Civil Appeal NOS
64 65 of 1969
From the Judgment and Decree dated 1 12 61 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc
First Appeal No 43 of 1959
section K Gambhir for the appellant in CA 64 and Respondent in CA 6569
L Sanghi K John and J Sinha for the respondent in CA 64 and appellant in CA 6569
The Judgment of Jaswant Singh and R section Pathak JJ was delivered by Jaswant Singh J A P Sen J gave a dissenting opinion
JASWANT SINGH J
These two cross appeals by certificates of fitness granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur are directed against the judgment and decree dated December l 1961 of the said High Court dismissing the Misc
First Appeal No 42 of 1959 preferred by the appellant from the Award dated December 20 1958 of the II Additional District Judge Raigarh in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No 59 of 1958 being a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act made at the instance of the appellant in 13 817SCI78 186 respect of the Award dated August 23 1957 of the Land Acquisition officer Raigarh
The facts giving rise to these appeals are on an undertaking given by him to pay full compensation with interest from the date of possession to the date of payment of compensation as provided in the Land Acquisition Act 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act  the District Engineer South Eastern Railway Raigarh took advance possession on January 17 1957 of five plots of agricultural land admeasuring 338 acres and another plot of agricultural land admeasuring 014 acres adjoining the railway track situate in village Darogamuda Tehsil and District Raigarh a suburb of Raigarh belonging to respondents I and 2 respectively for doubling the railway line between Rourkela and Durg in the South Eastern Railway
Subsequently Notification dated February 8 1957 under section 41 of the Act for acquisition of the aforesaid plots of land was issued and published in the Government Gazette dated February 15 1957
This was followed on March 21 1957 by a notification under section 6 of the Act
Although in the r statements filed by them under section 92 of the Act the respondents claimed compensation at the rate of Rs 32670 per acre ie at the rate of 12 per square foot on the ground that the plots of land in question had a great potential value as a building site and Rs 500 for improvements and Rs 100 as the value of one tree the Special Land Acuisition officer Raigarh by his award dated August 23 1957 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs 332714 per acre which roughly worked out at 16 per square foot on the basis of the statement of sales furnished by ASLR LA prepared by Jujhar Singh NAWI Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation the respondents made an application to the Special Land Acquisition officer requesting him to refer the matter to the court under section 18 of the 1 Act
According to the request of the respondents the Special Land 
Acquisition officer made the aforesaid references to the II Additional District Judge Raigarh who by his award dated December 20 1958 enhanced the rate of compensation to 4 per square foot and awarded Rs 368084 and Rs 15248 to respondents l and 2 respectively as compensation
The Additional District Judge also allowed the solatium at the rate of 15 amounting to Rs 55214 and Rs 22812 to respondents 1 and 2 respectively
Aggrieved by the said  Award of the II Additional District Judge the appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur which was registered as Miscellaneous First Appeal No 43 of 1959
In the said appeal the respondents filed cross objections claiming enhancement of compensation by Rs 8451839 P
The High Court by its 187 judgment dated December 1 1961 dismissed the aforesaid appeal preferred by the appellant but allowed the cross objections filed by the respondents holding the reasonable rate of compensation to be 8per square foot
Consequently respondent No 1 was held entitled to Rs 73616 8 O as compensation and Rs 11042 8 0 as solatium and respondent No 2 was held entitled to Rs 3049 0 0 as compensation and Rs 457 8 O as solatium
It is against this judgment of the High Court that the present appeals are directed
Appearing for the appellant Mr Gambhir while admitting that in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution the Court is only concerned with finding out whether the principles on the basis of which compensation has been computed for acquisition of land under the Act have been rightly applied or not and cannot re appraise the evidence has urged that the Additional District Judge and the High Court have erred in treating the land in question which was primarily an agricultural land as abadi land overlooking that it had not been declared as such
Mr Sanghi has on the other hand urged that even according to the findings of the Additional District Judge who made the spot inspection as also of the High Court it is abundantly clear that the land in question was Abadi land and has been rightly treated as such
Mr Sanghi has further urged that the said site has great potentialities as building site
The question as to whether a land has potential value of a building site or not is primarily one of fact depending upon several factors such as its condition and situation the user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put its suitability for building purposes its proximity to residential commercial and industrial areas and educational cultural or medical institutions existing amenities like water electricity and drainage and the possibility of their future extension whether the nearby town is a developing or a prospering town with prospects of development schemes and the presence or absence of pressure of building activity towards the land acquired or in the neighbourhood thereof
