Mukesh & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Submissions by learned Counsel for the Appellants:

Submissions by the learned Counsel for the Respondents:

Rejoinder by the learned Counsel for the Appellants:

Consideration and Conclusions by 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 sit 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 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.

(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-à-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.

(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.

9.

The more serious grievance of the appellant however is that the High Court has depressed the market value excessively in evaluating the land in question at Rs 7000 per acre as compared to the land abutting on the Ganeshkhand Road valued at Rs 20,000 per acre, the land abutting in the interior of Survey No. 86 valued at Rs 16,000, and land abutting on Pashan Road valued at Rs 12,000 per acre. A glance at the sketch on the record shows that the appellant's land is situated very much in the interior as compared to the other parcels of land. It is in the midst of large blocks of undeveloped land. A hypothetical purchaser would not offer the same market value for lands with such a situation as lands which are nearer to the developed area and abut on a road or are nearer to a road. The development of lands which are nearer to the developed area and nearer to the road can reasonably be expected to take place much earlier. Only after such lands are developed and construction comes up, the development would proceed further in the interior. It would not be unreasonable to visualize that a considerable time would elapse before development could reach the block of undeveloped land located in the interior. Besides, the land which is situated in the interior does not fetch the same value as the land which is nearer to the developed area and nearer to the road. If a hypothetical purchaser opts to purchase the land situated in the interior in the midst of an undeveloped area, he would doubtless take into account the factor pertaining to the estimated time for development to reach the land in the interior. For, his capital would be unprofitably locked up for a very long time depending on the estimated time required for the development to reach the land in the interior. Meanwhile he would have to suffer loss of interest It is, therefore, understandable that the land in the interior would fetch much smaller price as compared to the lands situated nearer to the developed locality. More so as all these factors are incapable of precise or scientific evaluation. The valuer has to indulge in some amount of guesswork and make the best of the situation. The High Court having accorded anxious consideration to all these factors of uncertainty has arrived at the valuation of Rs 7000 per acre. Says the High Court in para 51 of the judgment:

“This brings up for final consideration the plots which we have described as interior plots in all the survey numbers and which do not have a frontage on the roads. A lower price will have to be provided for these plots, since the plot holders will have to spend moneys for getting water and drainage connections which are given only up to the municipal roads. Then again, in our opinion, the interior plots would not be sold at all as long as any of the plots having a frontage on Pashan Road or Baner Road are sold, though once such plots have been disposed of the demand for interior plots would certainly pick up. Here again, it is impossible to be precise in fixing the value; but in our opinion the interior plots may fairly be valued at Rs 7000 per acre. As stated earlier, the sales of these plots would commence after all the plots having a frontage on Pashan Road and Baner Road are disposed of i.e. after 12 years, and we may say that those plots would be sold within a period of about 4 years.”

"12.

The only evidence that could be considered and relied upon is Exhibit 1. The following criteria provide a good indication of whether a sale deed may be comparable to the one in question: (1) it must be within a reasonable time of date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act; (2) it should be a bonafide transaction; (3) it should be a sale of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the one acquired; and (4) it should possess similar advantage.

13.

Although the land whose sale is evidenced in Exhibit 1 is not an excellent comparison in terms of area, the same indicates a sales transaction completed at around the same time as the acquisition of the said land. Moreover, Exhibit 1 also concerns a plot that is in geographical proximity to the acquired land. There being no other evidence on record, and since we are not inclined to remand the matter after such a long delay, we would rely on Exhibit 1 with necessary scrutiny and caution. Reliance could be placed on the said documentary evidence for determining and assessing the compensation of the acquired land after giving the necessary deduction.

14.

The High Court appears to have taken notice of the aforementioned criteria and has given some discount in compensation as the land under Exhibit 1 is a very small piece of land and the land acquired in the case in hand is much larger in size. After giving the said discount, the High Court computed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre for the acquired land. While determining compensation, some conjecture is unavoidable as it is generally not possible to have any documentary evidence of sale of land of similar nature and in the near vicinity of the acquired land. The value shown in Exhibit 1 cannot be assessed as the value of the acquired land for the reason that the said land which is sold under Exhibit 1 is a very small piece of land, whereas the acquired land being a large tract of land.

15.

This Court has held in Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi reported at (1988) 2 SCC 150, that where large tracts of land are required to be valued, valuation in transactions with regard to small plots is not to be taken as the real basis for determining the compensation of large tracts of land. It follows that where the market-value of large block of land is determined on the basis of sale transactions for smaller property, appropriate deduction has to be made for making allowance for the loss of the acquired land required to be used for internal development such as construction of roads, drains, sewers, open spaces and the expenditure involved in providing other amenities like water, electricity etc. The extent of area required to be set apart has to be assessed by the Court having regard to the shape, size and situation of the concerned block of land."

