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

PETITIONER: M.V.K. GUNDARAO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,(L.A.O.), NARASARAOPET

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (3) 129        JT 1996 (1)   670  1996 SCALE  (1)627

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have  heard the  counsel on both sides. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on January  3, 1980  acquiring 5108-2/3  sq. yds.  in Survey Nos.248/2, 249/2,  300/1  and  26767  sq.  ft.  or  2974-1/4 sq.yds. in  temporary Survey  No.249/3 and 300/2 situated in the middle  of Narasaraopet  Town, Guntur  District,  Andhra Pradesh for  construction of  Telephone  Exchange  building, Microwave Building  and Microwave  Tower. The  appellant has laid his  claim for  a sum  of Rs.  80/- per sq.yd. The Land Acquisition Officer  in his award under Section 9 determined the compensation @ Rs.40/- per sq. yd. on March 30, 1980. On reference  under   Section  18,   the   subordinate   Judge, Narasaraopet in his award and decree dated December 15, 1982 enhanced the  compensation at  Rs.75/- per  sq. yd. The High Court on  appeal by  the State  as well  as by the claimants reduced the  compensation to  Rs.56/- per sq. yd. Thus these appeals by special leave. The State did not file any appeal.      The Subordinate  Judge relied  on Ex.A-1  to A-4,  sale deeds dated September 16, 1978 executed in respect of 43 sq. yds. 69  sq. yds.,  104 sq.yds.,  149 sq  yds. respectively, which worked  out at  the rates between Rs. 71/- to Rs. 75/- per sq.  yd. Based  thereon, the  Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation  to Rs.  75/- per  sq. yd.  The High  Court concluded  that   since  the   lands  covered  in  the  sale transactions relate  to the  small pieces  of land, they did not commend  the same price for the total extent of the land to  the   acquisition  covering   5,000  and  odd  sq.  yds. Accordingly,  reduced   the  compensation  in  the  impugned judgment made  in A.S.No.2629/86  and 1183/84 dated February 21, 1992.      Mr. A.T.M.  Sampath, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that  the sale  deeds between A-1 to A-4 relied on by the  reference Court  relates to same acquired lands. The

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

validity had  not been questioned. Their genuineness was not questioned. The  consideration  passed  thereunder  was  not questioned and the Subordinate Judge recorded a finding that in view  of these  undisputed facts,  they  form  reasonable basis to  determine the  compensation since  they pertain to the very  same land  under acquisition.  Therefore, it would form the  best basis  for determination of the compensation. We find  that it  is difficult to accept that contention. It is settled  law that  the burden is on the claimant to prove the prevailing  market value  as on  the date of the Section 4(1) Notification  and it is the duty of the Court to assess the prevailing  market value  applying pragmatic  tests. The Court has to consider the evidence in the proper perspective whether a  willing vendee  would prepare  to purchase at the rates offered  by the  willing vendor in an open market when the lands  are put  to sale.  It is the duty of the Court to sit on  the arm  chair of  a prudent  purchaser acting under normal market conditions and to decide the prevailing prices as on  the date  of the  notification. The  land Acquisition Officer in  his award has specifically referred to all these sale transactions and stated thus:      "Sale Nos.9,  10, 11, 16 and 22 : In all      these cases  the vendor is the same. The      land of  the same  vendor  in  the  same      survey numbers is now under acquisition.      The  land   holder  is   aware  of  this      acquisition since  he  orally  consented      for the same and it is suspected that he      might have got these sale registered for      a higher  value with  the  idea  getting      higher rate of compensation. Hence these      sales are discarded."      It would thus be seen that the appellant having had the knowledge  of   the  proposed  acquisition  for  the  public purposes obviously  brought these  documents to  inflate the market value  and that,  therefore, these  sale transactions cannot be  pressed into  service.  The  learned  subordinate Judge has  committed palpable error of law in accepting ipso facto those  documents without  subjecting the  evidence  to closer and  critical scrutiny,  whether these  documents are genuine  documents   executed  between  willing  vendor  and willing vendee. The answer would be obviously "No". The High Court, therefore,  was  right  in  not  relying  upon  those documents.   If    these   documents   are   excluded   from consideration, there  is no  other  evidence  on  record  to consider for  enhancement  of  the  compensation.  The  High Court, therefore,  was right  in reducing  the  compensation from Rs.  75/- to  Rs. 56/-  with consequential  benefit  of solatium and interest. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.