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

PETITIONER: SHRI TOPANDAS KUNDANMAL, SINCEDECEASED THEREAFTER BY HISHEIR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE THROUGH THE LANDACQUISITION OFFICER, JAMNAGAR ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/07/1995

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

CITATION:  1995 AIR 2396            1995 SCC  (5) 336  1995 SCALE  (4)701

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH               CIVIL APPEL NOS. 399-400 OF 1973                            ORDER      These appeals  are by certificate of fitness granted by the High  Court under  Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India. Notification  under s.4(1)  of Land  Acquisition Act. 1894(for short, "the Act") was published on October 15, 1959 acquiring 10  acres and  12  gunthas  of  land  situated  in Jamnagar for  the establishment  under development  of  T.B. Hospital. The  appellants laid  a claim pursuant to the rate of Rs.  1,08,898/- per acre. The Land Acquisition officer in his award  dated July  18, 1962  under s.11 awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- per  acre. Dissatisfied therewith, a Reference to the Civil  Judge senior  division was made under s.18 of the Act. The  appellants restricted  their claim  to Rs.2.00 per sq. ft.  The Civil  Court enhanced  the compensation  to Rs. 1.25 per  sq. ft. The High Court in the impugned judgment in the First  Appeal Nos. 521 and 519 of 1963 dated 28.7.72 set aside the  award and  decree  of  the  Reference  Court  and confirmed that of the Collector. Since the value involved is more than  20,000/- the  High Court  granted a  certificate. Thus these appeals.      The learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  strenuously contended that  Ex.39 dated  August 8,  1959 to an extent of 5016 sq.  ft. land  was sold  by Jaisukhlal  Devji  who  was examined under  Ex. 32,  for a sum worked out at the rate of Rs. 2.25 per sq. ft. and the High Court was not justified in rejecting that  sale  deed.  In  addition,  he  also  placed reliance on  Ex. 38  dated December  6, 1959  of Rs. 2,700/- which worked  out at the rate of Rs. 2.88 per sq. ft. proved through Lawshankar Monucha Manilal examined under Ex. 28 who is the son of the vendee. It would also establish, according to the  counsel, that  there is  a further  increase in  the value of  the land.  He  also  buttressed  his  argument  by reference to Ex. 41 dated July 12, 1990 under which 1200 sq.

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

ft. was  sold by Vijaykunvarba who was examined as Ex. 176 a neighbouring  land.   The  High  Court  therefore,  was  not justified in  reversing the  award and  decree of  the Civil Court . We find no force in the contention.      It is  settled law  that the  claimants like plaintiffs are entitled  to succeed  for higher  compensation  only  on proof of  value prevailing  as on  the date of notification. What is  the prevailing  market value  as  on  the  date  of notification is  a question of fact to be proved by adducing evidence. Burden  is always  on him to prove the same. It is seen that  the appellant  himself purchased the land in 1957 at the  rate of  Rs.190 per  acre. The  land adjacent to the land under acquisition in s.No. 225-I admeasuring 8 acres 39 gunthas was purchased by one Umiyashankar Damodar Vyas under Ex. 55 on August 25, 1960 at the rate of 568 per acre. Ex.39 strongly relied  upon by the claimants was executed just two months prior  to the  date of the Notification. It is common knowledge that  issuance of  Notification  under  s.4(1)  to intiate acquisition  would take  considerable time  and  the publecation of  the NOtification  under s.4(1)  of  the  Act would be  made much later on. Having had knowledge, it would be obvious that documents would be brought into existence to inflate the  market value.  Ex. 39  was sought to be pressed into service  to inflate the market value. The conclusion of the High  Court is  that no attempt was made by the claimant or the  vendor or vendee who were examined, to prove Ex.p.39 to prove the distance of the land covered in Ex.p-39 and the land under acquisition or as a comparable sale. We have seen the award  of the  Collector. All  the sales referred in the award would  only show  the sales on acrage basis. Obviously the documents  have been brought into existence on the basis of the  sq. ft. to inflate higher market value. The property of 10  acres and  12 gunthas  , when offered for sale in the open market,  no  prudent  purchaser  would  be  willing  to purchase the  same on  sq. ft. basis. If the small extent of land in  a commercial  area, like Nariman point in Bombay or Connaught Place  in Delhi is sought to be acquired, perhaps, determination of  the compensation  on the  basis of the sq. ft. may be justified. But when the claimant himself assessed the market value at Rs. 190/- per acre and purchased in 1957 and when  in 1960  the 8 acres and 39 gunthas of nighbouring land was  sold for  Rs. 568/- per acre, no prudent purchaser would offer  to purchase on square foot basis. This Court in a  catena  of  decisions  deprecated  the  practice  of  the reference courts  or High Court to determine market value of the lands on sq.ft. basis unless it is established as a fact that the  acquired lands  are  situated  in  already  highly developed residential  and  industrial  area  where  regular sales are  on sq.ft.  basis. The  High Court  also has given cogent and  well considered  reasons in  not  accepting  the award and  decree of  the Reference Court. We have carefully gone through  the judgment and we find no compelling reasons to differ  from the  cogent reasons given by the High Court. Accordingly,  the   appeals  are   dismissed  but   in   the circumstances without costs.