the instant case the fact that the land in question has a great potential value as a building site is evident not only from the observations made by the Special Land Acquisition officer himself in his aforesaid award to the effect that the land has assumed semi abadi site hut also from the following observations made in his judgment dated December 20 1958 by the Additional District Judge who had the advantage of inspecting the site The land abuts Raigarh town
It is within Municipal limits and the nazul perimeter extends upto it
To the east of 188 the plot there are some kutcha buildings inhabited by respectable persons
To the North is a Municipal road leading to the railway quarters to the west
To the west beyond the railway quarters there is further habitation and the locality is called Banglapara within Municipal limits
The plot did have a potential value as a building site and it is further supported by the fact that the plot has been used by the Railway authorities for construction of staff quarters thereon though the land was acquired for doubling the rail way line
 It is also not disputed that the Special Land Acquisition officer did not lead any evidence worth the name to show the price of the comparable sites in question and remained content with the production only of the sale statement made by Jujhar Singh NAWI
Now the sale statement consisted mostly of sales relating to the year 1951 which is not relevant for the question in hand
Moreover the sale statement by it self without examining either the vendors or the vendees or the persons attesting the sale deeds is not admissible in evidence and can not be relied upon
The sale deed dated December 14 1956 in favour of Dr Das for 4800 square feet of land out of contigious Khasra No 256 in lieu of Rs 2000 ie at approximately 6 12 annas per square foot which has been relied upon by the Additional District Judge and the High Court could be taken as a safe guide for determine nation of the compensation
From the material adduced in the case it appears that Raigarh is a growing town that instead of utilising the land for doubling the railway track the railway has built staff quarters thereon that on three sides of the acquired land there already existed pucca buildings and on the fourth side there is a metalled road
It is also in evidence that some lawyers have put up some constructions near the sites in question
Taking all the facts into consideration
it cannot be said that the basis on which the Additional District Judge and the High Court proceeded is wrong or that the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court is in any way excessive or exorbitant
As neither the interest nor compensation on account of severance was claimed in the High Court either by Dr Harisingh Thakur or by Tikam Singh Thakur we do not think they can justifiably put up claims in that behalf
Mr Sanghi appearing on their behalf has fairly stated that he would not like to press his cross appeal
In the result we do not find any merit in either of the aforesaid appeals
W would accordingly dismiss them with costs
SEN J I have had the advantage of reading the judgment by my learned brother Jaswant Singh
Since the appeal involves an important 189 question affecting valuation which has been overlooked by the High Court I would like to say a few words of my own
Normally this Court does not interfere in appeal with the valuation by the High Court in land acquisition cases unless the judgment cannot be supported as it stands either by reason of a wrong application of principles or because some important point in evidence has been overlooked or mis applied The Special Land Acquisition officer Bangalore vs Adinarayan Setty1
With respect I venture to say that the judgment of the High Court cannot be supported by reason of a wrong application of principles
It overlooked the fact that there was no discernible basis on which the Additional District Judge could have changed the mode of valuation adopted by the Special Land Acquisition officer treating the land acquired to be agricultural land and in awarding compensation upon the basis as if it were a building site
Indeed there was no atempt on their part to determine the  intrinsic character of the land namely whether the land acquired should be classified as agricultural land or not
In the present case the High Court obviously fell into an error in overlooking the fact that the acquired land situate in village Darogamuda admeasuring 352 acres was on the 8th February 1957 ie On the date of the issue of the notification under section 41 of the Act agricultural land
It was recorded as a raiyati land belonging to the two claimants Dr Harisingh Thakur and his brother Vikram Singh Thakur who were ex gaontiyas of village Darogamuda
The land was not recorded as abadi as wrongly assumed by the High Court
Perhaps it was misled by the mis description of the land as abadi in the reference made by the Collector under section 181
This is an admitted position between the parties
In response to the notice of admissions and denials of documents served by the claimants the Collector admitted panchsala khasra for the years 1952 53 to 1953 54 and kistbandi khatouni for the years 1952 53 and 1953 54
The claimant Dr Harisingh Thakur AW1 admits during his crossexamination that till the month of December 1956 the lands were actually under his cultivation and he had reaped the crops before delivering possession of the same on the 17th January 1957 to the District Engineer South Eastern Railway
He further admits that throughout the land was under cultivation ie from the time of his forefathers
