Executive Engineer, Nagriya Vidhyut Vitran Khand vs Shashi Bhushan & Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

This is a First Appeal which has been preferred by the Executive Engineer, Nagriya Vidhyut Vitran Khand (North), whereby, he has questioned the veracity of the award rendered under a reference sought under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, which was registered as the Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 62 of 2009 'Shashi Bhushan & Others vs. Collector, Dehradun & Another', which has been decided by the impugned judgment dated 21.08.2013, and while doing so the reference court has awarded the compensation of the land acquired to the respondents at the circle rate prevalent at the relevant point of time, i.e. at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per sq. meters, as fixed by the Collector while exercising his powers under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act as made applicable by the State amendment under the Stamp Act.

The brief facts, which are involved in the instant case are, that for the purposes of acquiring the land for the purpose of establishment of 33/11 K.V. Sub Station and the Housing premises for the employees of the department. For the said purpose a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 4.12.2007 and was published in the newspaper on 26.12.20017 and 25.12.2007, and the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act, in continuation thereto was published in the newspaper on 10.05.2008 was issued on 23.04.2008. The possession of the property in question was shown to be taken over on 18.08.2008, but the SLAO while exercising his powers under Section 11 of the Act had rendered an award on 17.12.2008, questioning the determination of the compensation rendered by the SLAO, who has awarded the compensation by fixing the rate of land at the rate of Rs.1,204.68/- per square meter.

The case of the respondent is that they have sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, as against the award rendered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in relation to the land acquired, i.e. Khasra No. 117 kha having an area of 0.365 hectares and Khasra No. 121 kha having an area of 0.100 hectares in LA Case No. 2 of 2006-07, rendered on 17.12.2008, contending thereof that the quantum of compensation which has been determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, which was based upon paper no. 18, which was an exemplar sale deed where the parties to the said sale deed had agreed to convey the property at the rate of Rs.1200 per square meter and, thus it is contended by the appellant that the said sale deed since related to the property which felt within the close vicinity of the land proposed to be acquired by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, hence, the quantum of compensation as determined at the rate of Rs.1200 per square meter and which was based on the exemplar sale deed paper no. 18, which was determined by the SLAO as 1204.68 per square meter was absolutely just and proper compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

The second limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that if the claim of the respondent is taken into consideration they themselves in their claim petition or in the proceedings before the SLAO had claimed a compensation based on the exemplar sale deed paper no. 23, which was executed between the vender and vendee, who agreed to convey the property at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per square meter. Further the claimant respondent submitted that the circle rate fixed by the Collector for the period 14.11.2007 to 31.10.2009 was settled @ Rs.7,500/- per sq. meter, for area of Sahastra Dhara Chowk to Sahastra Dhara Chakri. Apart from it the claimants also contended that the compensation has to be based on the surrounding of the local area where the land is being acquired.

Accordingly, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that if the claimant has raised a claim for determination of compensation at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per sq. meters in the claim petition, then the reference court could not have enhanced the payment of compensation based upon the rate which has been settled down by the Collector while exercising powers under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act. This argument is based on the ground that the appellant themselves have claimed compensation on the basis of the exemplar sale deed before the S.L.A.O.

If the exemplar sale deed on which the argument has been extended by the learned counsel for the appellant is taken into consideration, i.e. on perusal of paper no. 23 ga, on which reliance has been placed it was in relation to Khasra No. 238 kha, which was conveyed out of it the total area which was transferred by it was 187.29 square meters only, situated in Mauja Adhoiwala, Pargana Central Doon, District Dehradun, Uttarakhand.

In the case at hand it is an admitted position that the learned counsel for the appellant who has placed reliance on clause 'f' of the said sale deed he submits that though the circle rate determined by respondent was @ of Rs.3,000/- per square meter, hence its ultimate valuation comes down to Rs.5,61,810/- but, since the stamp duty paid on the same by the purchaser has been on the actual sale consideration of Rs.12 lakhs, hence, that could be the appropriate basis for determining the compensation payable to the respondent is not tenable for the reason that the stamp rate which is paid on the actual sale consideration would be of Rs.12 lakhs, which was exclusively based upon a determination of an inter se terms of the contract between the vender and vendee, who agreed to sell at the determinable rate to sell the property, which was otherwise as per the value of the land determined by claimant was based on the rate of Rs.3,000/- was valued as Rs.5,61,810/-. The said determination of the stamp duty, which is paid on the actual sale consideration, the term actual sale consideration referred in the said sale deed was an exclusive understanding which was arrived at between the vender and vendee of the said sale deed.

