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

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJENDRA SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/01/1996

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

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1564            1996 SCC  (7) 347  JT 1996 (2)   112        1996 SCALE  (1)814

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.        This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High  Court of  Allahabad dated  February 3,  1994 in FA No.233/88. 5.357  acres of  agricultural  land  situated  in Daoodpur, Pargana Chinaiya-kot Tehsil Mohammadabad, District Azamgarh was  acquired for construction of Sirsa Alpika. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated January 10, 1985 determined compensation @ Rs.3,658.87 per acre. Dissatisfied therewith, the  respondent sought reference under Section 18 of the  Land Acquisition  Acts 1894  to the Civil Court. The Civil Court  in its award and decree dated February 17, 1988 enhanced  the   compensation  to   Rs.30,000/-   per   acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Reference Court, both the claimants as  well as  the State  filed the  appeal. In  the impugned judgment,  the learned judge granted compensation @ Rs. 69,013.11 per acre. Thus this appeal by special leave.      It is  settled law  that in  reference under Section 18 claimant being  dissatisfied with  the  award  of  the  Land Acquisition Officer,  when the  proceedings are  taken under Section 20 of the Act, burden is always on the claimant like plaintiff to  adduce reliable  and  acceptable  evidence  to prove proper, just and adequate compensation to the acquired land. If  such an  evidence was adduced, burden shifts on to the State to disprove it. It is further settled law that the sales transactions filed either in the narration of award or documents, without  examination of  either the  vendee or by the vendor  is not  evidence. It is the duty of the Court to carefully assess  the evidence  on the  touch stone of human conduct and  prudent purchaser.  Admittedly, in  this  case, though reference to four sales transactions had been made by the reference  Court, neither  the vendee nor the vendor was examined nor  was it established that the sale consideration which passed thereunder is true and the prices for which the sales came  to be  executed were  real one  between  willing

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

vendor  and  willing  vendee.  Equally,  burden  is  on  the claimant to  establish that  the lands relating to the sales transactions and  the lands  under acquisition are possessed of same  value, nature  of the lands are same and capable to fetch same price, and so also other situations as comparable features. Unfortunately, neither the reference Court nor the High Court  has looked  into this legal aspect of the matter and proceeded  on the  terms of  those  sale  deeds.  It  is equally settled  law that  the Courts  should avoid feats of imaginations to  fix fanciful price, and sit in the armchair of willing  vendee to see whether a prudent purchaser acting in normal  market condition  would be  willing to  offer the price which  are mentioned  in the sale instances. The Court should clearly  and  carefully  evaluate  the  evidence  and determine market  value  avoiding  needless  burden  on  the exchequer and  according adequate  and just  compensation to the acquired  land. The  very approach adopted by the courts below is  beset with  illegalities and, therefore, we do not find any  legal basis  to consider the evidence on record to determine proper and adequate compensation in respect of the acquired land.      Under these  circumstances, we  are left with no option but to set aside the decree and award of the reference Court as well  as of  the High  Court and  remit the matter to the reference Court  to give  an opportunity  to the claimant as well as  the Land  Acquisition Officer to adduce evidence in the case and then to determine the compensation according to law.      The  appeal   is  accordingly   allowed  but,   in  the circumstances, the  parties are  directed to  bear their own costs.