In fact Jujhar Singh NAW1 Assistant Superintendent Land Records who was at the relevant time a Revenue Inspector states that the land 1 1959 Supp
1 SCR 404
190 acquired was a paddy field and was surrounded by agricultural lands
That being so the District Judge was clearly wrong in treating the land to be abadi and calculating compensation on the footing of its being a building site
In awarding compensation at a flat rate of Rs 332787 P per acre the Special Land Acquisition officer took notice of the fact that the land is situate in village Darogamuda a suburb of Raigarh which is a town of great commercial importance though beyond its nazul perimeter
He also took notice of the fact that the land abuts the railway track and there were agricultural fields on two sides
On the other two sides there existed kutcha hutments of backward classes and a few railway buildings
The award of compensation at the rate of Rs 332787 P per acre was based on average of sales of lands in recent years as prepared by Jujhar Singh Revenue Inspector NAW 1
The Special Land Acquisition officer accordingly observed The average value based on the above noted sales comes to Rs 332714 per acre and in my opinion it truly re presents the average market value of lands in this predominantly agricultural locality which has assumed semi abadi site value due to the constructions of houses mostly by low class people besides a few buildings of Railway Department
It is for this reason that the average value per acre comes to as much as Rs 332714 per acre else the lands in question would have fetched lower price available in respect of agricultural lands to which class they really belong and stand assessed as such till today
 While it is no doubt true as my learned brother Jaswant Singh has rightly observed that the statement of average of sales prepared by Jujhar Singh NAW 1 was not admissible in evidence unless the Collector proved the transactions in question upon which it was based there is no denying the fact that the acquired land was nothing but agricultural land and the mode of valuation had necessarily to be upon that basis
Now if the purpose for which the land was acquired ie for the construction of staff quarters in connection with the doubling of the railway line by the South Eastern Railway has no bearing on the question of valuation the future possibilities of the land which admittedly was agricultural land lying in the vicinity of Raigarh if applied to the most lucrative use having regard to its the then condition was very little as a building site
The land was lying undeveloped and undiverted
Unless there was a development scheme the land could not 191 be valued as a building site
The land could however be put to that use if there was such development scheme
At the time of the notification under section 41 there was no recent building activity near about the land which was either under cultivation or lying desolate
But as l have already said the land could be put to a better use provided it was fully developed as a building site
The claimants were therefore entitled to the evaluation of the land as agricultural land with an additional allowance being made for its future potentiality as a building site
I just cannot imagine what could be the utility of the acquired land on a building site looking to its proximity to the railway track
It would indeed be very little
In a reference under 9 18 of the Act the burden of proving that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate lies upon the claimant and he must show affirmatively that the Collector had proceeded upon a wrong basis
The nature and the burden of establishing that he was wrong depend on the nature of the enquiry held by him
When the proceedings before the Collector disclose that the award was not reasonably supported by the material before him or when the basis was the application of a multiple  which could not be justified on any rational ground the burden can be discharged by a slight evidence
But that is not the case here
The claimants have led no trustworthy evidence
It is equally well settled that where the claimant leads no evidence to show that the conclusions reached in the award were inadequate or that it offered unsatisfactory compensation the award has to be confirmed
Upon a compulsory acquisition of property the owner is entitled to the value of the property in its actual condition at the time of expropriation with all its advantages and with all its possibilities excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of the claim for the purpose for which the property is acquired
In Vyricharla Narayana Gajapatjiraju vs Revenue Divisional Officer Vizagapatnam1 the Privy Council state For the land is not to be valued merely by reference to the use to which it is being put at the time at which the value has to be determined but also by reference to the uses to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the future
It is possibilities of the land and not its realized possibilities that must be taken into consideration
 The value of the acquired property with all its possibilities has to be ll adjudged on the material on record
1 66
IA 104
192 The market price must be fixed with reference to the date of the
notification under section 4 irrespective of any trend if any for an increase in the value thereof
The basis for determination of the market value of tel land within section 23 1 i of the Act is the value of the land to the owner
Only such transactions would be relevant which can fairly be said to afford a fair criterion of the value of the property as at the date of the notification
That test is clearly not fulfilled in the present case
