deed of the year 1985 was chosen for determining market value. While doing so, it has ignored the findings under the said award that the land of village Sabri is contiguous land of village Rampur (subject matter of present appeal) and is comparable qualitywise. The lands of all the villages under this acquisition were levelled lands existing near Abadi of Hapur City. The fact that the Hapur City was an old commercial and industrial town has been totally ignored. The lands in question lie in NCR region which had all potential for growth at the time of acquisition and has rapidly grown over the last ten years. 10. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that looking to the quality of land, purpose of acquisition, balancing plus & minus factors evolved as the guiding factors by the Supreme Court in its pronouncements are required to be considered to determine the just and fair market value of the land. 11. The plus factor as to why the smaller piece of land was fetching a higher rate was that the land though was sold for agricultural purpose but it was an area of high fertility land, so there was possibility of it fetching a higher price. 12. The acquisition was for the construction of By-pass road and, therefore, a strip was carved out from the lands of 10 villages which were lying near the old Abadi of Hapur City. Though the acquisition is of a large area, however, the largeness of area does not have any impact on the purpose for which the lands have been acquired. The lands were levelled as per the evidence and, therefore, for construction of By-pass road, no development cost must have been incurred. There is, therefore, no question of any deduction, on the total market value. 13. The lands were levelled as per the evidence and, therefore, for construction of By-pass road, no development cost must have been incurred. There is, therefore, no question of any deduction, on the total market value. 13. The acquisition was not for residential/commercial purposes which would have required for carving out plots, laying road, sewer lines etc. and as such no integrated plan was required for which expenses would have incurred in development of the area. Admittedly the entire chunk of levelled land was acquired for construction of By-pass road to connect NH-24. The principles laid down for deduction on the largeness of area, development incurred would not apply for the land in question. 14. Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant lastly submits that the exemplar sale deed Paper No. 18Ga filed by the appellant was of the year 1990 i.e. approximately 1½ years prior to the acquisition and, therefore, the market value of the land in question is to be determined by giving enhancement on the rate therein as per the dictum of Apex Court in Meharban and Others etc. vs. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2664 15. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents strenuously argued that the sale deeds filed by the appellants were of very small area and, therefore, have rightly been kept out of consideration. Three sale deeds were brought on record by the tenure holders regarding village Rampur between 19.3.1988, 5.10.1990 and 12.1.1990. Out of these, first sale deed of the year 1988 was rejected as it was much prior in point of time whereas the other two sale deeds of the year 1990 were of very small area which could not be used for agricultural purposes. The lands in question were admittedly agricultural land at the time of acquisition and, therefore, the sale deeds filed by the tenure holders/objectors were not comparable to the lands under acquisition and were rightly rejected. 16. The Special Land Acquisition Officer summoned the sale deed executed within three years prior to the date of acquisition from the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Hapur. For village Rampur, 11 sale deeds were received and were kept in schedule II. Five sale deeds at serial no. 1, 2, 4, 9 and 11 were found unreliable as the plot numbers were not mentioned therein. Out of remaining six, the sale deed at serial no. For village Rampur, 11 sale deeds were received and were kept in schedule II. Five sale deeds at serial no. 1, 2, 4, 9 and 11 were found unreliable as the plot numbers were not mentioned therein. Out of remaining six, the sale deed at serial no. 10 dated 26.9.1990 in Schedule II was chosen as exemplar sale deed as it was nearest in time and fetched highest price covering sufficiently large area of more than 3 bigha. The market rate determined on the basis of the exemplar sale deed is the most reasonable price which the tenure holders could have got, there is no question of further enhancement of the market rate. The land price fetched in the exemplar sale deed was comparable to the circle rate fixed by the Collector for the area in question and, therefore, the Reference Court has rightly considered that the market value having been fixed on the basis of circle rate required no enhancement. 17. Before the Reference Court, two witnesses DW-1 namely Sri Dilip Kumar Garg, the Junior Engineer in Public Works Department, Ghaziabad and DW-2 Devendra Kumar Sharma, the clerk in the office of Land Acquisition Officer, Ghaziabad were examined. These witnesses proved that the land, subject matter of exemplar sale deed, was most comparable to the acquired lands. The market value was, therefore, rightly determined @ 9.91 sq. yards on the basis of exemplar sale deeds of village Rampur which was nearest in time. The compensation was also awarded for the tube-well and trees existing over the lands in question. The land holders did not receive compensation and, therefore, it was deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer. 18. The appellants in order to prove their case, filed exemplar sale deeds paper no. 18-Ga, 19-Ga, 20-Ga; the notification dated 27.5.1993 paper no. 21-Ga; the reference award dated 23.2.2001 passed in land acquisition reference no. 437 of 1997 connected with 21 references i.e. Paper No. 66-Ga. The vendors of sale deed 18-Ga and 19-Ga were examined as PW-5 and PW-4. The appellant Kiran Singh deposed as PW-1 and two other witnesses PW-2 Anand Prakash, PW-3 Manohar Lal appeared to prove the case of the appellants. 