http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: HOOKIYAR SINGH ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,MORABADBAD & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BHARUCHA S.P. (J) PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (3) 766        JT 1996 (4)   251  1996 SCALE  (3)516

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH C.A.Nos. 6823-25,  6864, 6835,  6836-63, 6867,  6866,  6865, 6822, 6826, 6868, 6827, 6828_34, AND 6869-6875 OF 1996 (Arising out  of SLP Nos. 14335, 14340, 14391, 17714, 17435, 17478-17505,  19742,  19714,  19671,  14309,  16104,  19814, 17363, 17366-17372 of 1995 and 4637-4643/96).                          O R D E R      Substitution allowed.      Leave granted.  We have  heard learned  counsel on both sides.      Notification  under   Section  4   [1]  of   the   Land Acquisition Act,  1894 [for  short, the  ’Act’] acquiring an extent of  171.46 acres  of land situated in village Tigarea Bhoor,  Tehsil   Hansanpur,  District  Mordabad  for  public purpose, viz.,  UPSIDC, was published on September 28, 1981. The Land Acquisition Officer [LAO] classified the lands into several categories  and accepting  the sale  deed, item  51, determined compensation  at the  highest rate of Rs.15,500/- and gradually  reduced the  market  value  basing  upon  the classification. On  reference under Section 18, the District Judge by  his award  and decree dated May 22, 1989 increased the compensation  to Rs.40,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the determination of the compensation, the claimants as well as the State filed appeals in the High Court.      As seen,  the High  Court proceeded on the premise that the classification  of the  lands  was  not  warranted,  the entire land commands same value and that, therefore, uniform rate  of   market  value   is  required  to  be  adopted  in determining the  compensation. The  High Court  had accepted the sale  deed relied  on by  the LAO  and on  that basis it increased the  market value  by five  times, holding that in the oral evidence of the claimants they had stated that they paid much  more than  what was reflected as consideration in the sale  deed and  that there  was no  cross-examination in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

that behalf.  It fixed  the market  value at Rs.62,500/- and ultimately determined  the compensation  in respect  of  all lands  at  Rs.50,000/-  per  acre.  Thus  these  appeals  by claimants and the State as well as the UPSIDC.      The question for consideration is: what is the just and adequate compensation  to  which  the  lands  would  command determination? We  accept the  finding of  the High Court as the State  did not  seriously dispute in the High Court that all  the   lands  are   of  equal   value  and,   therefore, compensation should  be determined  uniformly in  respect of all lands.  It is  seen that  the market  value of the lands varies from  Rs. 5,000/-  to Rs.49,500/-  per acre.  But the sale deeds  are of small extents of land. Only one sale deed in which  large extent  of land,  i.e., one acre and odd was sold, appears to be related to one of the claimants and part of the  transfer was  in favour of his wife. The civil Court also pointed  out that those lands are abutting the national highway and  that they  do not command the same market value as the  lands under  acquisition. In view of those facts, we cannot accept the sale deed to be reflective of the true and genuine market  value. But  the fact  remains that  the  LAO himself had  adopted the highest rate of Rs.15,500/- and the High Court  accepting the sale deed relied on by the LAO had enhanced the  market value  five times  accepting  the  oral evidence.      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 scrutinize 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  arm-chair 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    It is stated by Shri Manoj Swarup, learned counsel that the lands  have been sold to the beneficiaries at the lesser rates than  what was determined. It would be obvious that if higher compensation was paid in respect of the lands, UPSIDC is entitled  to recover  the proportionate  increase in  the compensation from the allotees.      The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.