Ratnam, J. - (1.) We have resorted to a group disposal of all these appeals, not because common questions of fact or law arise for decision in these appeals, but on account of the judgments appealed against being vitiated by one or more of errors and infirmities common to them all. The judgments appealed against are so unsatisfactory that we have also been provoked into a restatement of the basis of the procedure in relation to references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the manner in which they should be dealt with and disposed of by the courts. Broadly and briefly stated, for the purpose of various housing schemes, provision of house sites to Harijans, for construction of ESI dispensary and staff quarters, for widening the Tindivanam Road, for the formation of by-pass road (east coast road) and for assignment of free house sites to the landless labourers in the rural areas, large extents of land situate in Kurumbapet, Saradapet, Olandai, Thattanchavadi, Ouigaret, Murgambakkam, Ariyankuppam, Temgathittu, Kuruvinathan and Goodapak-kam were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The notifications under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, were dated 21st October, 1975, 1st February, 1974, 2nd March, 1976, 1st September, 1979, 27th March, 1971, 9th April, 1974, 4th April, 1978, 18th May, 1976, 18th October, 1977, 28th September, 1976, 11th May, 1976 and 29th June, 1977 respectively. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the owners of the acquired lands prayed for the determination of the market value of the acquired lands at figures, which varied considerably from owner to owner. On the basis of the sales statistics, the Land Acquisition Officer arrived at the market value of the acquired lands at different figures viz. Rs.45 per acre, Rs.34.47 per kuzhi, Rs.338.98 per acre, Rs.854.70 per acre, Rs.206.93 per kuzhi, Rs.488.88 per acre, Rs.430 per acre, Rs.394 per acre, Rs.250 per acre, Rs.196.48 per acre, Rs.339 per acre, and Rs.251.71 per acre. Not satisfied with the aforesaid fixation of the market value of the lands acquired, several claimants sought a reference to court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Sub court, Pondicherry, determined the market value of the lands acquired at different rates, viz. Rs.373.56 per acre, Rs.373 per acre, Rs.130 per kuzhi, Rs.5,918 per acre, Rs.2,000 per kuzhi, Rs.2.50 per sq.ft., Rs.3.50 per sq.ft., Rs.6.50 per sq.ft., Rs.3.25 per sq.ft., Rs.800 per kuzhi, Rs.500 per kuzhi and Rs.373.80 per acre. Complaining that the method as well as the manner of fixation of the market value of the acquired lands by the court below is erroneous, the State has preferred these appeals.
(2.) The learned Government Pleader contended that in the process of ascertaining the market value of the acquired properties for the purpose of awarding compensation to the owners thereof, the court below had proceeded on the basis of documents, which had not been marked in evidence and with reference to guidelines which had not been brought into evidence and with reference to post-section 4(1) notification sales also. In addition, it was also pointed out that in some cases, the court had proceeded to adopt the guideline values of house sites with reference to the wet and dry lands acquired, while the guideline values with reference to the lands acquired were available. Further, it was also brought to our notice that in a few of the cases, the court below had not awarded the solatium and interest as contemplated by the statute. Yet another defect was also brought to our notice in that in some of the cases, the court below had not incorporated at the end of its judgment a chronological index of the documents marked as evidence in the proceedings and a list of witnesses examined and therefore, there was no knowing as to on what documents and oral evidence, if any, the court below had proceeded to fix the market value of the acquired lands. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the owners of the acquired lands in these appeals would attempt to support the determination of the market value by the court below and say that though the criticism levelled with reference to the method as well as the manner of disposal of the matters by the learned Subordinate Judge may, to some extent, be justified, yet, the award of compensation on the basis of the guidelines and other materials, is just and reasonable and therefore, does not deserve to be disturbed. We have carefully perused the judgments of the court below in all these appeals. We have also bestowed our careful attention to the submissions made on both sides. Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act lay down the matters which should be considered in determining the compensation and matters which ought to be neglected in that process. These provisions have to be primarily kept in view in the disposal of references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. We may however observe that in matters relating to award of compensation arising under the Land Acquisition Act, a duty is cast on the court to determine, on the basis of evidence, the market value of the land acquired, which a willing buyer would be inclined to pay, if sold by a willing seller on the date of the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. To enable the court to justly and reasonably award compensation to the owner of the property who has been deprived of the same, several matters have to be considered and taken into account. Instances of normal sales of like property in the locality of acquisition enjoying the same or similar advantages would be the best evidence for the ascertainment of the market value of the acquired lands. Special features and advantages have also to be carefully considered. Potential user has to be given due weight. All these must ncessarily enter into the computation of and the determination of market value. To afford evidentiary basis for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the lands as aforesaid, such documents of sales have to be marked in evidence. It would not suffice if those