19. PW-1 in his deposition stated that the lands of village Rampur were within the municipal limits of Nagar Palika, Hapur, was known as "Kachhiyana land" producing four rotational crops in one year. The appellant Kiran Singh deposed as PW-1 and two other witnesses PW-2 Anand Prakash, PW-3 Manohar Lal appeared to prove the case of the appellants. 19. PW-1 in his deposition stated that the lands of village Rampur were within the municipal limits of Nagar Palika, Hapur, was known as "Kachhiyana land" producing four rotational crops in one year. The lands in question were being used to grow vegetables and the land holders were getting handsome income out of the rotational crops. The lands in question lie near the National Highway and strategically that was in a prime location. Qualitywise, it was a fertile land having all amenities of irrigation. The lands in question were abutting roads on two sides, one side being Nagar Palika Road. 20. The sale deeds Paper Nos. 18-Ga and 19-Ga were sale deeds of the nearby plots and were sold for agricultural purposes. 21. The exemplar sale deed which was made basis of the award of Special Land Acquisition Officer was of the land lying at a distance of approximately one km. from the acquired lands. It was a land near a Bone Mill and had no fertility value. It was a 'Banjar' land filled with acid water discharged from the Bone Mill and from all angles it was not at all comparable to the highly fertile lands of the appellants. The compensation for tube-well, fruit bearing trees and woods existing over the acquired lands has not been property computed. 22. The lands which was subject matter of award of Reference Court dated 23.4.2001 was the land of contiguous village Sabri acquired by the same notification and, therefore, was most comparable to the acquired land of the appellants. 23. PW-2 Sri Anand Prakash also deposed that the lands in question were within the municipal limit, known as "Kachchhiyana land" producing four crops in one year, strategically situated in a prime location having tube-well and fruit bearing trees. 24. PW-3, Manohar Lal in his examination-in-chief proved the location and quality of the land in question, existence of tube-well, fruits bearing trees over the same. He has also deposed that the land which was subject matter of exemplar sale deed chosen by the S.L.A.O. for making award was 'Banjar' land near the Bone Mill. 25. PW-4 Sheoraj Singh vendee of sale deed dated 24.3.2001 Paper No. 19Ga proved the execution of the said sale deed. He has also deposed that the land which was subject matter of exemplar sale deed chosen by the S.L.A.O. for making award was 'Banjar' land near the Bone Mill. 25. PW-4 Sheoraj Singh vendee of sale deed dated 24.3.2001 Paper No. 19Ga proved the execution of the said sale deed. He also deposed regarding quality, location of the land in question and the land which was subject matter of exemplar sale deed. 26. PW-5 Sri Mohan Singh vendee of sale deed dated 12.1.1990 Paper No. 18Ga deposed that the said sale deed was executed by Shiv Lal in the presence of witnesses namely Preetam Singh & Mahesh Chand who put their signatures after the document was read before the Sub-Registrar. He proved his signatures on the said document and also proved the rate at which the sale consideration was paid by him. 27. Regarding location and quality of the lands in question and the land of exemplar sale deeds, the statement of this witness was consistent with the statement of other witnesses. 28. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant supplied a map of Tehsil Hapur showing the position of lands, By-pass road constructed and position of different villages. 29. A list of status of tenure holders/claimants who are appellants in these appeals is extracted below for ready reference: - Name of tenure holder Area Plot Nos. LAR Nos. Kiran Singh 4-10-0 134 479/97 Mohan Singh 2-4-6 194 480/97 Smt. Geeta Devi 0-15-0 133 481/97 Sant Singh 4-19-0 132 482/97 Jai Prakash 3-0-0 192 483/97 Smt. Phoolwati 2-11-0 195 484/97 Gariba & Ors. 2-17-0 203 486/97 Chand Kiran 1-10-0 129 487/97 Smt. Tripali 0-18-14 219 488/97 Salek Chand 1-13-0 191 489/97 List of 10 villages, subject matter of same notification giving acquired area, the market rate awarded by S.L.A.O.; the exemplars of those villages; amount of enhanced compensation by Reference Court is also extracted below for ready reference: - Name of Village Area Acquired Rate by SLAO (Rs. in Sq. Yard) Exemplar Enhancement by Reference Court (Rs. in Sq. Yard) Achcheja 48-19-12 19.04 1/2 Share in 3-7-14 Dated 9.8.1990 Rs. in Sq. Yard) Exemplar Enhancement by Reference Court (Rs. in Sq. Yard) Achcheja 48-19-12 19.04 1/2 Share in 3-7-14 Dated 9.8.1990 Rs. 38.00 Imtori 33-10-3 19.91 1-4-18 Dated 3.11.1988 Not Available Chitauli 4-14-0 16.53 2-8-12 Dated 17.10.1990 Not Available Tatarpur 15-12-0 22.08 6-11-8 Dated 16.1.1990 Not Available Nizampur 6-10-2 7.52 1-18-1 Dated 5.7.1990 Not Available Patna 8-9-6 23.49 8-8-7 Dated 11.7.1990 Not Available Mansoorpur 30-1-17 31.21 1-3-6 Dated 17.6.1991 Not Available Subdi 40-4-12 6.82 1-18-16 Date Not available 32.00 Hapur Khas 10-3-6 25.00 1-6-9 Dated 11.12.1990 Not Available 30. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, before dealing with the facts of the case for arriving at a finding on the question of enhancement of compensation awarded by the Reference Court, it would be apt to go through the law pertaining to determination of market value. 31. The Apex Court in Suresh Kumar vs. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal, AIR 1989 SCC 1222, has held that the market value of the land acquired has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. It is an accepted principle that the compensation must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. The disinclination of the vendor to part with land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it must alike be disregarded. Neither must be considered as acting under the compulsion. The value of the land is not to be estimated at its value of the purchaser but this does not mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. The wish of a particular purchaser, though not his compulsion, may always be taken into consideration for what it is worth. Any sentimental value for the vendor need not be taken into account. The vendor is to be treated as a vendor willing to sell at the market price. A willing vendor would naturally take into consideration such factors as would contribute to the value of his land including its unearned increment. A willing purchaser would also consider more or less the same factors. There may be many ponderable and imponderable factors in such estimation or guess work. 32. A willing vendor would naturally take into consideration such factors as would contribute to the value of his land including its unearned increment. A willing purchaser would also consider more or less the same factors. There may be many ponderable and imponderable factors in such estimation or guess work. 32. It was further considered that sometime the land to be valued possess some unusual, may be unique features, as regards its position or its potentiality. In such as case the Court has to ascertain as best as possible from the materials before it what a willing vendor might reasonably except to obtain from a willing purchaser, for the land in that particular position and with that particular potentiality. 