Even otherwise also, if the reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on paper no. 23ga in order to substantiate that the respondent cannot claim more than the rate specified in the exemplar paper no. 23ga, it becomes incumbent for the beneficiary of the land in whose favour the property has been acquired to examine the vender and vendee as per the ratio propounded by the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1995) 4 SCC 136 'Kummari Veeraiah and Others vs. State of A.P.'. Paragraphs 5 & 6 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:

"It is true that the certified copies of the sale deeds are admissible in evidence as secondary evidence under s.51A of the Act since owners would be reluctant to part with their original sale-deeds. But unless either the vendor or the vendee has been examined as witness to testify not only the consideration paid but also their specific knowledge and the circumstances in which the sale deed came to be executed nearness to the lands etc., the sale deeds cannot be relied on to determine market value of the acquired lands. The true nature and situation of the respective lands are relevant and germane as comparable sales for determination of the compensation and are required to be brought on record through admissible evidence and tested on the anvil of common experience. Therefore, by mere marking the documents Exs. A-3, A-4, A-8 and A-10 by themselves do not amount to proof of the afore-mentioned factors. The High Court rightly held that the documents cannot be relied upon. The High Court is also right in its finding that ExA-2 though relates to the same land, it was brought into existence just few days prior to the date of the publication of the notification under s.4(l) to boost up the prices and other similar documents also came to be registered during the said period.

It is common knowledge and experience that the proposal for acquisition take long time for arriving at a decision. In the mean time, it would be an open cards and known to everyone, in particular, to the owners of the land and persons in the neighborhood. Therefore, it is not uncommon to have sale deeds executed and registered in the interregnum so as to boost the value of the acquired lands. The High Court had, therefore, rightly excluded the documents. It is true that Ex.A-4 was executed as early as December 19, 1982 for an extent of nearly 700 sq. yds. which considera-tion worked out at Rs.40 per sq. yd., but neither vendor nor vendee was examined. The lands are situated at a distance of 1 k.m. Whether a willing buyer would offer the same price when a large extent of land is offered for sale in an open market on a free bargain, either in one lot or different lots, in comparison with small piece or pieces of land? The answer obviously is no."

Another judgment reported in (1996) 6 SCC 197 'State of Bihar vs. Madheshwar Prasad' a reference of paragraphs 3, 4 & 5 is made, which are quoted hereunder:

"3. The question that arises for consideration is: whether the High Court was justified in enhancing the compensation to Rs.45,000/- per acre? The High Court has relied upon the sale deed Ext. 3/A dated march 16, 1981 pertaining to lead of an extent of 25 decimals of Don-II lands and 14 decimals of Don-I lands sold for consideration of Rs.16,000/-. It also relied upon another sale deed of the year 1983 with value of Rs.1,10,000/- per decimal; in other words, Rs.45,000/- per acre. Unfortunately, neither the vendor nor the vendee has been examined in proof of passing of the consideration under the sale deed etc. Only a clerk of the Sub-regulation was called as witnesses as to prove the sale deeds which are the certified copies of the sale deeds. No doubt, under Section 51-A of the Act, the certified copy of the sale deed is admissible as evidence to get over the difficulties of the owner of the document would not produce the original title deeds. The clerk of the Sub-regulation has proved that material as secondary evidence but other factors aliunde has to be established that the sale deed offers comparable value for determining the compensation at Rs.45,000/- per acre.

This Court had elaborately considered and laid this principle of law in a catena of decisions, the latest being R. Ram Reddy and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and Ors.. Therefore, it needs no reiteration.

But, the fact is that the lands are situated very near to the national highway but 4 km. away from the Jamshedpur city. Under these circumstances, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the reasonable compensation would be Rs.22,000/- per acre. The claimants are not entitled to the value of the well i.e., Rs.20,000/- since the well was being used for irrigation of the land. For the reason, it cannot be separately valued as held by this Court in O. Janardhan Reddy and Ors. v. Spl. Dy. Collector, LA. Unit-IV, LMD, Karimnagar, A.P. and Ors."