“6.

No prudent purchaser would purchase large extent of land on the basis of sale of a small extent of land in the open market. The acid test the court should always adopt in determining market value in the matter of compulsory acquisition would be to eschew feats of imagination, sit in the armchair of a prudent willing purchaser, it should consider whether the willing vendee would offer the rate at which the trial court proposes to determine the compensation. Taking these facts into consideration, we are of the view that the reasonable and adequate compensation for the lands would be at a net rate of Rs 22 per sq. mtr., after giving deduction of 1/3rd of the amount towards developmental charges. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation @ Rs 22 per sq. mtr. They are also entitled to the statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation.”

“6.

It is settled law that the burden of proof of market value prevailing as on the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification is always on the claimants. Though this Court has time and again pointed out the apathy and blatant lapse on the part of the acquiring officer to adduce evidence and also improper or ineffective or lack of interest on the part of the counsel for the State to cross-examine the witnesses on material facts, it is the duty of the court to carefully scrutinise the evidence and determine just and adequate compensation. If the sale deeds are found to be genuine, the market value mentioned therein must be presumed to be correct. If the genuineness is doubted, it cannot be relied upon. Proper tests and principles laid down by this Court must be applied to determine compensation. Since the LAO as well as the High Court placed reliance on the sale deed which commanded market value of a maximum of Rs 15,000 and odd, the question is: what would be the just and adequate compensation to be paid in respect of the lands? The court must not indulge in feats of imagination but, sit in the armchair of a prudent purchaser in open market and to put a question to itself whether as a prudent purchaser it would offer the same price in the open market as is to be determined? This should be the acid test. The District Court was not right in holding that the lands are possessed of future potentiality as public purpose is industrial development. Section 24 clause fifthly prohibits taking into consideration future user to which the land will put when acquired. Considered from the fluctuation in the prices placed on record and large area involved in the acquisition, situation of the lands, actual user of the lands as agricultural lands and on the totality of the facts in this case, treating all the lands as agricultural lands, we are of the considered view that the market value of the land per acre would be Rs 35,000. The claimants are accordingly entitled to this amount. It is no ground for the claimants to contend that as they are required to refund the difference of the compensation amount, the amount determined by the High Court or Reference Court should be confirmed. If that contention is given acceptance in no case proper compensation can be fixed by the appellate court.”

“4.

Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge of the High Court committed a grave error in working out average price paid under the sale transactions to determine the market value of the acquired land on that basis. As the method of averaging the prices fetched by sales of different lands of different kinds at different times, for fixing the market value of the acquired land, if followed, could bring about a figure of price which may not at all be regarded as the price to be fetched by sale of acquired land. One should not have, ordinarily recourse to such method. It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. The learned Single Judge did not adopt that method. As stated earlier, it is agreed between learned counsel appearing for contesting parties that Ex. R-5 dated August 4, 1965 which works out to Rs 78 per marla, could form the basis for the fixation of the market value of acquired land. On the basis of the said agreement and having regard to lapse of three years' time between the date of the purchase under Ex. R-5 in August 1965 and the date of acquisition and sudden developmental activities in and around the acquired land, we are of the view that fixation of the market value of acquired land @ Rs 100 per marla would be just and reasonable. The respondent-claimants would be entitled to the proportionate solatium on the enhanced market value of land @ 15% and interest @ 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession of the land till payment. We do not propose to interfere with the determination of the market value of structure on the acquired land at Rs 17,000 made by the learned Single Judge. It is accordingly confirmed.”

“28.

We may notice that Part III provides for procedure and rights of the claimants to receive compensation for acquisition of their land and also states various legal remedies which are available to them under the scheme of the Act. Under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court determines the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. Section 23 provides guidelines, which would be taken into consideration by the court of competent jurisdiction while determining the compensation to be awarded for the acquired land. Section 24 of the Act is a negative provision and states what should not be considered by the court while determining the compensation. In other words, Sections 23 and 24 of the Act provide a complete scheme which can safely be termed as statutory guidelines and factors which are to be considered or not to be considered by the court while determining the market value of the acquired land. These provisions provide a limitation within which the court has to exercise its judicial discretion while ensuring that the claimants get a fair market value of the acquired land with statutory and permissible benefits. Keeping in view the scheme of the Act and the interpretation which these provisions have received in the past, it is difficult even to comprehend that there is possibility of providing any straitjacket formula which can be treated as panacea to resolve all controversies uniformly, in relation to determination of the value of the acquired land. This essentially must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

29.