33. It goes on to say that it is an accepted principle that the land is not to be valued, merely by reference to the use to which it has been put at the time at which its value has to be determined i.e. the the date of the notification under Section 4, but also by reference to the use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the future. A land which is certainly or likely to be used in the immediate or reasonably near future for building purposes but which at the valuation date is waste land or has been used for agricultural purposes, the owner, however, willing a vendor he is, is not likely to be content to sell the land for its value as waste or agricultural land, as the case may be. The possibility of its being used for building purposes would have taken into account. However, it must not be valued as though it is already built up. It is the possibilities of the land and not its realised possibilities that must be taken into consideration. 34. It is well established that the special, though natural adaptability of the land for the purpose for which it is taken, is an important element to be taken into consideration in determining the market value of the land. In such a situation the land might have already been valued at more than its value as agricultural land, if it had any other capabilities, however, only reasonable and fair capabilities but not far-fetched and hypothetical capabilities are to be taken into consideration. 35. In such a situation the land might have already been valued at more than its value as agricultural land, if it had any other capabilities, however, only reasonable and fair capabilities but not far-fetched and hypothetical capabilities are to be taken into consideration. 35. To sum up, in estimating the market value of the land all of the capabilities of the land, and all its legitimate purposes to which it may be applies or for which it may be adapted are to be considered and not merely the condition it is in and the use to which it is at the time applied by the owner. The proper principle is to ascertain the market value of the land taking into consideration the special value which ought to be attached to the special advantage possessed by the land; namely its proximity to developed urbanised areas. 36. The word "caution" has been added in paragraph 10' that the value of the potentiality has to be determined on such materials as are available and without indulgence in fits of the imagination. Reference has been made in Mahabir Prasad Santuka vs. Collector, Cuttack, AIR 1987 (1) SCC 720, wherein the evidence on record had established that the land was being used for agricultural purposes but it had potentiality for future use as factory or building site and the prices increased tremendously on industrialisation of the neighbouring areas, that aspect could not be ignored in determining compensation. 37. On the facts of that case, it was considered by the Apex Court that the High Court also noticed that the land abutted on roads and the claimant had stated that he has obtained water and electricity connection from the Corporation and the Electricity Board. 38. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, AIR 1988 SC 1652 , M.P. Thakkar, J. speaking for the Bench laid down principles to be followed for determination of just and fair compensation in paragraph 4' as under: -. "4- The following factors must be etched on the mental screen: (1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. "4- The following factors must be etched on the mental screen: (1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. (2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to suit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition officer, as if it were an appellate court. (3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. (4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under secs. 6 and 9 are irrelevant). (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section. 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. (8) only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Some times instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land). (9) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate,(2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (l0) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations (i) proximity from time angle, (ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has there after to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors: Plus factors Minus factors 1. smallness of size. 1. largeness of area. 2. proximity to a road. 2. situation in the interior at a distances from the Road. 3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to death. 4. nearness to developed area. 4. lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up. 5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from developed locality. 6. level vis-a-vis land 6. some special disadvantageous under acquistion. factor which would deter a purchaser. 7. 3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to death. 4. nearness to developed area. 4. lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up. 5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from developed locality. 6. level vis-a-vis land 6. some special disadvantageous under acquistion. factor which would deter a purchaser. 