http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETCOMMITTEE BY ITS SECRETARY ET

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERAND ASSTT. COMMISSIONER & ANR, E

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/09/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present                Hon’ble Mr.Justice K,Ramaswamy                Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik      K.M.Reddy,    Sr.Adv.,     N.D.B.Raju,     G.Prabhakar, M.Veerappa, Advs, with him for the appellants.      Ranjit Kumar,  P.Mahale, K.K.Gupta,  G.Prabhakar, Advs. for the Respondents.                          O R D B R      The following Order of the Court was delivered:      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      Notification under Section 4<1) of the Land Asquisition Act, 1994  (for short, the ’Act’) was published on April 14, 13771 acquiring  an extent  of 3  acres 34 gunthas, 1 acre 2 gunthas for  extension  of  Agricultural  Produce  Marketing Committee, Gadag in Dharwad District of Karnataka State. The land   Acquisition Officer  (LAO) by his award dated January 23, 1982  determined the compensation at the rate of Re.0.76 per sq.ft. On reference, the Civil Judge, Gadag in his award dated November 29, 1982 enhanced the compensation to Rs.8.50 per sq.  ft. On  appeal under  Section 54,  in the  impugned judgement dated  October 7, 1992 and November 4, 1992 in MFA No.837/87 and MFA No.1962/87 respectively, the High Court of Karnataka reduced  the compensation  to Rs.7/-  per sq.  ft. Thus, these appeals by special leave.      The reference  Court and the High Court relied on three sale instances  of an  extent of  38.4 sq. ft. and 87.35 sq. ft. which  worked out at the rate of Rs.8/- and Rs.19.98 per sq. ft.;  another sale  deed of 78 sq. ft. was worked out at the rate of Rs.31.25 per sq. ft. The question is whether the principle adopted  by the courts below is correct in law? It is now settled legal position by catena of decisions of this Court that  the civil Court has to sit in the arm chair of a willing prudent  purchaser and  put a question to itself and answer whether  such a willing prudent purchaser would offer to purchase in the open market at the rate Court proposes to determine as  compensation. When  a total  extent of 7 acres and odd  is sought  to be  acquired no  prudent purchaser in open market would offer to purchase the open land on sq. ft. basis that  too on  the basis of few small sale transactions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

and small extents would always fetch higher market value and the same  will never  command such  price in rsepct of large extent. This  Court had  always rejected  such instances  as being not  comparable  sales.  Therefore,  the  Civil  Judge adopted feats of imagination and determined the compensation on the  basis thereof.  Unfortunately, the  High Court  also fell  into   the  same   grave  error   in  determining  the compensation on  the same  basis but  deducted 1/3rd towards developmental charges.  The principle  adopted by the courts below is  obviously erroneous  and, therefore,  it cannot be sustained on  that basis. However, when we asked the learned counsel  for  the  parties  to  produce  the  evidence,  the appellant has  produced certain documents indicating therein that for  the same  purpose they appeared to have negotiated and purchased  the properties  from others  at the  rate  of Rs.9,000/- per  acre and  registered sale  deed came  to  be executed. They  are produced for the first time, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned  counsel for  the respondents, contended that the documents  were not placed either in the reference Court or in  the High  Court. He  also says  that location  of the lands are  different. Under  these circumstances,  we cannot decide for the first time the value of the land on the basis thereof without  giving an  opportunity  to  either  of  the parties for  adducing  evidence  and  without  consideration thereof by  the reference Court. Accordingly, the awards and decrees of  the reference  Court and  that of the High Court stand set  aside. The  cases are remitted to the civil Court for decision  afresh after  giving  an  opportunity  to  the parties to  adduce  evidence  afresh  and  then  decide  the market value  according to law. Pending these appeals  since the respondents have withdrawn the amount as per the interim direction  passed  by  this  Court,  the  same  may  not  be disturbed and the amount withdrawn will be adjusted when the award was passed by the reference Court.      The appeals  are accordingly  disposed of. The judgment of the  High Court  to the  extent  of  awarding  additional amount under  Section 23(1-A)  of the  Act stands  set aside since the  LAO had  made his  award before the Amendment Act came into force. No costs.