It is a settled principle of law that the onus to prove entitlement to receive higher compensation is upon the claimants. In Basant Kumar v. Union of India [(1996) 11 SCC 542] this Court held that the claimants are expected to lead cogent and proper evidence in support of their claim. Onus primarily is on the claimants, which they can discharge while placing and proving on record sale instances and/or such other evidences as they deem proper, keeping in mind the method of computation for awarding of compensation which they rely upon. In this very case, this Court stated the principles of awarding compensation and placed the matter beyond ambiguity, while also capsulating the factors regulating the discretion of the Court while awarding the compensation. This principle was reiterated by this Court even in Gafar v. Moradabad Development Authority [(2007) 7 SCC 614] and the Court held as under: (SCC p. 620, para 12)

“12.

As held by this Court in various decisions, the burden is on the claimants to establish that the amounts awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Officer are inadequate and that they are entitled to more. That burden had to be discharged by the claimants and only if the initial burden in that behalf was discharged, the burden shifted to the State to justify the award.” Thus, the onus being primarily upon the claimants, they are expected to lead evidence to revert the same, if they so desire. In other words, it cannot be said that there is no onus whatsoever upon the State in such reference proceedings. The court cannot lose sight of the facts and clear position of documents, that obligation to pay fair compensation is on the State in its absolute terms. Every case has to be examined on its own facts and the courts are expected to scrutinise the evidence led by the parties in such proceedings.

30.

At the cost of some repetition, we may notice that the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act have been enacted by the legislature with certain objects in mind. The intention of the legislature is an important factor in relation to interpretation of statutes. The statute law and the case law go side by side and quite often the relationship between them is supplementary. In other words, interpretation is guided by the spirit of the enactment. Interpretation can be literal or functional. Literal interpretation would not look beyond litera legis, while functional interpretation may make some deviation to the letter of the law. Unless the law is logically defective and suffers from conceptual and inherent ambiguity, it should be given its literal meaning. Where the law suffers from ambiguity, it is said: (Peerless General Finance case [RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., (1987) 1 SCC 424] , SCC p. 450, para 33)

“33.

Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say that if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted.”

37.

There are certain provisions which are capable of being given general description. Normally such provisions have two concepts—factual situation and the legal consequences ensuing therefrom. As already noticed, it is for the claimants to ascertain as a matter of fact—location, potential and quality of land for establishing its fair market value. After this fact is ascertained, its legal consequences i.e. awarding of compensation in terms of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, the question before a court of law is, whether the factual situation before it falls within the general description and principles in the statute. (Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, p. 51, 9th Edn., 2004.)

38.

In the light of these principles now we may advert to the language of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. The provision opens with the words, that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the court shall take into consideration the stated criteria and in terms of Section 23(1-A), the claimants would be entitled to additional amount @ 12% per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, to the date on which the award is made by the Collector or possession of the land is taken, whichever is earlier. In addition to this, in terms of Section 23(2), the landowner claimants are entitled to 30% “on such market value” because of the compulsory nature of acquisition.

39.

“Such market value” is an expression which must be read ejusdem generis to the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act, as they alone would provide meaning and relevancy to the guidelines which are to be taken into consideration by the courts for determining the market value of the land. The expression “shall” can hardly be construed as “may” giving an absolute discretion to the court to take or not to take into consideration the factors stated in Section 23(1) of the Act. The expression “shall” thus would have to be construed as mandatory and not directory. It is more so, keeping in view the language of Section 24 of the Act, which mandates that the court shall not take into consideration the matters indicated in clauses Firstly to Eighthly of Section 24 of the Act. This legislative intent needs to be noticed for beneficial and proper interpretation of these provisions in the light of the scheme underlining the provisions of the Act.

40.

The expression “such market value” used in Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) respectively obviously would mean and refers to the market value determined in terms of Section 23(1) of the Act. This expression has been well explained by different judicial pronouncements and they have consistently been following what the Privy Council in Municipal Council of Colombo v. Kuna Mana Navanna Suna Pana Letchiman Chettiar [AIR 1947 PC 118] laid down. There it is stated that “such market value” as used in Section 23 of the Act is the price which a willing vendor might be expected to obtain in the open market from a willing purchaser. It is the price which would be payable to a person after the complete appraisal of land with its peculiar advantages and disadvantages being estimated with reference to commercial value. This principle holds good even now and any other consequential right, legal or commercial, which remotely flows from an agricultural activity will not and should not be treated as a relevant consideration.

41.

Equally true will be the principle that the extent of compensation would always depend on the facts and circumstances of the given case and it is not possible to set any absolute legal principle as a panacea which uniformly will be applicable or capable of being applied as a binding precedent de hors the facts of a given case.

43.

A Bench of this Court in Nelson Fernandes v. Land Acquisition Officer [(2007) 9 SCC 447] , while discussing on this aspect of the Act and its relevancy to the market value of the land, held as under: (SCC p. 456, para 22)

“22.