7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. (15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say l000 sq. yds or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be looked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own facts pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense. The problem which has surfaced in the present appeals needs to be recapitulated. The question is whether in scaling down the total compensation payable to the appellant from Rs.1,14,517 to Rs.63,846, the High Court has violated any principle of valuation or adopted any faulty methodology." 39. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense. The problem which has surfaced in the present appeals needs to be recapitulated. The question is whether in scaling down the total compensation payable to the appellant from Rs.1,14,517 to Rs.63,846, the High Court has violated any principle of valuation or adopted any faulty methodology." 39. In Meharban (supra), it was held that the award of the Reference Court which was acquired prior in time and which has become final would form the foundation and base to determine the compensation treating the entire area as a block. It was held that the compensation could be determined after giving necessary deduction towards development charges as required under law. The land was possessed of immediate value as building sites. Considering the fact that Meerut City was a fast growing industrial and commercial town and many parts were already developed area, there was pressure on the land for the developmental activities, viz., for building and commercial purposes. All these factors were taken into account for arriving at a conclusion that there was reasonable rise in prices and the market value was determined, accordingly. 40. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Spl. Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Vishakapatnam vs. Smt. A. Mangala Gowri, AIR 1992 SC 666 wherein it has been held that a settled law by a catena of decision is that the market value postulated in Section 23(1) of the Act is designed to award just and fair compensation for the lands acquired. The words "market value" would postulate price of the land prevailing on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Court repeatedly laid the acid test that in determining the market value of the land, the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser would form the basis to fix the market value. The price in sale and purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the notification would be the best piece of evidence. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or around time of the notification would supply the base to assess the market value. 41. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or around time of the notification would supply the base to assess the market value. 41. On the question of taking the sale deed for a small piece of land as exemplar, it was discussed in Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer), Nalgonda (A.P.) vs. Morisetty Satyanarayana and others, 2002 (10) SCC 570 in paragraph 8' as under: - "8. It is true that normally while fixing the market price of the land under acquisition when the sale instances are for a small piece of land then appropriate reduction is required to be made while fixing the market price of land under acquisition. However, in the present case, the land which is acquired is out of the same survey number. Various sale deeds produced on record reflect the increase in price of the portions of land of the same survey number. Other evidence on record indicates that in the village there is an increase in market price of land during the relevant years. Therefore, considering the increasing trend of the market price and the fact that small pieces of land owned by different persons are acquired, this would not be a fit case for reducing the amount on the ground that the relevant sale deed is for a small piece of land. 42. In A. Natesam Pillai vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy, 2010 (9) SCC 118 , noting two earlier pronouncement of Apex Court, it was held in paragraphs 20' to 23' as under: - "20. The building potentiality of acquired land must also be taken into consideration while determining compensation. In P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority reported at (1995) 2 SCC 305 , this Court held as follows: - 8. Building potentiality of acquired land.-- Market value of land acquired under the LA Act is the main component of the amount of compensation awardable for such land under Section 23(1) of the LA Act. The market value of such land must relate to the last of the dates of publication of notification or giving of public notice of substance of such notification according to Section 4(1) of the LA Act. The market value of such land must relate to the last of the dates of publication of notification or giving of public notice of substance of such notification according to Section 4(1) of the LA Act. Such market value of the acquired land cannot only be its value with reference to the actual use to which it was put on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, but ought to be its value with reference to the better use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or near future. Possibility of the acquired land put to certain use on the date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, of becoming available for better use in the immediate or near future, is regarded as its potentiality. It is for this reason that the market value of the acquired land when has to be determined with reference to the date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, the same has to be done not merely with reference to the use to which it was put on such date, but also on the possibility of it becoming available in the immediate or near future for better use, i.e., on its potentiality. When the acquired land has the potentiality of being used for building purposes in the immediate or near future it is such potentiality which is regarded as building potentiality of the acquired land. Therefore, if the acquired land has the building potentiality, its value, like the value of any other potentiality of the land should necessarily be taken into account for determining the market value of such land. Therefore, when a land with building potentiality is acquired, the price which its willing seller could reasonably expect to