DAS, J. - (1.) In close proximity to the Rourkela Steel Plant and the Fertiliser Factory where an industrial complex is growing up, A.34.38 dec. of land were acquired by notification under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 dated 13-5-1969. There is no dispute that the acquisition is also for industrial and building purposes. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rupees 69,306.46. The respondents asked for references under S. 18 of the Act and in the three references the learned Subordinate Judge of Sundargarh enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 9,75,240 inclusive of 15% of statutory compensation and 25% for potential value of the land upon determining the market value at the rate of Rs. 200 per decimal. As against this decision, the State of Orissa preferred three appeals to this Court which were analogously heard by our learned brother S. K. Ray, J. and were dismissed. These three Letters Patent Appeals against the common decision of the learned single Judge have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this judgment. As it appears from para 3 of the judgment of the learnedsingle Judge, two points only were raised by the State Government, namely, (a)the addition of 25% to the estimated market value as potential value of theacquired land was illegal as that amount had already been taken into account inthe fixation of the market value of the land and could not be assessed againand separately; and (b) since the sale deeds produced on behalf of theclaimants were in respect of small parcels of land, they could not provide the requisiteguideline for assessment of market value of extensive areas as acquired in thecase. Both the points were negatived by our learned brother and the decision ofthe learned Subordinate Judge was confirmed.
(2.) The learned Advocate-General contends that determination of value of the lands suffers from error of record and the learned single Judge has omitted to consider the fact that the sale deeds produced by the claimants were in respect of small parcels of land. There is no evidence as to the distance and relative locations of the lands acquired and the lands covered by the sale deeds produced by the claimants. There is also no evidence about similarity of the lands acquired and the lands covered by the sale deeds produced by the claimants. There is absence of evidence of growth of industries in the locality and no reliance can be placed on Exts. 1, 2, 3 and 5 which are sale deeds produced by the claimants.
(3.) The claim under reference was at the rate of Rs. 30,000 per acre. The Court has allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per acre. The learned single Judge has held that the materials available on record give a picture that there is gradual appreciation of market value of the land in the locality and even before the date of acquisition, various industries had sprung up all round the acquired lands and Government have in fact started selling land in the vicinity of the acquired lands at a very high rate i.e. Rs. 95,000 per acre. It has also been held that the existing advantages of the acquired lands were great and their future possibilities and potentialities were equally high. In view of the increasing growth of the various factories and offices there was great possibility of the acquired lands being used for building purpose and even for setting up of factories. The learned single Judge has observed that so long as Rourkela Steel Plant has come to stay, the uncertainties of future possibilities have almost disappeared and in such a case where instances of price paid within a reasonable time of the date of acquisition in bona fide transaction of purchase of land adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages are wanting, instances of sale of small parcels of land within 4 to 5 years prior to the date of acquisition with all evidence of general and gradual appreciation of market value of land with all existing advantages and future possibilities having regard to their location and the development of the immediate vicinity of the acquired lands may be used as a substantial guide to determine the value. Reliance has also been placed on some decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. It is well settled that in a case of acquisition of land market value is generally ascertained on a consideration of the prices obtained by sale of adjacent lands with similar advantages. Where there are no sales of comparable lands, the value must be found in some other way. One method is to take the annual income which the owner is expected to obtain from the land and to capitalise it by a number of years of purchase. The capitalised value is then taken as the market value which willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. In some special cases valuation has been made on the basis of the reinstatement value which is assessed according to the cost of acquiring an equally convenient land or premises. The proposition that the market value is to be determined by reference to the price which a seller might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser may not be possible in some cases to ascertain with any amount of precision and in those cases the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard. The land acquired has, therefore, to be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of the declaration under S. 4 of the Act, but its potential value also must be taken into account. The sale deeds of the lands situated in the vicinity and the comparable benefits and advantages which they have, furnish a rough and ready method of computing the market value. This, however, is not the only method. The other method of computing the market value is by capitalising the rent, which does not arise in this case. The Court is also not precluded from taking any other special circumstances into consideration, the requirement being always to arrive as near as possible at an estimate of the market value. The exact value is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or the potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which that valuation can be accurately determined (See State of Gujarat v. Vakhatsinghji Vajesinghji Venghela, AIR 1968 SC 1481 and Smt. Tribeni Devi v. Collector, Ranchi, AIR 1972 SC 1417). Of course, for ascertaining the market value of a land on the date of notification considerations can be made as to opinion of experts, price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transaction for purchase of the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages and also actual or immediate prospective value of the land acquired. But the Court has to enter into some guesswork taking into consideration the future advantages and possibilities of better price and demand of the land in future. It has been held in Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatam, AIR 1939 PC 98 that sometimes it happens that the land to be valued possessed some unusual, and it may be unique features, as regards its position or its potentialities. In such a case, the arbitrator in determining its value may not get any market value to guide him and he will have to ascertain as best he may from the materials before him, what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser, for the land in that particular position and with those particular potentialities. The arbitrator has to take into consideration the uses to which the land is reasonably capable of being put in future.;