TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 679
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were taken into consideration and market value of the land was determined at the rate of Rs. 1.55 per sq. m. The claimants \026 Respondents did not accept the said award and prayed for a reference to the Civil Court. Such a reference having been made the Reference Court purported to be relying on or on the basis of judgments dated 30th October, 1996 and 10th November, 1996 passed by 4th Extra Assistant Judge and 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Mahesana respectively in L.A. R. Case No. 1349/92 and 1314/92 passed an award computing the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. m. The Appellant herein was not impleaded as a party in the Reference Court. It had, thus, no opportunity also to adduce any evidence either before the Land Acquisition Collector or before the Reference Court. It preferred appeals before the High Court being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. A contention raised by the Appellant before the High Court inter alia was that the Reference Judge acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the said judgment solely on the basis of the deposition of one Sendhabhai Vastaram Patel who alleged tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be the amount which a willing purchaser of the land would pay to the owner of the land as may be evidenced by deeds of sale. In absence of any direct evidence on the said point, the court may take recourse to other methods; viz. judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and / or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award in absence of any other evidence like deed of sale, report of expert and other relevant evidence, however, would have only evidentiary value. The Reference Court, it is trite, has to apply the comparable sales method as also the situation of the land which is to be appreciated upon considering the question as to whether acquired land is similar to any land sold in the vicinity. In Shaji Kuriakose and Another Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Others [(2001) 7 SCC 650], this court observed: "3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and 1314/92. It is true that before the Reference Court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor made a statement that the said judgments have attained finality and no appeal had been preferred thereagainst and as such the same could be taken as the good guidance for the purpose of determining the actual value of the acquired lands; but as has been noticed hereinbefore, the said statement had wrongly been made as appeals had been preferred there against. The High Court, in our opinion, thus, did not pose unto itself a correct question so as to arrive at a correct conclusion on fact and, thus, misdirected itself in law. In determining the amount of compensation, the Reference Court as also the High Court was bound to take into consideration the well-settled principles of law and the factors enumerated in Section 23 of the Act. Instances of sale in respect of the similar land situated in the same village and / or neighbouring villages should have been taken as guiding factors by the Reference Judge as also by the High Court. In absence of any better evidence, the Reference Judge as also the High Court could have made addition in the sale prices for the land as evidenced by the said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y range between 20% and 50% of the total price." It was further observed : "24. The purpose for which acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining the market value. In Basavva v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer deduction to the extent of 65% was made towards development charges." Furthermore, the High Court was not correct in dismissing the first appeal preferred by the Appellants herein in such a slip shod manner. We are, therefore, not in agreement with the reasonings of the High Court. Despite our findings aforementioned, we are of the opinion that these are not fit cases calling for interference in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The lands acquired in District Mehsana in different civil appeals is as under: S.No. Civil Appeal No. Area in sq. mtr. 1. 2144-2146 of 2003 7895 in village Santhal 2. 173-175 of 2004 7874 in village Santhal 3. 176-180 of 2004 10404 in village Memadpur 4. 687-689 of 2005 8267 in village Saduthla 5. 1986-2012 of 2004 81281 in village Balol Most of the Appellants are not represented before us evidently because the amount of compensatio....