obtain from its willing purchaser with reference to the date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, ought to necessarily include that portion of the price of the land attributable to its building potentiality. Such price of the acquired land then becomes its market value envisaged under Section 23(1) of the LA Act. Such price of the acquired land then becomes its market value envisaged under Section 23(1) of the LA Act. If that be the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality, which acquired land could be regarded to have a building potentiality and how the market value of such acquired land with such building potentiality requires to be measured or determined are matters which remain for our consideration now. 21. This Court in Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons v. State of Gujarat reported in (1995) 5 SCC 422 also held that: - 3. .......But it is settled law by series of judgments of this Court that the court is not like an umpire but is required to determine the correct market value after taking all the relevant circumstances, evinces active participation in adduction of evidence; calls to his aid his judicial experience; evaluate the relevant facts from the evidence on record applying correct principles of law which would be just and proper for the land under acquisition. It is its constitutional, statutory and social duty. The court should eschew aside feats of imagination but occupy the armchair of a prudent, willing but not too anxious, purchaser and always ask the question as to what are the prevailing conditions and whether a willing purchaser would as a prudent man in the normal market conditions offer to purchase the acquired land at the rates mentioned in the sale deeds. After due evaluation taking all relevant and germane facts into consideration, the Court must answer as to what would be the just and fair market value. (emphasis supplied) 22. Therefore, it is clear from the aforementioned decisions of this Court that the potentiality of the acquired land, in so far as it relates to the use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or near future, must be given due consideration. 23. The present acquired land has all the potentiality to be used as building sites, even in the immediate future, as it is located at a place in and around which building activity has already started. The evidence on record also clearly indicates that acquired land is abutting the main road. The acquired land is also surrounded by schools, Panchayat union office, shops and residential building in all three sides. The evidence on record also clearly indicates that acquired land is abutting the main road. The acquired land is also surrounded by schools, Panchayat union office, shops and residential building in all three sides. The High Court also found, as a matter of fact, that the area where the acquired land is situated is fit for construction of houses. On an overall consideration and appreciation of the records, we feel that the deduction due to the small size of the exemplar land can easily be set off with the corresponding increase in price of the acquired land when compared with the land in Ex. A3 from the point of view of potential value." 43. In Premwati vs. Union of India and others, 2013 (7) SCC 57 , F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. speaking for the Bench has said in paragraph 10' of the report that the value of the land fixed even in respect of the land situated in an adjacent village in view of the fact that the possession in respect to the lands in the said village was made simultaneously should have been applied in respect to the lands belonging to the appellants. The reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High Court in adopting the value with respect to the land of adjacent village was adopted for determining the market value of the lands subject matter of appellants. 44. Relevant paragraph 10' is quoted as under: - "10. Keeping the above factors in mind, when we consider the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, we find that the reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court in having relied upon Balbir Singh's case (1993) 50 DLT 40 and Bedi Ram's case (2001) 93 DLT 150 was perfectly justified. Keeping the above factors in mind, when we consider the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, we find that the reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court in having relied upon Balbir Singh's case (1993) 50 DLT 40 and Bedi Ram's case (2001) 93 DLT 150 was perfectly justified. We would, however, hasten to add that when once the Division Bench rightly felt that whatever was decided in Balbir Singh's case, so far as it related to the value of the land fixed therein, can be applied even in respect of the land situated in Shahibabad Daulatpur, which is an adjacent village and the acquisition in respect of the lands in the said village was made simultaneously along with the lands situated in Samaipur and Siraspur villages, are of the considered opinion that the same value, which was applied in Balbir Singh's case should have been applied even in respect of the lands belonging to the appellants. We say so because, we find in Balbir Singh's case, while fixing the land value in a sum of Rs.50,000/- per bigha, the High Court considered the various sale deeds of the period between 18.01.1982 and 22.07.1983." 45. The law of deduction laid down by the Apex Court in Bhagwathula Samanna and others vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, AIR 1992 SC 2298 in paragraph 11' as under: - "11. The principle of deduction in the land value covered by the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition, the only relevant factor. Even in the vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity roads, drainage, electricity communications etc., then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not bejustified." 