- (1.) THESE appeals are against the common judgment of the High Court dated 6/9/2001.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts (in CA No. 979 of 2003), are as follows: The appellant's land was acquired pursuant to S.4 notification dated 11-6-1985. Not being satisfied with the award, the appellant claimed reference. In the reference proceedings, he gave evidence to the following effect: "My net income per year per acre of land was around Rs 10,000.00 I have claimed compensation by applying the multiplier theory for 16 years. In our area land of similar nature had been sold at the rate of Rs. 80,000.00 in the year of acquisition. These are the certified copies of two sale deeds marked as Exts. 2 and 3. This is the certified copy of the order in LA Misc. Case No. 7 of 1987 and the Hon'ble Court has awarded Rs 1 lakh 50 thousand marked as Ext. 4. This is the consolidation ROR in respect of the land of my father marked as Ext. 5. I claim that compensation be awarded at the rate of Rs. 80,000.00 per acre or on the basis of 16 years' yield." The Reference Court fixed the value of the land at Rs. 1,50,000.00 per acre mainly relying upon the judgment in LA Misc. Case No. 98 of 1986. In that case land of one Bipin Bihari Pujari was acquired. Compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.50 lakhs per acre was awarded. The Reference Court proceeded on the basis that both the acquisitions were under the same notification. The Reference Court rejected an argument that the award in LA No. 98 of 1986 was in respect of lands in Village Maneswar whereas the lands of the appellant were situated in Village Halipalli and that the lands were not similar. The Reference Court concluded that the Land Acquisition Collector had considered the potential value of land of same variety of 14 villages and chat he had included Village Maneswar and Village Halipalli as having the same value. The State filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court has, by the impugned judgment, reduced the compensation to Rs 80,000.00 per acre. The High Court has concluded that the appellant had not led any evidence to show that the lands at Maneswar and his land were identical or similarly situated. The High Court has concluded that as the claimant himself had confined his claim to Rs. 80,000.00 per acre, the court below could not determine compensation at Rs 1.50 lakhs per acre.
(3.) PRIOR to 1984 S.25 of the Land Acquisition Act did not permit the court to award an amount in excess of the amount claimed. However, after 1984, S.25 does not preclude the court from awarding an amount in excess of the amount claimed. Therefore, the High Court is not right when it concludes that the claimant must be confined to his claim. There is no doubt that what has to be paid is the market value of the land. As has been held by this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao the best evidence of market value would be the sale transactions in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party; the time at which the property came to be sold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out, these are the relevant factors. If those are not available then the sale transactions relating to the neighbouring lands in the vicinity of the acquired land have to be taken into consideration. As seen from the deposition of the appellant, extracted hereinabove, certified copies of sale instances were tendered before the Reference Court. The Reference Court has not referred to or dealt with those sale instances and they do not appear to have been shown to the High Court. Even when we asked the appellant's counsel what those sale instances were, he was not in a position to answer. It will, therefore, have to be presumed that they are not helpful to the appellant. It was fairly admitted that the appellant is now not relying on them.;