Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 363 (MP)

Mazhar Hussain v. State of M. P.

2019-05-04

VIVEK RUSIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants have filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the award dated 22nd July, 1999, whereby the District Judge, Dhar, has partly enhanced the compensation in favour of the appellants. 2. The agriculture land Survey No. 2090/1 area .582 hectare = 2 Bigha, 6 Biswa = 63,373 Sq.ft of village Kheda Tehsil Badnawar, (in short “the acquired land”) belonging to the appellants was acquired by way of notification dated 30-1-1981 under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants challenged the said notification by way of writ petition registered as M. P. No. 664/1985(old) before this Court. By order dated 21-6-1990, the said petition was allowed and the Government of M. P. was directed to issue a fresh notification. After aforesaid order passed by the High Court, the Government of M. P. issued a second notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 2-11-1990.Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dt. 22-6-1991, awarding the compensation to the appellants for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.27,700/- per hectare. 2. Being dissatisfied by the less payment amount of compensation, the appellants lodged a protest and sought a reference from the Collector. The Collector has sent the reference to the District Judge for adjudication under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and which was registered as case No. 21/91 (new No. 33/96). 3. Before the reference Court, the appellants claimed the higher amount of compensation on the ground that the Land Acquisition Officer wrongly assessed the compensation treating the acquired land as an agriculture land whereas, the land is situated in a commercial area. The nearby area has been developed as a market, the Court building had been constructed over the acquired land of the appellants even prior to the issuance of second notification on 2-11-1990. The acquired land is adjacent to the main road and there is petrol pump in front of Court building, office of PWD Office of Tehsildar and officer colony etc are also there. Nearby area has also been developed as residential hence the market value of the land is Rs.150 per sq.ft. The appellants have a big family and except this acquired land, they have no other means to earn livelihood. They wanted to construct the shops for their six sons in the acquired land, but now they have no source of income. Nearby area has also been developed as residential hence the market value of the land is Rs.150 per sq.ft. The appellants have a big family and except this acquired land, they have no other means to earn livelihood. They wanted to construct the shops for their six sons in the acquired land, but now they have no source of income. Accordingly, they claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs.50 per sq.ft along with a solatium at the rate of Rs.30%. 4. The appellants examined Kamlesh Soni, Dy. Registrar as PW1, Rameshchand PW2, Shantilal PW3, Akbar Ali PW4, Tafazul Hussain PW5 and got exhibited 29 documents. The respondents examined Sudhir Mandloi, clerk in the office of the Dy. Registrar and got exhibited 3 documents as Exhibits D/1 to D/3. In support of their claim, they produced the copies of three sale deeds as Exhibits P/1 to P/3 as an exemplar. The details of the sale deeds are as follows: Dt. 16-4-1990 Sale deed Ex.P/1 Size 1000 Sq. fts. For Rs.40,000 i.e., Rs.40 per sq. fts. Dt. 22-3-1990 Sale deed Ex.P/2 Size 1200 Sq. fts. For Rs.60,000 i.e., Rs.50 per sq. fts. Dt. 20-6-1990 Sale deed Ex.P/3 Size 1250 Sq. fts. For Rs.50,000 i.e., Rs.40 per sq. fts. Average Rs.43.33 per square feet. 5. After appreciating the evidence came on record, the learned District Judge has partially enhanced the compensation from Rs. 27,700/- per hectare to Rs.65,000/- per hectare. The reference Court has also awarded interest at the rate of 12% under section 23(1)(a) w.e.f. 1-5-1985, i.e., the date of possession. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellants have preferred the first appeal before this Court. 7. I have heard Shri Mehta, learned senior counsel for the appellants-claimants and Shri Rahul Vijayvargiya, Govt. Advocate for respondents/State. 8. Shri Mehta, learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that the learned reference Court has wrongly calculated the compensation on the basis of rate of land prevailing in the year 1981, when the first notification was issued. Since the said notification had been quashed by the High Court and the second notification was issued on 2-11-1990, therefore, under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation ought to have been assessed on the basis of the market rate prevailing in the year 1991. Since the said notification had been quashed by the High Court and the second notification was issued on 2-11-1990, therefore, under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation ought to have been assessed on the basis of the market rate prevailing in the year 1991. The learned Reference Court has wrongly discarded the sale deeds produced by the appellants in which the nearby lands were sold at the rate of Rs.20 to 40 per Sq ft. and it ought to have been taken as best exemplar. Even the documents filed by respondents also show that the lands were sold at the rate of Rs.24 to Rs.39 per sq. ft at the relevant point of time. The reference Court has wrongly awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per hectare, which comes to only 60 paisa per sq.ft. In support of his contention, he placing reliance over the two judgments of the Apex Court passed in the case of Bhikulal Kedarmal Goenka (D) by L.Rs. vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. AIR 2016 SC 5418 and the Mohammad Yusuf and ors. Etc. Etc. vs. State of Haryana and ors. reported as AIR 2018 SC 2248 . 