46. In Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer), Nalgonda (A.P.) (supra), on the question of deduction, it was held that the sale deeds produced on record reflect the increase in price of the portions of land of the same survey number. In Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer), Nalgonda (A.P.) (supra), on the question of deduction, it was held that the sale deeds produced on record reflect the increase in price of the portions of land of the same survey number. Other evidence on record indicate that in the village there was an increase in market price of land during the relevant years. Therefore, considering the increasing trend of the market price and the fact that small pieces of land owned by different persons are acquired, it was held that this would not be a fit case for reducing the market value on the ground that the relevant sale deed was for a small piece of land. 47. In the light of legal principles for determination of compensation as notedabove, it has to be seen in the instant case whether the appellants are entitled for higher compensation. 48. I have perused the village map, the sale deeds filed by the parties the location of lands therein as well as award of the Reference Court made pursuant to the same notification with regard to lands of adjacent village Sabri. 49. The undisputed facts between the parties are as under: - (i) The lands in question were acquired for construction of Hapur By-pass road. A strip comprise of ten villages was acquired for the said purpose to connect National Highway (NH-24). (ii) The acquired lands are situated near the developed City of Hapur. (iii) One side of the lands is abutting Nagar Palika Road, Hapur whereas on the other side, lie the lands of village Sabri. (iv) These lands now at the post-notification stage open on the By-pass road which is connected to NH-24. (v) The acquired lands lies on both sides of Hapur By-pass road. (vi) For the land of village Sabri, Rs. 32/- per sq. yard has been awarded by the Reference Court whereas for the land of village Achcheja Rs. 38/- has been awarded. Both these lands have been acquired by the same notification for the same purpose of construction of Hapur By-pass road. (vii) Hapur is a fast growing industrial and commercial town. There was pressure on the land for the development activities such as for building and commercial purposes. (viii) The land in question was highly fertile land known as Kachchhiyana land producing three crops in one fasli having all amenities of irrigation. (vii) Hapur is a fast growing industrial and commercial town. There was pressure on the land for the development activities such as for building and commercial purposes. (viii) The land in question was highly fertile land known as Kachchhiyana land producing three crops in one fasli having all amenities of irrigation. (ix) The lands were levelled lands situated near the limits of Nagar Palika, Hapur. (x) The lands were included in the Regulated Area of Nagar Palika, Hapur within two years of acquisition by a notification dated 27.5.1993. (xi) The lands lies within NCR region which is rapidly growing area in terms of industrial and commercial activities. 50. Thus the lands in question was having immediate possibility of increase in land prices on account of construction of By-pass road. Thus the lands possessed immediate potential value as building sites. The possibility of its being used for building purposes at the post-notification stage cannot be said to be far-fetched and hypothetical capabilities. Though the land was being used for agricultural purposes but it had potentiality for use as factory or building site in the immediate future because of being located near Abadi of Hapur City and construction of By-pass road. 51. All these special value which ought to be attached to the special advantage possessed by the lands have not been taken into consideration by the Reference Court while determining the market value. It has also come in evidence that the exemplars of higher rate were available but the sale deed of lowest rate of a non-fertile land which was situated near Bone Mill was considered. 52. There is admission of Devendra Kumar Sharma, DW-2 that the compensation was not awarded considering quality of land rather it was given at a flat rate. 53. Now coming to the documentary evidences filed by the parties in the shape of exemplars. 54. Three sale deeds of the year 1990-1993 were brought on record by the appellant/claimants before the Reference Court. The Reference Court award dated 23.4.2001 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 437/1997 with 20 connected references with regard to the lands of village Sabri, the adjacent village acquired under the same notification, was also brought on record. 54. Three sale deeds of the year 1990-1993 were brought on record by the appellant/claimants before the Reference Court. The Reference Court award dated 23.4.2001 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 437/1997 with 20 connected references with regard to the lands of village Sabri, the adjacent village acquired under the same notification, was also brought on record. The exemplar sale deeds summoned by the Special Land Acquisition Officers have been kept in Schedule II, out of which only one exemplar sale deed 26.9.1990 could be found comparable to the acquired lands and was chosen by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for determination of the market value. 55. So far as the sale deed chosen by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for arriving at the market value, it is found that the lands of said sale deed was not comparable to the acquired lands even in terms of quality being Banjar land. 56. As far as sale deeds filed by the appellant, two of those namely Paper Nos. 18Ga and 19Ga are of the year 1990. The third sale deed 20Ga is post-notification sale deed and, therefore, cannot be taken as an instance. 57. It is important to note that any sale deed which is post-notification deed is generally ignored, unless evidence is led to show that there was no increase in price after such acquisition. Such subsequent transactions which are not proximate in point and time to the acquisition, however, can be taken into account for purpose of determining whether as on the date of acquisition there was an upward trend in the prices of land in the area. Furthermore, where it is shown that the market was stable and there was no fluctuation in the prices between the date of preliminary notification and the date of such subsequent transaction, the post-notification transaction could also be relied upon to ascertain the market value. 