Case: Krishan Kumar Vs. Union of India &amp; Another

land in the same village for ` 2,65,651/-. These sale deeds were clear indicators, reflecting that MGF sale deed (Exhibit PW-1/2) showed inflated figure therein. 24. We find that the aforesaid finding of the High Court, on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, is absolutely valid thereby rejecting the credit worthiness of Exhibit PW-1/2 for the purposes of ascertaining the market value of the land. In view thereof, judgments relied upon by the Appellants counsel on this aspect have no application in the instant cases. 25. It has come on record that apart from the aforesaid sale deed, the counsel for the parties had not produced any other sale deeds either of the year 1998 or of the year 2003. Some sale deeds post 2003 were produced in evidence but the parties rightly chose not to refer to them, a fact specifically noted by the High Court. This would show that there is no sale deed of the area in question which could provide an exemplar for fixing the market value of the land. We are, thus, left with the Government Notifications issuing circular rate of the lands in question. There is a Notification dated 1st April, 1998 as per which the value of the land is fixed at ` 11,20,000/- per acre for category A. Then, there is Notification dated 09.08.2001 fixing circular rate at ` 15,70,000/- per acre. 26. We would like to point out at this stage the argument of Mr. Shishodia, learned senior counsel who appeared in some of these appeals, to the effect that in the absence of any evidence of exemplar depicting sale value, the Court is required to do guesswork. In support of this proposition, he placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the cases of Trishala Jain and Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal and Anr. (2011) 6 SCC 47 as well as K.S. Shivadevamma and Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. (1996) 2 SCC 62. In the present case, as the only sale deed on which reliance was placed (Exhibit PW-1/2) stands rejected, there is no other exemplar in the form of sale deed. The learned Counsel wants us to guesstimate the market value. In Trishala Jain (supra), the Court laid down the circumstances when application of guesstimate principle is to be applied. This can be found in para 65 of the said judgment which reads as under: "65. It will be appropriate for us to state certain principles controlling the application of "guesstimate".(a) Wherever the evidence produced by the parties is not sufficient to determine the compensation with exactitude, this principle can be resorted to.(b) Discretion of the court in applying guesswork to the facts of a given case is not unfettered but has to be reasonable and should have a connection to the data on record produced by the parties by way of evidence. Further, this entire exercise has to be within the limitations specified Under Sections 23 and 24 of the act and cannot be made in detriment thereto." 27. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, and having peculiarity of the present appeals where there is total absence of exemplars, we are of the opinion that some increase, but only marginal one, can be ordered over and above the circular rates fixed by the Government Orders. In the case of Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda (2010) 5 SCC 708 , following pertinent observations were made by this Court: "90...The Court is entitled to apply some [amount] of reasonable guesswork to balance the equities and fix a just and fair market value in terms of the parameters specified Under Section 23 of the Act." 28. This Court can indulge in the same reasonable guesswork to balance the equity for fixing just and fair market value. In the absence of any other exemplar in the form of sale deed, though it is difficult to say as to what extent the actual market value was higher in contradistinction to the value of land fixed by the Government in the aforesaid Notifications, we are of the opinion that as a thumb rule an increase of ` 1,00,000/- per acre be granted, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 29. Accordingly, we fix the market value of the land situate in Village Jharoda Mazra Burari, which was acquired vide Notification dated 24.07.1998, at ` 12,60,580/- and in Village Burari, which was acquired vide Notification dated 18.07.2003, at ` 20,20,568/-. 30. This brings us to the land aspect of the matter which was argued by those Appellants whose lands are classified in inferior category, namely, whether it was proper to categorize the land and after fixing the market value for category A land, depress the same by 10% each for category B and C respectively. 31. Insofar as land situate in Village Burari is concerned, as already noted above, though the LAC had given the categorisation, the Reference Court had refused to accept the same finding that the entire land was to be treated uniformly as category A land. Apart from the topography of the land, which was almost identical, the Reference Court also pointed out that the distinction had no relevance because the acquisition was for the same purpose, namely, Bio-Diversity Park, and, therefore, potentiality of the land would be the same for the aforesaid purpose and it did not matter as to whether a particular parcel of the land was different from the other (though it was not even factually correct). We find this reason to be quite convincing. There appears to be no manifest justification in the judgment of the High Court in re-introducing the said categorization. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the compensation should be awarded to all the Appellants uniformly at ` 20,20,568/- per acre. For the same reasons, similar treatment is to be accorded to the Appellants whose lands in Jharoda Mazra Burari are acquired by granting compensation at uniform rate of ` 12,60,580/- per acre. 32.