Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) The present appeal is under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the award of Civil Court dated 1st of November, 1994 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Land Acquisition Reference No. 35 of 1991. The State Government acquired certain piece of land for the extension and modernisation of Sugar Mill Rohana. The land of the respondent in Khata No. 25 Khasra No. 631 area 1.044 hectare was also included there&n. The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are dated 19th of August, 1989 and 1st of September, 1989 respectively. Possession was taken on 2nd of September, 1989. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Irrigation, Muzaffarnagar by his award dated 18th of August, 1990 determined the amount of compensation payable to the claimant-respondent. Being dissatisfied with the offered amount of compensation, at the instance of claimant respondent the matter was referred for determination of the market value of the land on the relevant date, to the Civil Court. The Court below by the judgment and award under appeal has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 96,000/- per Pucca Bigha.
(2.) Heard the Counsel for the parties. The main contention of the appellant is that the Civil Court has not correctly determined the market value of the land and incorrectly enhanced the compensation amount from Rs. 35,955.06 per bigha to Rs. 96,000/- per Bigha. The exemplar, according to the appellant relied by the Court below does not represent the market value of the land on the relevant date i.e. the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. While treating the sale-deed with respect to the plot No. 537 as the best exemplar, the proper deduction on account of smallness of the area involved in the sale-deed has not been made. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, tried to support the judgment and award of the Court below.
(3.) Considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. The only question mooted in the appeal is how the value of the acquired land is to be determined and what should be the percentage of the deductions where the exemplar relied upon is of smaller area. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act talks about the market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. "Market value", it is said, is the price which a willing seller is prepared to accept and a willing buyer is prepared to pay. The apex Court has laid down the guidelines in detail in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1988 SC 1652 , which is reproduced below : "While determining market value of land, the following factors have to be borne in mind : (1) Determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notification under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant). (2) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (3) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. (4) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of Land). (5) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (6) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations : (i) proximity from time angle. (ii) proximity from situation angle. (7) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (8) A balance sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (9) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. The exercise indicated in clauses (1) to (10) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors : JUDGEMENT_320_LAWS(ALL)8_2007.htm 7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds. cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 1000 sq. yds. or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a layout, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a pendent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. These are genera guideline's to be applied with understanding informed with common sense.;