58. The Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh versus Major Jitendra Kumar and others10 has observed that this principle could be applied to only where there is evidence to the effect that there was no upward surge in the prices in the interregnum. The burden of establishing this would be consequently on the party rely on such subsequent transaction. (emphasis added) 59. The burden of establishing this would be consequently on the party rely on such subsequent transaction. (emphasis added) 59. As a result of acquisition, the market value of the acquired land would generally, and in most cases go up and, therefore, such post-notification transaction is not a good criteria to determine and assess the value of the acquired land. 60. No such effort has been made in the present case. No evidence has been led by the appellant to prove that the subsequent transaction reflects the correct trend in the prices of the land at the post-notification stage. Consequently, Paper No. 20Ga being a subsequent sale transaction is kept out of consideration as it is not the safe guide to assess and determine the just and fair compensation for the acquired land. 61. Out of remaining two sale deeds, Paper No. 18Ga is of the sale deed of the same village dated 17.11.1990 is 1,00,000/- for an area of 2 Biswa equal to 300 sq. yard. The quality of lands covered under the said sale deed is Kachchiyana which is same as that of the lands in question. This sale deed is most comparable instance being proximate in time angle and situation angle, only factor remains is of the area covered under it. Though it is of a smaller area but cannot be ignored for the reason that no other sale instance of larger area of the lands in vicinity are available. The prices fetched by the lands of this sale deed comes to approximately Rs. 20.65/- for one sq. yard. This sale deed was proved by the PW-4 its vendee and this Court is of the view that it can be taken as an instance for assessment of just and fair market value, though may not be directly adopted. Third sale deed Paper No. 19Ga is of a much smaller area of adjacent village Sabri and, therefore, is not being considered. 62. It is trite preposition that prices fetched for smaller plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracts of lands as they are not comparable properties. The former reflect the retail prices of the land and later the whole sale prices. 62. It is trite preposition that prices fetched for smaller plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracts of lands as they are not comparable properties. The former reflect the retail prices of the land and later the whole sale prices. This principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extends, however, there is no absolute bar to consider exemplars and small plot provided adequate discount is given in this behalf. In an appropriate case, specially where other relevant or material evidence is not available, such exemplar can be considered after making adequate discount. 63. Present is the case in which no other exemplars are available. The Reference Court, therefore, has erred in completely overlooking this aspect in his discussion while rejecting the exemplar sale deeds of the claimantppellants on the ground that it was of a small area of land. 64. The guidance in this regard has been given in M/s Sukhnandan Saran Dinesh Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others, 1982 (3) SCC 150 and Rishi Pal Singh and others vs. Meerut Development Authority and another 2006 (3) SCC 205 65. Now the only material left on record is the reference award dated 23.4.2001 of adjacent village Sabri. It is on record that this award is subject matter of pending appeal before this Court and has not yet became final, however, being an award of adjoining village acquired by the same notification for the same purpose, it can be considered, after a close scrutiny whether due regard has been given to all attendant facts and circumstances which should furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land and if the answer is yes, it may also be taken as an instance to arrive at the finding on assessment of fair market value. 66. A careful perusal of the award dated 23.4.2001 reflects that balance sheet of plus and minus factors was drawn. By loading plus factors, the potential building value of the lands was taken into consideration, considering the location of the lands and its proximity with the developed area of Hapur City. With regard to village Achcheja, Raghunathpur and Rampur, there is a finding that the lands of these three village were of the same quality. By loading plus factors, the potential building value of the lands was taken into consideration, considering the location of the lands and its proximity with the developed area of Hapur City. With regard to village Achcheja, Raghunathpur and Rampur, there is a finding that the lands of these three village were of the same quality. These lands were being used for agricultural purposes and were highly fertile lands having all irrigation facilities producing three crops in one fasli. The acquired lands were abutting Hapur Nagar Palika Road on one side and were situated at a distance of approximately 1½ km. from Hapur City. The lands which were acquired for construction of By-pass road possessed potentiality for building purposes at the immediate post-notification stage. 67. The sale deeds of the year 1985 and 1990 were taken as sale instances for assessment of market value. After comparison of both the sale deed, the price of acquired lands was assessed to approximately Rs. 32/- sq. yard. With respect to the sale deed of the year 1985, 10% per annum enhancement was accorded in the sale prices fetched for lands of the said sale deed, whereas for the sale deed of the year 1990 approximately 25% enhancement was considered on account of recent developments. The most comparable instance found was the sale deed of the year 1985 which fetched Rs. 20/- per sq. yard for the lands which was same in qualitywise and situationwise. By giving enhancement of 10% per annum in the prices, the market rate of lands under the award came to Rs. 32/- per sq. yard. 68. This award was relied by the appellants before the Reference Court but it was rejected solely on the ground that the sale instance of 1985 was considered for determining the market value of the land acquired in the year 1990. The comparison made with the sale instance of 1990 in the said award dated 23.4.2001 was totally ignored. 