In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded, the LAO shall be guided by the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. As per Section 22 of the Act, the market value of the land has to be determined at the date of publication of notice under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 25-8-1994. As per Section 24, the LAO shall also exclude any increase in the value of land likely to accrue from use to which it will be put once acquired. The market value of the land means the price of the land which a willing seller is reasonably expected to fetch in the open market from a willing purchaser. In other words, it is a price of the land in hypothetical market. During the site inspection, it has been observed that the land under acquisition is situated in Sancoale and Cortalim Village adjacent to the land already acquired for the same purpose earlier.”

What method should be adopted for determining the fair market value of the acquired land

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 landowners 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, NTPC Ltd. v. Om Prakash [(2009) 4 SCC 719] , Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(2001) 7 SCC 650 : AIR 2001 SC 3341] and Ravinder Narain v. Union of India [(2003) 4 SCC 481] ).

(b)

Capitalisation of net income method.—This method has also been applied by the courts. In this method of determination of market value, capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method has been applied (Union of India v. Shanti Devi [(1983) 4 SCC 542] , Executive Director v. Sarat Chandra Bisoi [(2000) 6 SCC 326] and Nelson Fernandes v. Land Acquisition Officer[(2007) 9 SCC 447] ).

(c)

Agricultural 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).

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. 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 in Kanwar Singh v. Union of India [(1998) 8 SCC 136 : AIR 1999 SC 317 : JT (1998) 7 SC 397] and Union of India v. Bal Ram [(2010) 5 SCC 747 : AIR 2004 SC 3981] .

77.

In this regard we may also make a reference to the judgment of this Court in Kanwar Singh v. Union of India [(1998) 8 SCC 136 : AIR 1999 SC 317 : JT (1998) 7 SC 397] where sale instances 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.

83.

It is also an accepted judicial norm that the claimants can be given the benefit of awarding compensation on the basis of the genuine sale instance containing the highest rate, provided it has been proved in accordance with law and is a comparable instance. Such sale instance must satisfy all the requirements and prerequisites stated in the Act. It should be a bona fide transaction and should also be in reasonable proximity to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Since the SLAO had referred to the four sale instances which were produced before him and being part of the reference file, they were duly noticed by the Reference Court as well as by the High Court. But the courts held that it was not appropriate to apply sales statistics method in the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the claimants produced no sale instances. In our view, these sale instances can be taken into consideration by the Court and benefit of the highest instance can be granted to the claimants in accordance with law in fixing the market value of the acquired land. Whatever benefit accrues to the claimants from the record produced and proved by the respondents, cannot be denied to them just because they have not produced evidence by way of sale instances.

87.

The concept of fair compensation payable for the acquired land is embodied in the Act itself, particularly in view of clauses Secondly and Fifthly of Section 23 of the Act. In fact, it was stated during the course of arguments by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, that the State Government itself has given some additional compensation to the claimants for mulberry crops which were standing at the time of submerging. We find this stand of the State Government to be reasonable and fair. Thus, giving a 15% compounded increase for 2½ years on the sale price of Rs 1,08,000 in respect of garden land, the claimants would be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs 1,53,542.50 per acre for the wet (irrigated) land.

91.

It is a settled rudiment of law that the court, in given facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the potentiality and utility of the land acquired, can award higher compensation to ensure that injustice is not done to the claimants and they are not deprived of their property without grant of fair compensation. Reference, in this regard, can be made to the judgment of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao [(2007) 3 SCC 526] . While adopting the average sale method as the formula for awarding compensation to the claimants, we are also of the considered view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the land is being compulsorily acquired, the claimants should be awarded a higher compensation. The compensation at the rate of Rs 2,30,000 per acre for the wetland and at the rate of Rs 1,53,400 per acre for the dry land would be just and fair compensation and would do complete justice between the parties. This element of increase had not been added by the SLAO which ought to have been done.”

"6.

The general trend in the prices of land is on the rise and the judicial notice of the same had been taken by the High Court correctly and therefore, cannot be challenged. Puttur is an urban area and the lands in question are abutting the main road leading from Tirupathi to Arkonam via Puttur and the acquired land was in the heart of Puttur town. To the north of the land in question there is a famous Venkateswaraswamy Temple and to the immediate south, the famous Tiruthani, one of the abodes of Lord Subrahamanyaswamy. Therefore taking into consideration the topography of the land, we may safely proceed on the basis that the High Court had correctly noted the situation of the land in question which has the potentiality of being developed as urban land. Ext. B-30 is a sale deed dated 9-8-1976, the transaction having taken place prior to eight months from the issue of the preliminary notification for acquisition of land in the present case. Having found that the piece of land referred in Ext. B-30 is situated very close to the lands that are acquired under the notification in question the reference court and the High Court relied upon the said document and, in our view, rightly. Further when no sales of comparable land were available where large chunks of land had been sold, even land transactions in respect of smaller 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."