Reference of paragraph 3 in a judgment reported in 1997 (2) Vol. (30) ALR (S.C.) 211 'U.P.S.R.T.C. Aligarh vs. State of U.P. and Others' is also made, which is quoted hereunder:

"On our direction the learned counsel for the parties have placed on record the adduced evidence. It is now admitted position that two sale deeds had been filed in support of the claim for higher compensation but neither the vendor not the vender has been examined to substantiate those documents which is not the evidence legally admissible nor to be considered. The reference Court also did not properly consider the claims in the legal perspective . Thus, we find that the approach adopted by the High Court as well as the reference Court is not correct in Law. However, we are not expressing any opinion on merits. we set aside the award and decree of the reference Court and that of the Division Bench of the High Court. The matter is remitted to the reference Court with a direction to give opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence afresh, consider the same in the light of the law laid down buy this Court and then decide the compensation accordingly within six months from the receipt of this order."

Paragraph 3 of a judgment reported in AIR 1997 SC 2600 'A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad vs. V.P. Venkaiah & Others', is quoted for reference hereunder:

"Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was Published on July 7,1977, acquiring 14 acres 32 guntas of land of Bachiragh village near Suryapet Nalgonda District (A.P.) for the purpose of constructing a Bus stand Complex. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.7,500\- per acre. The sub-Court on reference awarded the considerated compensation @ Rs.3.60 lacs per acre. The High court it to Rs.2,25,000/- per acre. It is now not in dispute that Exs.A-2, A-9 and A-11 were relied on to enhance the compensation. Admittedly, none of the persons connected with the documents, namely, neither the vendee nor the vendor has been examined. This court in Kumari Veeraiah & ors. vs. State of A.P. [(1995)) 4 SCC 136] held in the absence of adduction of any evidence through the vendor or the vendee, the document per se cannot be relied upon. This was reiterated in State of Bihar vs. Madheshwar Prasad [(1996)6 SCC 197]. Acceptance of certified copy of the sale deed under section 51-A relates only to the production of the original sale deeds but it does not dispense with proof of the contents of the documents, relative feature vis-a-vis 193, the land under acquisition. All is needed to be proved by examining the persons connected with the same and parties to the document. Following the above ratio, we hold that the view taken by the High court and that of the reference Court is entirely illegal."

The ratio as propounded by the aforesaid judgments contemplate that a party to the proceedings, which involves a determination of the consideration of compensation payable on basis of exemplars and it is exclusively based upon the terms of an exemplar, then it becomes inevitable to examine the vendor and vendee, so that they may be able to express the circumstances and conditions under which the willing seller has agreed to convey the property to the willing purchaser, in question at the rate which has been referred in the exemplar itself. This could be quite apparent and necessary from the condition and circumstances of the present exemplar paper no. 23, also because it is exclusively within the domain of the vendor and vendee, even to proceed to pay the stamp duty more than the actual value of the property based upon the actual exchange of sale consideration. Hence, in these circumstances to determine the actual exchange rate of land, vendor and vendee must be examined so that the propriety of fixation of the rate of land at the rate of Rs.3,000/- cannot be taken as to be the sole basis for determination of compensation merely because the claimant has relied upon an exemplar sale deed, which has quoted lesser sale price than to the one, which has been fixed by the Collector under Section 47A of the Stamp Act by Collector, would not deprive grant of compensation based on actual value of the circle rate determined by the Collector.

There is another reason why the exemplar cannot be taken as to be the solitary basis for determining the appropriate compensation payable for the land acquired is from the view point that under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act. Admittedly, as far as the land in question is concerned, the then Collector while exercising its powers under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act and the rules framed thereunder, particularly, the Uttar Pradesh Stamp Valuation Rules, 1997, he has determined the circle rate of the property in question by the notification issued on 14.11.2007, as to be at the rate, which was fixed at Rs.7,500/- per sq. mts. for commercial property and Rs.7,000/- per sq.mts. for the residential property, In such an eventuality, where the notification as issued under Stamp Act fixing the circle rate being that of 14.11.2007, which just precedes the date of issuance of notification under Section 4, which in the present case is date 04.12.2007, this Court is of the view that the rate determined by the circle rate as provided by the Collector could be a sound and a safe basis and criterion for determining the value of the property, as well as the compensation payable as against the land acquired of the respondent by notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The learned counsel for the respondent he submits that the stamp duty rates which are settled by the Collector while exercising powers under the Stamp Act are only for the purposes of imposition of stamp on the deed of conveyance, which is presented for its registration.