Clause fifthly in section 24 interdicts the court from considering any prospective increase in value due to acquisition
Market value of the land acquired has to be fixed with reference to the date of notification under section 4 1 
In Vyricharla Narayana Gajapatiraju vs Revenue Divisional Officer Vizagapatam supra the Privy Council observed that where the owner is a person who could turn the potentiality of the land into account it is immaterial that the utilization of the same potentiality is also the purpose for which the land is acquired
The Underlying principle is that a speculative rise in price of land due to acquisition should not be an element which should enter into computation
Sometimes the prices shown in sale deeds executed subsequent in point of time are not the actual prices paid
The sales may be
unreal and may not reflect the true value of the land
There always elapses a certain interval between the time when the intention to acquire Ea certain land first becomes known and the actual notification under section 41 is issued
Here though the notification under section 41 was issued on 8th February 1957 but the claimants had in fact delivered the possession to the District Engineer South Eastern Railway on the 17th January 1957 and were indeed as it appears from the evidence aware of the fact that the land was being acquired by the South Eastern Railway much earlier ie in December 1956
In view of this the prospective rise in value if any has to be kept out of consideration
the principles to determine the quantum of compensation are contained in section 231 of the Act
The court in fixing the amount has to take into consideration the prevailing market value of the land at The date of the notification under section 41 and the said market value has to be determined by reference to the price which a willing seller might have reasonably expected for similar property from a willing purchaser
The underlying principle of fixing the market value with reference to comparable sales is to reduce the element of speculation
In a comparable sale the features are i it must be within a reasonable time of the date of notification under section 41 ii it should be a bona fide transaction iii it should be a sale of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the acquired and iv it should possess 193 similar advantages
Before such instances of sales can be considered there must be material evidence either by the production of the sale deeds or by examining the parties to the deeds or persons having knowledge of the sales to prove that the transactions are genuine
In the light of these principles the three sale deeds relied upon by the High Court Ext
P 14 Ext
P 15 and Ext
P 17 pertaining to the small portions of the acquired land executed by the claimants could not obviously be the basis for the determination of the market value of the land
These sale deeds had clearly been brought into existence by the claimants in quick succession in an attempt to inflate the price of the land after they became aware of the proposed acquisition
Of these the land covered by the sale deed Ext
P 14 dated 14th December 1956 executed by Tikam Singh Thakur ie just a month before the delivery of the possession shows a sale of a plot measuring 4800 sqft
to Dr Dhirendra Chandra Das AW 2 for a price of Rs 2000 
The rate works out to about 42P per sq
It evidently could not afford a fair criterion of the value of the property on the date of the notification under section 41
Dr Das admits that he is in Railway service and when he purchased the land he knew that it was being acquired by the South Eastern Railway
No doubt Dr Das is a willing friend of Dr Harisingh Thakur prepared to lend a helping hand but by no stretch of imagination could he be treated to be a willing purchaser
in the true sense of the term
Though Dr Das asserts that he had purchased the land for building a house he admits that he did not construct upon it because he would have been required to invest considerable money for levelling the land making it fit to be utilised as a building site
This transaction indubitably does not appear to be a real sale and could not furnish any guide for determination of the true market value
I am afraid the other two sale deeds Ext
P 15 dated 19th December 1956 and Ext
P 17 dated 21st February 1957 executed by Dr Harisingh Thakur by which he sold 300 sq
Of the acquired land to Jhallu Dani AW 13 for Rs 150 and 280 sq
ft to Baido AW 15 for Rs 200 were in fact fictitious sales effected by him after delivery of possession to the South Eastern Railway
The transactions speak for themselves
Indeed Ext
P 17 was executed by him after issue of the notification under s41
The first sale was effected by the claimants to show the price of the land to be 50P per sq
They were evidently not satisfied by this and therefore brought the other sale deed into existence a few days after the notification showing the rate to be about 72P per sq
It is needless to stress that such fictitious and unreal transactions which are but 194 speculative in nature could not be taken into account by the High Court at all
In Raghubans Narain Singh vs The Uttar Pradesh Government 1 this Court quoted with approval the following passage from one of its earlier decision in N B Jeajabhoy vs The District Collector Thana2 where it was said the question therefore turns upon the facts of each case
In the context of building potentiality many questions will have to be asked and answered whether there is pres sure on the land for building activity whether the acquired land is suitable for building purpose whether the extension of the said activity is towards the land acquired what is the pace of the progress and how far the said activity has ex tended and within what time whether buildings have been put up on the lands purchased for building purposes what is the distance between the built in land and the land acquired and similar other questions will have to be answered