9. Per contra, Shri Rahul Vijayvargiya, Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents/State submits that the reference Court has rightly awarded the compensation in favour of the appellants. The sale deeds produced by the appellants were executed for the sale of small size of plots whereas, the land of the appellants was a bigger chunk, therefore, those sale deeds cannot be applied as an exemplar. The land was acquired for a public purpose. The compensation awarded by the LAO and enhanced by the Reference Court is just and proper and there is no scope of further enhancement hence this appeal is liable to be dismissed. Discussion and Findings : I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 10. Before appreciating the competing submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apposite to have in mind certain decisions given by the Supreme Court in this field. Discussion and Findings : I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 10. Before appreciating the competing submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apposite to have in mind certain decisions given by the Supreme Court in this field. That when the land owners sought the reference seeking enhancement of compensation, then the burden lies on them to prove their case by adducing reliable evidence and also to establish that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and the lands are capable of fetching higher market value. In case of Basant Kumar vs. Union of India, (1996) 11 SCC 542 ; Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Karigowda, (2010) 5 SCC 708 and Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. vs. Sharadaben, (1996) 8 SCC 93 , the Apex Court has held that it is for the appellant to prove his case if he is seeking enhancement of a compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the evidence and apply the test of prudent and willing purchaser whether he would be willing to purchase in market the said very land. In the case of Hookiyar Singh vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 3 SCC 766 , it has been held that the Court must not indulge in the feats of imagination but consider the very fact that the prudent purchaser in open market is ready to purchase the said land at the rate claimed by the claimants. It has also been held by the Apex Court in the case of G. Narayan Rao vs. Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 10 SCC 607 that the claimants must establish that at the time of date of notification under section 4 of the Act of 1984, any buyer or purchaser were available. The similar view has been followed in the case of State of U. P. vs. Ram Kumari Devi, (1996) 8 SCC 577 . In the case of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation vs. Narottambhai Morarbhai, (1996) 11 SCC 159 , the Apex Court has observed that the criteria and rate for sale of small piece of land and big area of the land are always different. The small plots are easily saleable at higher rate; whereas the large area of the plots does not get the higher rates. The small plots are easily saleable at higher rate; whereas the large area of the plots does not get the higher rates. Therefore, while assessing the compensation the Court must keep in the mind that area of the land under acquisition. 11. For the purpose of calculation of compensation and to arrive fair market value of agricultural land various facts and circumstances of the case are liable to be considered by the Court. The Court must exercise its discretion by adopting different methods; like (a) Sales statistics method; (b) Capitalisation of net income method; and (c) Agricultural yield basis method. The Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Karigowda, (2010) 5 SCC 708 has held as under : “70. To examine what method could be adopted for determining the market value of land and criticism of the method adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector, by the Courts, that the same is not in accordance with law, we must notice various methods which are normally adopted by the Courts for determining the fair market value of the land and which of the method can be more properly applied in the facts and circumstances of this case. 71. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act spell out the have and have nots, applicable to the scheme of awarding compensation by the Collector but do not describe the methodology which should be adopted by the Courts in determining the fair market value of the land at the relevant time. By development of law, the Courts have adopted different methods for computing the compensation payable to the land owners depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The Courts have been exercising their discretion by adopting different methods, inter alia the following methods have a larger acceptance in law : (a) Sales Statistics Method : In applying this method, it has been stated that, sales must be genuine and bona fide, should have been executed at the time proximate to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act, the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land and the land should be comparable to the acquired land. The land covered under the sale instance should have similar potential and occasion as that of the acquired land [Faridabad Gas Power Project, N.T.P.C. Ltd. and ors. The land covered under the sale instance should have similar potential and occasion as that of the acquired land [Faridabad Gas Power Project, N.T.P.C. Ltd. and ors. vs. Om Prakash and ors., 2009(4) SCC 719 , Shaji Kuriakose and anr. vs. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. and ors., AIR 2001 SC 3341 , Ravinder Narain and anr. vs. Union of India, 2003(4) SCC 481 ]. (b) Capitalization of Net Income Method : This method has also been applied by the Courts. In this method of determination of market value, capitalization of net income method or expert opinion method has been applied. [Union of India and anr. vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and ors., 1983(4) SCC 542 , Executive Director vs. Sarat Chandra Bisoi and anr., 2000(6) SCC 326 ], Nelson Fernandes and ors. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and ors. (supra). (c) Agriculture Yield Basis Method : Agricultural yield of the acquired land with reference to revenue records and keeping in mind the potential and nature of the land - wet (irrigated), dry and barren (banjar). 72. Normally, where the compensation is awarded on agricultural yield or capitalization method basis, the principle of multiplier is also applied for final determination. These are broadly the methods which are applied by the Courts with further reduction on account of development charges. In some cases, depending upon the peculiar facts, this Court has accepted the principle of granting compound increase at the rate of 10% to 15% of the fair market value determined in accordance with law to avoid any unfair loss to the claimants suffering from compulsive acquisition. However, this consideration should squarely fall within the parameters of section 23 while taking care that the negative mandate contained in section 24 of the Act is not offended. How one or any of the principles afore-stated is to be applied by the Courts, would depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case. 75. It is a settled principle of law that lands of adjacent villages can be made the basis for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. This principle of law is qualified by clear dictum of this Court itself that whenever direct evidence i.e. instances of the same villages are available, then it is most desirable that the Court should consider that evidence. This principle of law is qualified by clear dictum of this Court itself that whenever direct evidence i.e. instances of the same villages are available, then it is most desirable that the Court should consider that evidence. But where such evidence is not available Court can safely rely upon the sales statistics of adjoining lands provided the instances are comparable and the potentiality and location of the land is somewhat similar. The evidence tendered in relation to the land of the adjacent villages would be a relevant piece of evidence for such determination. Once it is shown that situation and potential of the land in two different villages are the same then they could be awarded similar compensation or such other compensation as would be just and fair. 76. The cases of acquisition are not unknown to our legal system where lands of a number of villages are acquired for the same public purpose or different schemes but on the commonality of purpose and unite development. The parties are expected to place documentary evidence on record that price of the land of adjoining village has an increasing trend and the Court may adopt such a price as the same is not impermissible. Where there is commonality of purpose and common development, compensation based on statistical data of adjacent villages was held to be proper. Usefully, reference can be made to the judgments of this Court to the cases of Kanwar Singh and ors. vs. Union of India, JT 1998(7) SC 397 and Union of India vs. Bal Ram and anr., AIR 2004 SC 3981 . 77. In this regard we may also make a reference to the judgment of this Court in the case of Kanwar Singh and ors. vs. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 317 , where sale instance of the adjacent villages were taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the fair market value of the land in question and their comparability, potential and acquisition for the same purpose was hardly in dispute. It was not only permissible but even more practical for the Courts to take into consideration the sale statistics of the adjacent villages for determining the fair market value of the acquired land.” 12. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of M. P. Housing Board vs. Mrs. It was not only permissible but even more practical for the Courts to take into consideration the sale statistics of the adjacent villages for determining the fair market value of the acquired land.” 12. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of M. P. Housing Board vs. Mrs. Neera Kapoor and ors., reported in 2004 (1) MPHT 422 has also scrutinized the various earlier judgments of the Apex Court in respect of calculation of amount of compensation. Paras 14 to 18 of the judgment are reproduced below : “14. In the case of Kanwar Singh vs. Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 136 , it has been held that the amount of compensation for the land acquired depends on the market value of land on the date immediately before the notification under section 4 of the Act or when same land is acquired and offer of compensation is made through an award. The market value has to be determined on the basis of evidence produced before the Court. It was further held that the consideration in terms of price received for land under bona fide transactions on the date or preceding the date of notification issued under section 4 of the Act generally shows the market value of the acquired land and the market value of the acquired land to be assessed in terms of those transactions. It is also noteworthy to state here that in the case of Hansali Walichand vs. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 2 SCC 388 , Their Lordships held that the land having future potential on account of its location cannot be ignored and realised potential is not the sole pivotal factor. 15. It is also noteworthy to state here that in the case of Hansali Walichand vs. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 2 SCC 388 , Their Lordships held that the land having future potential on account of its location cannot be ignored and realised potential is not the sole pivotal factor. 15. In this regard it is noteworthy to refer to the decision rendered in the case of Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer vs. L. Kamalamma, (1998) 2 SCC 385 , where in it has been held by Their Lordships that when no sales of comparable land were available where large chunks of land had been sold, even land transactions in respect of small extent of land could be taken note of as indicating the price that it may fetch in respect of large tracts of land by making appropriate deductions such as for development of the land by providing enough space for roads, sewers, drains, expenses involved in formation of a layout, lump sum payment as also the waiting period required for selling the sites that would be formed. 16. In this case we may also refer to the decision rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Mangat (Dead) by L.Rs. and ors., (2000) 10 SCC 609 , wherein Their Lordships held in Para 8 as under :— “8. Even if one was to disregard the quality of the land, i.e., irrigated, semi-irrigated or barren, one cannot be oblivious of the fact that the market value of land which abuts on the national highway would be much more than the land which is away from it. A price of the land which is landlocked and which is farther away from the national highway cannot be the same as that which abuts on the national highway. The formula which had been applied by the High Court, however, seems to indicate that the price of the entire land irrespective of the location of different parcels of land is the same. The formula which was applied by the learned Single Judge of the High Court is obviously incorrect.” 17. The formula which had been applied by the High Court, however, seems to indicate that the price of the entire land irrespective of the location of different parcels of land is the same. The formula which was applied by the learned Single Judge of the High Court is obviously incorrect.” 17. In this regard we may profitably refer to the decision rendered in the case of Kasturi vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354 , wherein it was held when there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value though yet to be developed cut 20% towards development charges as against the normal 1/3rd, from the amount of compensation was treated to be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 18. In this regard it is worth referring to the decision rendered in the case of Land Acquisition Officer vs. B. Vijender Reddy and ors., (2001) 10 SCC 669 . In the aforesaid case a two Judge Bench of the Apex Court held as under :— “13 ....... It is true, in the fixation of rate of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, there is always some element of guesswork. But that has to be based on some foundation. It must spring from the totality of evidence, the pattern of rate, the pattern of escalation and escalation of price in the years preceding and succeeding section 4 notification etc. In other words, the guesswork could reasonably be inferable from it. It is always possible to assess the rate within this realm. In the present case, we find there are three exemplars, i.e., Exhibits A-l and A-2 which are three years preceding the date of notification and Exhibit A-3 which is of the same point of time when section 4 notification was issued.” 13. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dyagala Devamma, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 485 has held as under : 19. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and anr., (1988) 3 SCC 751 , this Court dealt with the question as to how the Court should determine the valuation of the lands under acquisition and what broad principle of law relating to acquisition of land under the Act should be kept in consideration to determine the proper market value of the acquired land. 20. 20. In Para 4 of the judgment, this Court laid down as many as 17 principles, which are reproduced below for perusal : (1) to (4)........................................ (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 sections 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. (8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes 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. (10) 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-à-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 thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter 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 distance from the road. 3. Frontage on a road 3. Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth. 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 under acquisition. 6. Some special disadvantageous 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 10,000 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 approximately between 20 per cent to 50 per cent 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 locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. 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 locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact 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.” 14. In the present case the Government of M. P. has initially issued notification under section 4 on 30-1-1981 and LAO passed the award on 30-6-1984 and immediately thereafter the Government took a possession of ‘the acquired land’ from the appellants in the year 1985. In the year 1990, the High Court has quashed the land acquisition proceedings and directed for issuance of fresh notification under section 4. The State Government issued the fresh notification on 2-11-1990 and thereafter, the LAO passed the award at the rate of Rs.27,700/-. During this intervening period the Government had already constructed the Court’s building and the entire area had been fully developed. As per the evidence produced by the appellants, the two petrol pumps are there in front of the Civil Court building Badnawar and in near by office of PWD Office of Tehsildar and officer colony have been constructed. The acquired land is situated on main road and, therefore, though the acquired land was not diverted, but it was no more agriculture land and there was no agriculture activities were going on in the year 1990. In the case of Bhikulal Kedarmal Goenka (D) by L.Rs. vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. (supra), the Apex Court has held that the sale deed of smaller land can be applied as an exemplar for grant of compensation of a land having bigger area. In the case of Mohammad Yusuf and ors. Etc. Etc. vs. State of Haryana and ors. (supra), the Apex Court has held that the term compensation was interpreted by this Court in number of cases that it is to be a just equivalent of what the owner has been deprived of. There must be no injustice with the landowners since they stand deprived from their vital right, i.e., right of property. (supra), the Apex Court has held that the term compensation was interpreted by this Court in number of cases that it is to be a just equivalent of what the owner has been deprived of. There must be no injustice with the landowners since they stand deprived from their vital right, i.e., right of property. Now the purpose of deciding the compensation of a land in case of acquisition, section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is a fundamental section. The Apex Court has further held that for the landowners get the compensation on the basis of value of the land in its actual condition at the time of publication of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, for being an urban area, there must be some other facilities like commercial activities, population growth, education activities, paying capacity of people, public transportation and infrastructure etc. There cannot be straight-jacket formula. Hence, each case has to be dealt in the light of the circumstances of each case. Paras 11, 12, 13 and 14 are relevant which reads as under :— “(11) In a catena of cases, this Court has held that compensation should be adequate and there must be no injustice with the land owners since they stand deprived from their very vital right i.e., Right to Property. At the same time, it is also to be kept in mind that no hypothetical view shall be taken as it may be harmful to the public exchequer in case of acquisition for public purposes. Hence, Courts must maintain balance between both the parties. In the cases of land acquisitions, generally Courts confronted with the short but important question that what ought to be the ideal market value for the acquired land. This Court, in Major General Kapil Mehra and ors. vs. Union of India and anr., (2015) 2 SCC 262 while dealing with the matter held as under :— “10. Market Value: First question that emerges is what would be the reasonable market value which the acquired lands are capable of fetching. This Court, in Major General Kapil Mehra and ors. vs. Union of India and anr., (2015) 2 SCC 262 while dealing with the matter held as under :— “10. Market Value: First question that emerges is what would be the reasonable market value which the acquired lands are capable of fetching. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Officer is required to keep in mind the following factors:- (i) existing geographical situation of the land; (ii) existing use of the land; (iii) already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or developed area and (iv) market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near to the acquired land.” (12) For the purpose of deciding compensation of land in case of acquisition, section 23 of the L. A. Act is the fundamental section which says that some vital factors to be considered while determining compensation. At this juncture, it is pertinent to re-produce the said section herein below : 23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation. At this juncture, it is pertinent to re-produce the said section herein below : 23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation. — (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, this Court shall take into consideration- First, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1); Secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector’s taking possession thereof; Thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land; Fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of Collector’s taking possession of the land ,by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; Fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and Sixthly, the damage (if any) Bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land. (13) On a plain reading of section 23 of the L. A. Act, it is evident that the compensation has to be calculated according to the value of the land to the owner and the question to be considered is whether the person from whom the land was taken was to lose by having it taken from him. The probable use to which the land might be put was necessarily an element to be taken into consideration for calculating the compensation of acquired land. The land owners get compensation on the basis of the value of the land, in its actual condition at the time of the publication of the Notification under section 4 of the L. A. Act. The land owners get compensation on the basis of the value of the land, in its actual condition at the time of the publication of the Notification under section 4 of the L. A. Act. (14) In the instant case, the appellants contented and invited our attention to the fact that the valuation of the acquired land should be assessed on urban land criteria since land had all basic amenities like water, sewer, electricity and telephone lines were already present on the date of Notification under section 4 of the L. A. Act. However for being an urban area, there must be some other facilities like commercial activities, population growth, education activities, paying capacity of people, healthy public transport, infrastructure etc. It is also a well established rule that in the cases of calculation of compensation, there cannot be a straight jacket formula, hence, each case has to be dealt in the light of circumstances of each case. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. 15. Admittedly, the land was acquired for the construction of civil Court building. The possession was taken in the year 1985 and by the time second notification was issued in the year 1990, the Court building had already been constructed and the surrounding areas of the acquired land had also been developed by way of construction of petrol pump, Government Offices, residential houses, main road and market etc. From the year 1988 to 1991, the plots were sold at the rate of Rs.12 to Rs.35/- per sq.ft. Therefore, at that time, the area was not being used for agriculture purposes but for a commercial and residential purpose therefore, the appellants have wrongly been granted compensation by treating the acquired land as an agriculture land as the same was not diverted. Therefore, at the time of issuance of second notification in the year 1990, the land was no more agriculture land because civil Court building had been constructed over the acquired land. As per the sale deeds produced by the appellant as well as the respondents, the appellants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.20 per sq. ft. for their acquired land by taking average of all the sale deeds. Compensation already granted under other heads and the rates of interest awarded by the reference Court are hereby maintained. 16. As per the sale deeds produced by the appellant as well as the respondents, the appellants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.20 per sq. ft. for their acquired land by taking average of all the sale deeds. Compensation already granted under other heads and the rates of interest awarded by the reference Court are hereby maintained. 16. On the basis of the above discussion, it transpires that fair market value of the land of village Kheda Tehsil Badnawar acquired on 2-11-1990 should be Rs.20/- per square feet. Therefore, the compensation of the land of the claimants appellants of village Kheda Tehsil Badnawar acquired by notification under section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 dated 2-11-1990 is determined @ Rs.20/- per square feet. The impugned judgment dated 22.07.1999 and decree passed by the District Judge, Dhar is accordingly modified. The claimants-appellants shall be entitled to compensation of their acquired land @ Rs.20/- per square feet and other statutory benefits and interest. 17. In result, all the above noted first appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above, with costs of Rs. 5000/- to the appellant. The compensation and costs shall be paid by the respondent to the claimants appellants within three months. 18. The deficiency of Court fees, if any, on determination of compensation as aforesaid, shall be computed/ reported by taxing Officer within two weeks and thereupon, the concerned claimants appellants shall deposit it within next four weeks. Appeals allowed.