This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in a judgment rendered in Bhupendra Singh's case as reported in 2005(2)U.D.295 'Bhupendra Singh and Others vs. Awas Vikas Parishad and Others', wherein, it has been held out that under the stamp Act when the Collector fixes the rate under Section 47A to be read with Rule 340A-340(1) of U.P. Stamp Rules of 1942, it is a document which has to be taken as the basis for determination of the minimum value of the property for the payment of the stamp duty to the claimants. It has been further held that it is upon the fixation of the stamp duty payable under Section 47(A), which when constitutes as to be the basis for leving of the stamp duty payable on the deed of conveyance and once it is presented before the Sub-Registrar for its registration. It has been laid down by the said judgment that in the absence of fixation of a circle rate under Section 47A of the Stamp Act, the Sub-Registrar, who is a public servant, discharges a public duty of registering a document of conveyance, he has had to determine the quantum of amount of stamp payable as a stamp duty on a deed of conveyance, which is based upon the circle rate fixed by the Collector and, hence, the circle rate fixed by the Collector has to be taken as to be a statutory document, which enables the Sub-Registrar to exercise his powers of registering the deed of conveyance presented before it.

In the said judgment the Division Bench of this Court had dealt with a catena of judgments in relation to the other High Courts for example that of Andhra Pradesh, Kolkata, wherein, the Section 47 A, has got altogether a different implication as that which has been provided and made applicable under the State of Uttar Pradesh, and for the said purpose to hold that the provisions of Section 47 A is a statutory discharge of power and it constitutes to be a determination of a value of a property, the Division Bench of this Court has placed reliance on the judgment of "Jawajee Nagnatham vs. Revenue Divisional Officer Aidalabad Andhra Pradesh", which was the case dealing with the Andhra Pradesh case, wherein, by virtue of Section 47A itself Collector determines the circle rate payable of the property in question, which is subject matter of conveyance of deed presented before him for registration.

The Division Bench of this Court in paragraph-10 of the said judgment, which is quoted hereunder, has held that once the State for the purposes of collecting the revenue by way of a stamp duty chargeable on document of conveyance utilizes the notification issued by the Collector under Section 47A in order to fetch better revenue and save the depreciation of the revenue, the same cannot be said that it would not be enforceable for extension or determination of benefit payable by the State to the land loosers whose land has been made subject matter of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act:

"10. That Section 47-A as applicable in State of U.P. lays down a procedural law and is not the charging Section as interpreted by the judgment of 1994 given in "Jawajee Nagnatham vs. Revenue Divisional Officer Aidalabad Andhra Pradesh Case". For the purposes of brevity of Section 47-A as applicable to the State of U.P. reads as under:-

Section 47-A. Instruments of conveyance etc. if undervalued, how to be dealt with:----------

[(1) If the market value of any property which is the subject of any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust, as set forth in such instrument is less that even the minimum value determined in accordance with any rules made under this Act. The registering officer appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, shall refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the property duty payable thereon.

(2) Whether prejudice to the provisions of sub section (1), if such registering officer while registering any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust, has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon.

(3) On receipt of a reference under sub section (1) of sub section (2) the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the market value of the property which is the subject of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust and the duty as aforesaid. The difference, if any, in the amount of duty shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty.

Section 47-A sub section (1) stipulates that on presentation of documentation in case if the document is found to less then the "Minimum Value" determined under the Rules the same would be referred to the Collector for its appropriate valuation prior to its registration. Sub Section 2 of Section 47-A provides that the Collector on receipt of the reference has to provide an opportunity of hearing prior to determine the market value of the property which is the subject matter of instrument. That means the authority created under the Registration Act of 1908 for the purposes of regulating its activities within the Rules framed under Chapter 15 particularly Rule 340-A & 341, meaning thereby the action of the Registering Officer for computation of the minimum value of the property is to place reliance on the Rules, framed under the Act. Once an action contemplated statutorily under an Act of authority is regulated by a set of Rules framed under the Act read with Entry 44 List 3 of Schedule 7 it has got a statutory effect, otherwise the same would render the provisions of Section 7 it has got a statutory effect, otherwise the same would render the provisions of Section 47-A which is a procedural legislation as to be redundant. When on presentation the Registering Officer has to assess the face value of the document on the basis of the market value fixed by the Collector, which infers that the basis of exercising of powers under Section 47-A (1) are the Rules framed under Chapter 15 of the Rules. In the absence of which no action could be proceeded with under Section 47-A(1) & (2), thus the Rules framed under Rule 340, 340-A & 341 guides the activity of an authority to meet the purpose contemplated under the Act. When sub section 2 of Section 47-A provides that prior to computation of the minimum value, the Collector has to provide an opportunity within the ambit of Rules framed under the Act, the same makes it mandatory so that the action of the State of fixing the liability of stamp duty prior to assessing the minimum value may not be arbitrary, thus also it renders the Rules to be statutory failing which the spirit and the purpose of Section 47-A to assess the minimum value of the property prior to its registration is regulated by Rules contained in Chapter 15 of the Rules."