It is the overall picture drawn on the said relevant circumstances that affords the solution
 In Raghubans Narain Singh s case supra there was evidence to the effect that there was a school building near the acquired land that the land abutted on the road and that some houses had been built on the opposite side of the road
It was nevertheless held by this Court that all this did not constitute evidence of building potentiality
It was pointed out that there should be evidence on the record of building activity of a substantial nature being carried on in the neighbourhood of the acquired land at about the time when the notification was issued 
There is complete absence of such evidence in this case
It is beyond doubt that the acquired land was agricultural land and had not been diverted for non agricultural purposes
Indeed the claimant Dr Harisingh Thakur had himself admitted the land to be agricultural land
The land is on the outskirts of Raigarh town but that itself does not show that the land had a potential value for building purposes
It was for the claimants to show that at the relevant time there was a tendency of the town to develop in that direction and that prior to the acquisition new buildings had been constructed in the neighbourhood
Topography of the acquired land which abuts the railway track is given by Jujhar Singh NAW 1 the then Revenue Inspector who states that actually paddy used to be grown on the land
To the north of this land there was cultivation
Beyond it there was a 10 ft
1 1967 I SCR 489
2 CA Nos 313 to 315 of 1965 decided on August 30 1965
195 broad pucca road
About three furlongs way from the land was the house of Ambalal
About one and a quarter miles away there was a skin godown
In the east there were small huts
Beyond them in the east at a distance of about half a furlong there was the house of Jairamvalji
In the west about a furlong away there was an old bungalow
At about the same distance there is the burial ground
In between and all around there were agricultural fields
That is the total evidence of the case
On this evidence it cannot be said that valuation should be made on the basis of the potentiality of the land as building site
In the absence of comparable sales the only other alternative to adopt is the capitalised value
Compensation in respect of the agricultural land should be allowed on the basis of 20 years  purchase
The capitalisation basis cannot however be accepted in a case where as in the instant case there is no evidence of the profits yielded from the land
I would therefore for these reasons allow the appeal of the State of Madhya Pradesh
It is with reluctance that I have written this separate opinion
There has never been a public undertaking in this country Governmental Municipal city or industrial but that the land holder has generally secured anything from four to forty times as much for the land as its agricultural price ie many times its real value
This result unfortunately springs from a general tendency of District Judges in hearing a reference under s18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 to assume that purely agricultural lands merely by their proximity to a city or town become endowed with special adaptability  as a building site
While it is not suggested that unfairly low value should be offered on the other hand the temptation to over generosity must be equally resisted
Such generosity at the public expense reacts against the development and against the prosperity of the country and imposes an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer
Per Curiam In accordance with the opinion of the majority the appeals are dismissed with casts
NVK Appeals dismissed


Summary:
Agricultural land belonging to the respondents was acquired by the railways for doubling the railway line compensation payable for the acquired land was fixed at Re 16 per sq
But the respondent claimed Re 12 per sq
On the ground that the land had a great potential value as a building site
On reference the Additional District Judge enhanced the rate of compensation to Re 41 per sq
and allowed solatium at 15
On appeal the High Court enhanced the compensation to Re
8 per sq
on further appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the courts below had erred in treating the land which was primarily agricultural land as abadi land overlooking that it had not been declared as such
Per Jaswant Singh  Pathak J Sen J dissenting Dismissing the appeals
 HELD 1 Taking all the facts into consideration it cannot be said that the basis on which the Additional District Judge and the High Court proceeded was wrong or that the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court was in any way excessive or exorbitant
188 F 2 The question as to whether a land has potential value as a building site or not is primarily one of fact depending upon several factors such as its condition and situation the user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put its suitability for building purposes its proximity to residential commercial and industrial areas and educational cultural or medical institutions existing amenities like water electricity and drainage and the possibility of their future extension whether the nearby town is a developing or a prospering town with prospects of development schemes and the presence or absence of pressure of building activity towards the land acquired or in the neighbourhood thereof
