- (1.) Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 1A. The land to an extent of 1007 kanals and 6 marlas situated in village Sansoo in Tehsil and District Udhampur was initially requisitioned under Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act. On December 26, 1988, proceedings for acquisition of the land were initiated. The compensation was determined under Section 8 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 12,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 9,000/- per kanal to Warhal Changhi, Warhal Mandi and Banjar Kadeem lands respectively. Dissatisfied therewith, an application under Form 'G' seeking reference was filed. The Arbitrator was appointed under Rule 9 read with Section 8(1) of the Act. Thereafter the Arbitrator determined the compensation at the rate of 70,000/- per kanal. On appeal, the learned single Judge confirmed the same and the Division Bench held that the Letters Patent Appeal would lie. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
(2.) It is seen that the Land Acquisition Officer has adduced the oral as well as documentary evidence. The claimants also filed the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence. On consideration of the evidence, the Arbitrator as well as the High Court have held that the lands are situated in a developed area and possessed of and commanded good market value for sale in the open market to a willing purchaser and, therefore, they are capable of fetching market value ranging from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 2 lakhs per acre and in view of the fact that the sale deeds relied on were in respect of small pieces of land they determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per acre.
(3.) The question is : whether the view taken by the Arbitrator as well as by the High Court is correct in law It is settled law that under Section 8(3) of the Act, as amended by Act 6 of 1977, the compensation payable for the acquired property under Section 7 shall, in the absence of an agreement, be the price which the requisitioned party would have fetched in the open market, if it had remained in the same condition as it was at the time of the requisition, and (had) been sold on the date of acquisition in the same condition. In other words, the principle required to be applied would be that the existing conditions as on the date of the acquisition (as if existed in conditions) in which the land existed on the date of requisition, be the determining factor for fixing the compensation as per the market value prevailing as on the date of the acquisition and compensation has to be determined accordingly.;