For the said purpose a reference may be had to paragraph 12 of the Division Bench judgment of Bhupendra Singh's case, which has held that the rates which has been fixed by the Collector under Section 47A is a minimum statutory market value of the property, and, hence, the rate of compensation to be determined by the reference court cannot be under any circumstances be less than the market rate which has been fixed by the Collector under Section 47A.

In the instant case as already held out that since the circle rate, which was fixed by the Collector at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per sq. meters, which stood determined by the Collector, which according to the Division Bench's judgment has been held to be a statutory determination of market value, the reference court by awarding the compensation by fixing the rate of the value of the property at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per sq. meters has not committed any error as such.

The aforesaid ratio also finds support from the judgment as reported in 1993(2) ALR (10) summary of cases, wherein, the market price of the property as prevailing has been held to be the safe basis for determination of the compensation payable to the land holder.

The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2005(2) AWC 1087 'Ram Khelawan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh', wherein, the Coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the stamp fixed under Section 47A of the U.P. stamp valuation of the property rules 1994 r/w 4, 5 & 7, it is only for the purposes of leving a stamp duty on a deed of conveyance, it cannot be taken as to be the basis for determination of compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act. A reference may be had to paragraph 12 of the said judgment, which is quoted hereunder:

"12. Fixation of minimum value under Rule 4 of Rules of 1997 is relevant only when instrument is to be referred by Registering Officer before registration. Under Section 47A(1)(d) of the Act Registering Officer is required to refer the instrument before registering to the Collector for determination of market value of the property if the market value of property as set forthwith in the instrument is less than the market value determined in accordance with Rule of 1997."

This Court while considering the aforesaid ratio finds that the said judgment has not taken into consideration. The judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court that the determination of compensation payable on the land acquired would be based upon the market value, hence, the said judgment would be held to be a per incuriam and would not be applicable in the present circumstances of the case, where the circle rate as fixed by the Collector was in discharge of its statutory powers under the Stamp Act. Even otherwise also, if the criteria of determination of compensation is taken into consideration in the light of the provisions contained under Section 23 of the Act, the exemplars would never be a safe mode for determination of the compensation in the instant case, where it is exclusively taken as to be the foundation by ignoring their determination on the basis of circle rates by the Collector. It also depends that there are various factors too, which has been provided under Section 23, which are required to be considered for determination of the actual quantum of compensation, for example the location of the property, the area of the land acquired, its probable potentiality of use in future, there are various other factors which are also to be taken into consideration for the determination of the compensation and, hence, as per the judgment of 'The Deputy Director, Land Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaidu & Others' reported in AIR 2007 SC 740 paragraph 66, 67 & 70 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there cannot be any hard and fast rule, which could be made applicable while attracting the provisions contained under Section 23, it would always be depending upon the nature of the land and the factors covered under Section 23. Paragraph 66, 67 and 70 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:

"66. Learned counsel submitted that the reliance on small plots of land for determining the market value of large tracts of land is permissible if no other evidence is available by making necessary deductions. The land in the present case is on the Southern side of the National High way facing the road and in close proximity from the well-developed area of Kothuru. The acquired land is situated in the Anakapalli Municipal area and Anakapalli town and surrounded by poultry farms. The reference Court has held on page 62 that 'there is nothing to disbelieve the version of P.Ws. 1 to 3 about the existence of various colonies and warehousing corporation godowns and residential houses nearby to the land in question and the Government has also acquired land covered by Ex.A -4 for the purpose of housing colonies under Award No. 5/82 prior to the Section 4(1) notification in this case.' 'There is no dispute about the existence of A.M.A. High School, A.M.A.L. College, warehousing godowns, other Government offices as referred in the claim statement of the claimants and even though the acquired land was registered as an agricultural dry land, the way it was acquired for the purpose of house sites go to establish that it has got potentiality for using the same as house sites even by the time of 4(1) notification and the neighbouring lands were being utilized for construction of colonies both by the Government and private individuals.' The lands covered by Exs. A-7 to A-11 are in very close proximity to the land acquired, as held by the reference court.