 87F F 3 In the instant case it was clear from the observations of the Special Land Acquisition officer and the Addl
District Judge that the land had great potential value as a building site
Moreover the Spl
Land Acquisition officer did not lead any evidence worth the name to show the price of comparable sites but remained content with the production only of the sale statement prepared by the Revenue Inspector
The sale statement consisted mostly of sales relating to the year 1951 which is not relevant to the question on hand
Without examining the vendors or vendees the sale statement was not admissible in evidence and could not be relied upon
From the material on record it was clear that Raigarh was a growing town
Instead of utilising the land for doubling the railway track 184 the railway had built staff quarters
On three sides of the land there were pucca buildings and on the fourth side there was a metalled road
187G H 188C D Per Sen Jdissenting 1
Upon compulsory acquisition of property the owner is entitled to the value of the property in its actual condition at the time of expropriation with all its advantages and with all its possibilities excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of the claim for the purpose for which the property is acquired
The value of the acquired property with all its possibilities had to be adjudged on the material on record
191 F H Vyricharla Narayana Gajapatiraju vs Revenue Divisional officer Vizagapatnam 66 IA 104 followed
The market price must be fixed with reference to the date of the notification under section 4 irrespective of any trend for an increase to the value thereof
The basis for determination of the market value of the land within section 231i of the Act is the value of the land to the owner
Only such transactions would be relevant which can fairly be said to afford a fair criterion of the value of the  property as at the date of the notification
That test is clearly not fulfilled in l the present case192A B 3
In a reference under section 18 of the Act the burden of providing that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate lies upon the claimant and he must show affirmatively that the Collector had proceeded upon a wrong basis
The nature and the burden of establishing that he was wrong depend on the nature of the enquiry held by him
When the proceedings before the Collector disclose that the award was not reasonably supported by the material before him or when the basis was the application of a multiple which could not be justified on any rational ground the burden can be discharged by a slight evidence
But that is not the case here
191C D 4
In the present case the High Court fell into an error in overlooking the fact that the acquired land was agricultural land
It was recorded as a raiyati land
The land was not recorded as abadi as wrongly assumed by the High Court
The claimants admitted that the land was actually under cultivation
The Revenue Inspector stated that the land was a paddy field and was surrounded by agricultural lands
That being so the District Judge was clearly wrong in treating the land to be abadi and calculating compensation on the footing of its being a building site
189E 190A 5
Secondly the land was lying undeveloped and undiverted
Unless there was a development scheme the land could not be valued as a building site
At the time of the notification under section 41 there was no recent building activity near about the land
The land could be put to better use provided it was fully developed as a building site
The claimants were therefore entitled to the valuation of the land as agricultural land with an additional allowance for its future potentiality as a building site
190H 191B 6
In fixing the amount of compensation the court has to take into consideration the prevailing market value of the land at the date of the notification unders
41 and such market value has to be determined by reference to the price which a willing seller might have reasonably expected for similar property from 1 a willing purchaser
In a comparable sale the features are 1 it must be 185 within a reasonable time of the date of notification under section 41 2 it should be a bona fide transaction 3 it should be a sale of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired and 4 it should possess similar advantages
92G 193A 7
In the instant case the sale deeds relied upon by the High Court could not obviously be the basis for the determination of the market value of the land
These sale deeds had clearly been brought into existence by the claimants in quick succession in an attempt to inflate
the price of the land after they became aware of the proposed acquisition
The transactions which were examined by the High Court were apparently fictitious and unreal and are speculative in nature and could not be taken into account at all
193B C 193H 194A 8
On the evidence produced it could not be said that valuation should be made on the basis of potentiality of the land as building site
There is complete absence of evidence of building activity of a substantial nature being carried on in the neighbourhood of the acquired land at about the time when the notification was issued
The claimants themselves did admit that the land was agricultural land
195B 194F C Raghubans Narain Singh vs The UP Govt
  N B Jeejabhoy vs The District Collector Thana CA Nos 313 to 315 of 1965 decided on Aug 1965 referred to
In the absence of comparable sales the only other alternative to adopt is the capitalised value
Compensation in respect of the agricultural land should be allowed on the basis of 20 years  purchases
The capitalisation basis cannot however be accepted in a case where there is no evidence of the profits yielded from the land
195C