instances of sales are mentioned in the award and merely referred to by court and relied on. The documents, be they originals or registration copies of the instances of sales, must be marked in evidence and form part of the record. That would enable the State as well as the claimants not only to place all the relevant documents before court, but it would also further assist in finding out the circumstances under which a transaction had been entered into by an examination of the parties to the transaction, if necessary. This would facilitate the court to ascertain whether a particular instance of sale relied upon is a normal one or not and whether the price reflected under that transaction is reasonable or not. A mere reference to the instances of sales found mentioned in the statistics collected by either the Tahsildar or the concerned department for passing an award would not be evidence in the proceedings in the absence of the production and marking in evidence of the documents themselves. No reliance can be placed on a document not before court. The examination of the parties would be necessary for further elucidating the circumstances under which the document came to be executed as well as the nature of the property and the special features therein, if any. If on such evidence, the market value of the acquired land is ascertained, the claimants ought to be given the benifit of the most advantageous market price and fixing an average market price with reference to the data available, ought to be avoided. In addition to instances of sales, the guidelines issued by the Government with reference to the market value of the lands would also furnish an acceptable and reliable basis for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the acquired lands. For purposes of payment of stamp duty, while registering documents, the Government has fixed the market value of the properties, either by grouping them together into blocks or even with reference to individual survey fields. In cases where such guideline is available immediately prior to the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act with reference to the particular property acquired or with reference to the block in which the property acquired may be situated, then that guideline has to be taken into account and considered after marking it as evidence in the proceedings. Though it may be that the guidelines issued by the Government in some cases may not be in relation to the particular property acquired, but with reference to a nearby property, in such a case also, the court can consider the guideline available as a piece of evidence reflecting the value or the market price near about the acquired property at the time the guideline was issued. The Government has fixed up guideline values in respect of various categories of lands like dry, wet, house site, etc. The guidelines are relevant as the market value of the property cannot be different for purposes of stamp duty and for purposes of payment of compensation to the owner who had been deprived of the same. Where such guidelines are available with reference to a particular property acquired, the market value shown therein would be the minimum to which the claimant will be entitled, unless the claimant is in a position to show that for other reasons the market value ought to be higher than that mentioned in the guideline. As stated earlier, where it is possible to obtain a guideline value with reference to the particular property under acquisition immediately before the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, that would be the best material available and the minimum that should be made available to the claimant by way of compensation would be the amount so mentioned in the guideline but this may not always be so. Where the guideline is not available with reference to the particular property acquired the court can take into consideration the guidelines with reference to the neighbouring properties. Even in such cases, it would be open to the claimants to establish that compensation at a rate higher than that mentioned in the guidelines should be awarded on account of some special features or peculiar advantages which would enhance the value of the acquired property. In so considering the guidelines, the court ought to be careful against the application of the guideline value in respect of wet lands to dry lands and dry lands to house sites or vice versa. The ascertainment of the market value of the acquired property has primarily to be done with reference to the classification of the property in the revenue records though that is not an inflexible rule. Weightage has to be given to the potential value, viz. the possibility of the property being put to diverse uses like house-sites, etc., the nearness to habitation and the advantages and other amenities enjoyed by it. Though the guidelines may be pressed into service as the best material for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of acquired lands a rigid adherence to the guideline value may not be possible in every case but there must be an overall consideration of all the relevant aspects in the matter of fixation of the market value of the acquired lands even on the basis of the guidelines.
(3.) In the matter of fixing the market value of the acquired lands with reference to other instances of sales, it is essential that the court should have before it a plan of the acquired property, as well as as toposketch, clearly delineating the acquired lands and also indicating thereon the data sales, relied on by the State and other relevant details. It is at once plain that providing this should be the duty of the State, as the claimant may not be in a position to secure the plan, as well as the details of the other relevant data relating to sales of lands in the vicinity. It would be easy for the Government to have the plan as well as the toposketch prepared in order to see to it that the court in in a position to appreciate the situation of the land, the advantages and amenities enjoyed by it, the location as well as the situation of the other lands taken as data lands, etc.;