- (1.) Two large parcels of land were placed under acquisition in pursuance to a notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published on 6/06/1957. The land comprised of final plots nos. 178 and 181 of Kankaria town. Planning Scheme No. 2, ahmedabad. The learned Judge of the City Civil court on a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act being made to the court stepped up the market value of the land in question from Rs. 12. 00 and Rs. 15. 00 per square yard respectively to Rs. 13.50 and Rs. 17. 00 per square yard respectively. The claimants were still not satisfied and approached the High court by way of an appeal. The High court stepped up the market value further to Rs. 17. 00 per square yard and Rs. 21. 00 per square yard respectively. Thereupon the State has approached this court by way of the present appeal.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the High court was not justified in proceeding on the assumption that thelands under acquisition were much superior in situation compared to the small parcels of land concerned in transactions reflected in Ex. 34 and Ex. 40, and in valuing the lands under acquisition by adding a 50 per cent rise to account for this factor.
(3.) It is no doubt true that there is no satisfactory evidence as regards extent of the superiority of the lands under acquisition via- a-via the lands concerned in the instances. The criticism levelled on the following counts has force : (1) The lands under acquisition do not have a regular shape. (2) Even if the large parcels of land were plotted out after providing for roads etc. , all the smaller plots would not have fetched the same price (50 per Celt higher than the lands under instances). Only a few plots having frontage on the kankaria Road would have fetched a better price whereas the plots in the rear and interior would have fetched lower prices only. (3) The lands under instances were situated in the midst of highly developed locality near the vegetable market and had greater attraction. (4) There was no evidence of transactions which reflected any price differential in favour of the lands in the locality of the lands under acquisition as compared to the locality of the lands under instances. Much less to show that the lands would fetch 50 per cent more in value. There were no recorded transactions at any point of time in the past to support this conclusion.;