K. Ramaswamy,J. - (1.) This batch of 28 Appeals are against the common judgment and decrees of the Kerala High Court in A.S. No. 487 of 1969 etc. dated January 22, 1973 and leave under Art. 136 was granted by this Court on March 14, 1974. The High Court reversed the awards and decrees of land acquisition, Sub Court, Ernakulam and confirmed the separate awards of the Collector dated March 29,1962. The notification under Section 4(l) of the Kerala Land Acquisition 1089 for short "the Regulation" was published on October 31, 1961 and the declarations which are the relevant dates for determining the market value by operation of Section 22(l) was published on October 31, 1961 and February 22, 1962. The land acquired was 190.37 acres and 15.48 acres for Periyar Valley Irrigation Project and Phyto-Chemicals Project both being public purposes. The Collector determined the market value at Rs. 0.04 per cent for certain lands and Rs. 0. 12 per cent for certain other lands, Rs. 30 per cent to the wet lands as against the claim of Rs. 40 and 50 per cent and compensation to the trees as timber value was given, The total Compensation fixed was Rs. 4.84 lakhs. Dissatisfied therewith the appellant sought reference under Section 18 thereof. They also claimed separate value as fruit bearing trees on potential value. They also claimed charges for severance and injurious effects on the remaining land. The Civil Court after adduction of evidence and on consideration thereof enhanced the market value to the lands @ Rs. 40.50 as claimed in addition to a sum of Rs. 30 to 38 percent. It awarded in all Rs. 20.20 lakhs on all counts including severance and injurious effects and 15 per cent solatirum and also 6 per cent interest on additional compensation from the date of taking possession till date of payment vide page 3 of short notes of the appellant. On appeals by the State, by common judgment dated January 22, 1973, the High court reversed the awards of the Civil Court and confirmed that of the Land Aquisition Collector. Mr. Sanghi, learned Sr. counsel for the appellants with his usual vehemence contended that the High Court committed manifest error of law in reversing the awards and decrees of the Civil Court which had the advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses and extensively considered the evidence in particular the unimpeachable documents Exs. P. 7, P. 9 and P. 10. The appellant, on account of the acquisition, had to incur huge expenditure to construct Kayallas, Pathways, culverts etc. for protection of the rest of the Estate. The amount expended was to prevent injurious effects to the Estate and is to be recompensated. It is further contended that the potential value of the trees have to be taken into account in determining the market value. The appellant also is entitled to compensation for severance due to submersion of the lands when the Periyar Canal passes through the rubber estate of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the compensation in full measure with interest on solatium. The High Court was unjustified in reversing the awards and the decrees of the Civil Court.
(2.) The first question, therefore, is whether the High Court is justified in reversing the awards and decrees of the Civil Court. Admittedly 190.37 and 15.48 cents of land is part of the extensive Periyar Estate of 879.37 acres stretching over seven miles long on the banks of the Periyar River. It had a road of 14 feet width by name Alawaye Munnar Highway running through middle of the Estate. The lands were acquired for submersion due to Periyar River Valley Irrigation Project and to establish Phyto-Chemical Project. Shri Sanghi, repeatedly reiterated that in determining the market value an element of some guesswork is involved. But in determining the market value the Court has to eschew arbitrary fixation keeping in view the settled principles of law in evaluating market value in compulsory acquisition on the hypothesis of a willing vendor and a willing vendee. Therefore, let us glance through the settled principles of law in this regard.
(3.) In Narayan Gajapati Raju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, AIR 1939 PC 98 popularly known as Vijji's case, the judicial committee of the Privy Council held that compensation for compulsory acquisition governed by Section 23(l) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act "what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from willing purchaser". The function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act (in this case under Section 6(l) of the Regulation) and the evaluation may be as pointed out by this Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Adinarayana Setty (1959) 1 Suppl. SCR 404 at page No. 412. (1) Opinion of experts; (2) The price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the land acquired or the land adjacent to the acquired land and possessing similar advantages; (3) Number of years of purchase of the actual or immediately perspective profits of the land acquired. In that case while adopting the second method the High Court arrived at average price of four transactions excluding two sales and separate average was arrived fixing the market value at Rs. 13.80. This Court calculating the average of six sale transactions fixed the market rate at Rs. 11 In Tribeni Devi v. Collector of Ranchi, (1972) 3 SCR 208 at page No. 212 this Court held that for determining compensation payable to the owner of the land, the market value is to be determined by reference to the price which may be reasonably obtained from willing purchasers but since it may not be possible to ascertain this with any amount of precision the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard. While reiterating the three tests laid down in S.L.A. Officer's case, it was further emphasised that these methods, however, do not preclude the Court from taking any other special circumstances into consideration, the requirement being always to arrive at as nearly as possible at an estimate of the market value. In arriving at a reasonable correct market value it may be necessary to take even two or all these methods into account inasmuch as the exact evaluation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which the valuation can be accurately determined. This court rejected the sale deeds of the lands situated further away from the lands acquired and also disallowed 10 per cent additional compensation over market rate fixed. In Dollar Co., Madras v. Collector of Madras (1975) Suppl. SCR 403 this Court held that "we may even say that the best evidence of the value of the property is the value of the sale in the very property to which the claimants are the party. If the sale is of recent date and all that need normally be proved is that the sale was between a willing purchaser and willing seller, that there has not been any appreciable rise or fall since and that nothing has been done on the land during the interval to raise the value. But if the sale was long ago, may be the court would examine more recent sales of comparable lands as throwing better light on current land value. This court further emphasised the fact that because the appellant therein himself purchased the land which is 10 months prior to the date of notification under Section 4, at a price of Rs. 410 per ground, that would be the measure of prevailing market value. The High Court enhanced the market value to Rs. 1800/ - per ground and no appeal was filed by the State. Though the appellant still claimed higher value, this Court negatived further enhancement.;