69. With regard to the sale deed Paper No. 18Ga filed by the appellant, it was rejected by the Reference Court on the ground that the area of lands covered under it was small which could not have been sold for agricultural purposes. Giving these reasonings, the Reference Court has awarded compensation to the appellants at the circle rate which is totally arbitrary and irrational. 70. Giving these reasonings, the Reference Court has awarded compensation to the appellants at the circle rate which is totally arbitrary and irrational. 70. A comparison of the plots namely the land in Paper No. 18Ga and the acquired lands shows that these lands are identical. 71. Exhibit 18Ga the sale deed though may not be an excellent guide, but it is still a better guide than any other document accepted on record. The same could be used as a relevant yardstick to assess the just and reasonable compensation in the present case by giving due consideration to the area of lands under acquisition. 72. Award of Reference Court dated 23.4.2001 is based upon the sale instance of the year 1985 of adjoining village Sabri. Another sale instance of the year 1990 of village Sabri considered in the said award shows upward trend in the prices of the lands in the area. 73. The lands of villages Sabri were fetching approximately Rs. 32/- and the lands of village Achcheja have fetched Rs. 38/- per sq. yard. 74. At the cost of repetition, it is significant to note that the lands of these three villages were comparable qualitywise and situation-wise. 75. On an overall consideration and appreciation of the records, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Reference Court denied just and reasonable compensation to the appellant thereby resulting in a miscarriage of justice. 76. Now looking to the location of the lands acquired, a strip of lands of ten villages were acquired to construct By-pass road. Some of the villages are adjacent side-by-side and the remaining are located opposite side. Thus it cannot be said that the lands acquired were differently situated. The lands of adjacent villages (side-by-side) are similar in quality and situation. There may be a difference of the price of lands of village Achcheja as they are situated close to National Highway (NH-24). However, there is no difference between the lands of two adjacent villages namely Rampur and Sabri. 77. Balancing plus & minus factors, on comparison of sale instances of these two adjoining villages, it is seen that giving 10% enhancement in land rates of sale deed of 1985, the price of lands in village Sabri in the year 1991 was fixed to Rs. 32/- per sq. yard. 77. Balancing plus & minus factors, on comparison of sale instances of these two adjoining villages, it is seen that giving 10% enhancement in land rates of sale deed of 1985, the price of lands in village Sabri in the year 1991 was fixed to Rs. 32/- per sq. yard. For Rampur, there is a sale instance of the year 1990 for a small piece of land which is similarly situate, price of which would come to Rs. 21/- per sq. yard. Giving 25% increase on the said price considering immediate future potential building value of the lands, the price would come to Rs. 26.25/-. It is well established that the value of sale of small pieces of land can be taken into consideration for determining even the value of a larger tract of land but with the rider that the Court while taking into consideration has to make some deduction keeping in view other attendant circumstances and the facts of the particular case. 78. Having discussed above, keeping in view the location and potential of the land it will meet the ends of justice , if 10% deduction is made from the estimated market value of the acquired land. Thus by deducting 10% on the comparable sale instance of village Rampur, the just and fair value of land in area would come to not less than Rs. 24/-. 79. Now looking from another angle taking into consideration the prices fetched by lands of villages Rampur and Sabri, it reflects that the prices of lands in the area were ranging somewhere between Rs. 24/- to Rs. 32/- per sq. yard depending upon various factors, taking mean of which would come to Rs. 28/-. Thus from both angles, it can be said that just and fair market value of the lands of village Rampur would be not less than Rs. 25/- per sq. yard on the date of notification i.e. 22.7.1991. 80. These lands were acquired to carve out a strip for construction of By-pass road. No integrated plan was required rather a road was constructed within a short period after acquisition. The acquired land was not in volume. No development cost was incurred for development of land for construction of By-pass road as these were levelled lands, so there is no question of any deduction. No integrated plan was required rather a road was constructed within a short period after acquisition. The acquired land was not in volume. No development cost was incurred for development of land for construction of By-pass road as these were levelled lands, so there is no question of any deduction. Largeness of area does not have any impact on the purpose for which the land has been acquired. The entire land was taken as block for development which do not require any expenses for carving out plots, lying out roads, sewer lines etc. as happens in a planned development scheme. 81. The appellants are thus held entitled to compensation @ Rs. 25/- per sq. yard towards market value of the lands in Appeals. Apart from this, they are held entitled to: - (a) Additional compensation @ 12% per annum from the date of notification i.e. 22.7.1991 till the date of possession which is 27.2.1993 in the instant cases. (b) 30% Solatium on the enhanced compensation at the abovementioned rate as per Section 23(2) of the Act. (c) 9% interest for a period of one year from the date of possession i.e. 27.2.1993 and 15% interest after one year i.e. 27.2.1994 till the date of actual payment on the enhanced compensation. (d) While making calculation, the compensation already deposited or paid by the land Acquisition Officer shall be adjusted. 82. It is further provided that the deficiency of Court fee, if any, shall be recovered in accordance with law by the Executing Court at the time of preparation of final decree. 83. With the above observations and directions, all the appeals are allowed. There will be no order as to costs.