Case: Vikrambhai Bhagabhai Patel &amp; Others Vs. Dy. General Manager, ONGC Ltd. &amp; Others

be determined, should be seen. When so seen, if it is found that the land covered by the sale or award, as the case may be, is almost identical with the acquired land under consideration, the land under the sale of the market value determined for the land in the award could be taken by the Court as the price basis for determining the market value of the acquired land under consideration. If there are more comparable sales or awards of the same type, no difficulty arises since the price basis to be got from them would be common. But, difficulty arises when the comparable sales or awards are not of the same kind and when each of them furnish a different price basis. This difficulty cannot be overcome by averaging the prices fetched by all the comparable sales or awards for getting the price basis on which the market value of the acquired land could be determined. It is so, for the obvious reason that such price basis may very largely depending even no comparable sales or awards. Moreover, price basis got by averaging comparable sales or awards which are not of the same kind, cannot be a correct reflection of the price which the willing seller would have got from the willing buyer, if the acquired land had been sold in the market. For instance, in the case on hand, there are three claimants. The plots of their acquired land, which are five in numbers, are not similar, in that, their location, size, shape greatly vary. One plot of land of one claimant and another plot of another claimant appear to be one type. Another plot of land of one of them appear to be of a different type. Yet another plot of the second of them appears to be different. If so far as third claimants plot of land is concerned, it appears to be altogether different from the rest. Therefore, if each of claimants were to sell her/his respective plots of land in the open market, it is impossible to think that they would have got a uniform rate for their land. The position cannot be different if the comparable sales or awards when relate to different lands. Therefore, when there are several comparable sales or awards pertaining to different lands, what is required of the Court is to choose that sale or award relating to a land which closely or nearly compares with the plot of land of market value of which it has to determine, and to take the price of land of such sale or award as the basis for determining the market value of the land under consideration."5. In Karan Singh & Ors. v. Union of India 1997(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 288 : (1997) 8 SCC 186 , this Court held that evidence has to be adduced to show similarity of the land in question to the one covered under award/judgment. This Court observed :8. Learned counsel for the appellants then urged that the High Court erroneously discarded Ext. A-11 which was an award in respect of a land at village Jhilmil Tahirpur on the ground that it was not a previous judgment of the Court. The land comprised in the award was acquired under notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 27.7.81. By the said award, the Court awarded compensation @ L 625 per sq. yds. It has earlier been seen that in the present case the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was earlier in point of time than the notification issued for acquisition of land comprised in Ext. A-l 1. There is no quarrel with the proposition that judgments of Courts in land acquisition cases or awards given by the Land Acquisition Officers can be relied upon as a good piece of evidence for determining the market value of the land acquired under certain circumstances. One of the circumstances being that such an award or judgement of the Court of law must be a previous judgment. In the case of Pal Singh and Ors v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1992) 4 SCC 400 , it was observed thus :"But what cannot be overlooked is, that for a judgment relating to value of land to be admitted in evidence either as an instance or as one from which the market value of the acquired land could be inferred or deduced, must have been a previous judgment of Court and as an instance, it must have been proved by the person relying upon such judgment by adducing evidence aliunde that due regard being given to all attendant facts and circumstances, it could furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land."Following this decision, we hold that it is only the previous judgment of a court or an Award which can be made basis for assessment of the market value of the acquired land subject to party relying such judgment to adduce evidence for showing that due regard being given to all attendant facts it could form the basis for fixing the market value of acquired land.6. In view of the aforesaid decisions, we find that the High Court has erred in relying on the judgment in the case of village Julund. Even otherwise, the Reference Court had relied on the award of village in question itself where acquisition had been made which could not have been ignored. Thus, Reference Court, in the present case, has rightly re-determined the compensation at L 264/- per sq. meter. In our opinion, the award, which has been relied upon by the Reference Court was a proper exemplar. Though the High Court has modified the said Award and reduced the compensation relying upon its earlier judgment which approach in the case of village Julund, we have not agreed. The land owners are held entitled to compensation as determined by the Reference Court. However, interest awarded by the Reference Court shall be paid in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Act.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]No application was moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. for taking on record the award passed with respect to Julund. The High Court did not rely upon the earlier award, in respect of village Dhamasana itself, though it was relied upon by the Reference Court. In our opinion it was impermissible to consider the award passed in respect of village. In Karan Singh & Ors. v. Union of India 1997(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 288 : (1997) 8 SCC 186  , this Court held that evidence has to be adduced to show similarity of the land in question to the one covered under award/judgment. This Court observed :8. Learned counsel for the appellants then urged that the High Court erroneously discarded Ext.which was an award in respect of a land at village Jhilmil Tahirpur on the ground that it was not a previous judgment of the Court. The land comprised in the award was acquired under notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 27.7.81. By the said award, the Court awarded compensation @ L 625 per sq. yds. It has earlier been seen that in the present case the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was earlier in point of time than the notification issued for acquisition of land comprised in Ext.1. There is no quarrel with the proposition that judgments of Courts in land acquisition cases or awards given by the Land Acquisition Officers can be relied upon as a good piece of evidence for determining the market value of the land acquired under certain circumstances. One of the circumstances being that such an award or judgement of the Court of law must be a previous judgment. In the case of Pal Singh and Ors v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1992) 4 SCC 400  , it was observed thuswhat cannot be overlooked is, that for a judgment relating to value of land to be admitted in evidence either as an instance or as one from which the market value of the acquired land could be inferred or deduced, must have been a previous judgment of Court and as an instance, it must have been proved by the person relying upon such judgment by adducing evidence aliunde that due regard being given to all attendant facts and circumstances, it could furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquiredthis decision, we hold that it is only the previous judgment of a court or an Award which can be made basis for assessment of the market value of the acquired land subject to party relying such judgment to adduce evidence for showing that due regard being given to all attendant facts it could form the basis for fixing the market value of acquired land.6. In view of the aforesaid decisions, we find that the High Court has erred in relying on the judgment in the case of village Julund. Even otherwise, the Reference Court had relied on the award of village in question itself where acquisition had been made which could not have been ignored. Thus, Reference Court, in the present case, has rightlythe compensation at L 264/per sq. meter. In our opinion, the award, which has been relied upon by the Reference Court was a proper exemplar. Though the High Court has modified the said Award and reduced the compensation relying upon its earlier judgment which approach in the case of village Julund, we have not agreed. The land owners are held entitled to compensation as determined by the Reference Court. However, interest awarded by the Reference Court shall be paid in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Act.