The land acquired being in an already developed area, having potential of construction of residential and commercial buildings, not more than 20% ought to have been deducted towards development, as held by this Court in Kasturi & Ors. v. State of Haryana (supra). Therefore, the deduction of 35% towards development is not justified.

We see much force and merit in the above submission. The Division Bench of the High Court on a consideration of the entire materials placed before it has awarded compensation by relying upon Exh. A-11 a registered sale deed dated 20.01.1982 and fixed the market value at Rs.31/-per sq. yard and deducted 35% out of that for amenities. No fault can be founded on the conclusion arrived at by the High Court insofar as awarding the compensation relying upon Exh A-11 is concerned. We, therefore, are not inclined to interfere with the market value fixed by the High Court at Rs.31/- per sq. yard."

Reverting back to the judgment as questioned in the present Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, i.e. the judgment dated 21.08.2013, the reference court while determining the area of land acquired, its location, in view of the finding which has been recorded therein in the light of the notification issued under Section 4(1) on 26.11.2007 and considering the evidence pertaining to the properties, which was lying adjacent to the land, which was proposed to be acquired, the court has rightly and appropriately held that the exemplar paper no. 23C, as produced by the objector claimant for the purposes of determination of the sale consideration would override the exemplar paper no. 18b relied by the SLAO for determining the compensation but, those findings pertaining to the inter se interpretation of the two exemplar sale deeds, this Court is of the view that it will not override the ratio as propounded by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the mandatory fixation of the market value of the property by the Collector while exercising powers under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act as applicable in the State.

Apart from it, as already held and even in accordance with the findings, which has been recorded by the reference court too the ratio as applied in view of the findings recorded in the light of paragraph 5 of the said judgment, the circle rate has to be taken as to be the sound basis for determination of the appropriate compensation payable to the land owner. Paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment is quoted hereunder:

"It is further deposed that we filed Writ Petition in Hon'ble High Court which was transferred to the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital and the last order of Hon'ble High Court is dated 02.04.2007. That in the Writ Petition the Hon'ble High Court ordered compensation be given at market rate prevailing today and interest be given from year 1983."

The preposition settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court is a judgment rendered by it on 07.02.2007, in the matters of 'Land Acquisition Officer, AP vs. Kamadana Ramkrishna Rao & Another' had propounded the same ratio and the principles for determination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, making reference that compensation cannot be less than the market value of the property. Relevant paragraphs of which are quoted hereunder:

"In the facts and circumstances, in our opinion, the ratio laid down in Rama Rana's case (supra) would not strictly apply in the present cases inasmuch as in fruit growing trees the expenses would not be 50% as held by this Court. Moreover, the High Court also considered an important fact that the claimants-respondents would be entitled to much more amount of Rs.25,000/- per acre on yield-basis but has fixed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs 22,000/-per acre. It, therefore, cannot be said that by not deducting the amount of expenses for cultivation, the High Court had committed any illegality. The first contention, therefore, in the facts of the present appeals, is rejected.

Let us now consider the second point. This Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T. Adinarayan Setty , [(1959) Suppl. (1) SCR 404 : AIR 1959 SC 429] held that in awarding compensation under the Act, the Court has to ascertain market value of the land as on the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It was observed that there were several methods of valuation, such as (1) opinion of experts, (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages, and (3) a number of years' purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the land acquired. In Smt. Tribeni Devi v. Collector of Ranchi, [(1972) 1 SCC 480], this Court reiterated the methods of valuation and also stated that those methods do not preclude the Court from taking into consideration other circumstances, the requirement being always to arrive at the nearest correct market value. It was also indicated that in arriving at a reasonably correct market value, it may be necessary to take even two or all of those methods into account since the exact valuation is not always possible as no two lands would be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or the potentiality nor would it be possible in all cases to have reliable material from which such valuation can be accurately determined."

In view of the aforesaid reasons, which has been considered by the reference court, this Court does not find any error which has been committed in the judgment impugned dated 21.08.2013, hence, since the determination of compensation commensurates to the circle rate as settled by the Collector in the light of the notification issued on 14.11.2007, which happens to be in close paralance to the date of the notification under Section 4(1) was absolutely just and proper mode of determination of compensation and, hence, this Court does not find any merit in the Appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, at this stage itself, it is made clear that at the time of determining the amount to be paid to the claimant/respondent as a consequence of the judgment rendered herein above, the reference court will take into consideration the amount already deposited in compliance of the interim order passed by the Coordinate Bench on 02.07.2014, and deposit made thereof would be adjusted accordingly as against the balance amount payable to the claimant.