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]It is clearve that the submissions of learnedcounsel for thehave two limbs,For ascertaining the market value of the, the sale deed pertaining to the land in that very area was the best exemplar. There was no reason to discard Exhibitwhich was produced to reflect the market value of the land in the year 1993, which was much before the two acquisition Notifications of the year 1998 and 2003. This was, according to them, the bestThe Government Orders which are made the basis for fixing the market value of the land by the courts below could not have been relied upon for such a purpose as they are not the true indicia of the market price.From the aforesaid twin prepositions, reliance was placed on the following judgments of thisIn Cement Corporation of India Ltd. v. Purya and(2004) 8 SCC 270 , this CourtA registered document in terms of Sectionof the Act may carry therewith a presumption of genuineness. Such a presumption, therefore, is rebuttable. Raising a presumption, therefore, does not amount to proof; it only shifts the burden of proof against whom the presumption operates for disproving it. Only if the presumption is not rebutted by discharging the burden, the court may act on the basis of such presumption. Even when in terms of the Evidence Act, a provision has been made that the court shall presume a fact, the same by itself would not be irrebuttable or conclusive. The genuineness of a transaction can always fall for adjudication, if any question is raised in this behalf.While it is clear thatof the LA Act a presumption as to the genuineness of the contents of the document is permitted to be raised, the same can be relied upon only if the said presumption is not rebutted by other evidence. In the said view of the matter we are of the opinion that the decision of this Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. V.(2001) 3 SCC 530 lays down the correct law.In National Fertilizers Limited v. Jagga Singh (Deceased) Through(2012) 1 SCC 74 , this CourtThe Division Bench of the High Court has thus relied upon its order in Karam Singh (RFA No. 906 of 1988) passed onwhich was marked in the reference proceedings as Ext.The land in the case of Karam Singh was acquired for a municipal park by a notification issuedSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act onand is located within the municipal limits. In Karam Singh case there was evidence of three transactions of sale of the same date i.e.showing that some land in the area had been sold at the rate of Rs. 100 per square yard, some land in the area had been sold at Rs. 70.30 paise per square yard and some land in the area had been sold at the rate of Rs. 62.50 per square yard and the Court took the average rate of the three sale transactions which worked out to Rs. 80 per square yard. The Court then added an increase of 12% per annum for ten years to arrive at the value of the land in the year 1983 when the land was acquired and the figure worked out at Rs. 176 per square yard.Regarding quality of the land acquired in the present case, the learnedcounsel for thesubmitted that the land in Karam Singh case was developed urban land meant for residential and commercial purpose, whereas the land acquired in the present case was low, waterlogged. We, however, findce of Basant Singh Patwari, Land Acquisition, Industries Department, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh, examined as RW 1, that the level of the land, which was acquired in the present case, was that of thehe township of NFL. The learned Additional District Judge in his order datedhas in fact held, after considering all the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, that the market value of the land acquired in the present case has to be determined on the basis of its potentiality for urban development and not on the basis of the revenue or agricultural classification of the land as done by the Collector because the land acquired in the present case had great potential value for urban purposes i.e. commercial, industrial and residential.In Chindha Fakira Patil (Dead) Throughv. Special Land Acquisition Officer,(2011) 10 SCC 787 , this CourtIn our view, the approach adopted by the High Court was clearly erroneous. There is no basis for the assumption that the purchaser of the land must have offered higher price for special reasons. Exhibit 28 was proved by Shri Arjun Sukdeo Patil, who had appeared as witness on behalf of theIt was open to thecounsel for thene the witness and elicit the special reasons, if any, for sale of land allegedly at a higher price. However, the fact of the matter is that no such question was put to the witness.As a matter of fact, it is neither the pleaded case of thenor has it been argued before us that the sale deed Exhibit 28 had not been proved or that the price mentioned therein was not the highest price paid for jirayat land in the area. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court was not right in interfering with the fixation of market value by the Reference Court for jirayat land at the rate of Rs. 3 lakhs and for bagayat land at the rate of Rs. 6 lakhs per hectare. The mere fact that average sale price of the transactions relied upon by thewas substantially less could not be made a ground for discarding Exhibit 28.In Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot andv. State of Punjab and(2012) 5 SCC 432 , this Court observedIn State of Punjab v. Hans Raj(1994) 5 SCCthis Court has held that method of working out the "average price" paid under different sale transactions is not proper and that one should not have, ordinarily recourse to such method. This Court further held that the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of thes are the real basis to determine the market value.It is clearthat when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation.We would first deal with the submissions predicated on ExhibitThe reason given by the Reference Court in discarding this piece of evidence does not appear to be correct. The Reference Court has noted that since this sale deed is of the year 1993 and the acquisitions took place 5 and 10 years thereafter, respectively, the sale deed of 1993 would not reflect the market price that was prevailing in the years of acquisition. If the sale price stated in the said sale deed is of the year 1993, the value of the land would even be higher in the year 1998 and 2003. Therefore, this reason is not convincing at all. However, at the same time, we find that very justifiable grounds are given by the High Court in discarding ExhibitA perusal of the impugned judgment, touching upon this aspect, would reflect that the High Court has gone through the relevant evidence. This piece of land was purchased by one company known as Motor General and Finance Limited (MGF). Its Director, Shri Arun Mitter, had appeared asin LAC No. 140/1/206. He admitted that he was not familiar with the topology of the area and had no proof of any earningsnd during the period it remained with the company and virtually admitted not having put the land to any use. The High Court, thus, observed that Director of the Company who purchased the land did not give convincing reasons of having put the land to any use. It was only stated that flowers were grown therein by a Mali, though the witness could not even depose as to who employed him and in what manner salary was paid to him. Leaving this ignorance of the Directors aside, even otherwise, his claim that flowers were grown and were consumed in the house was found by the High Court to be the most uninspiring. From the aforesaid and other related/attendant facts, the Court came to the conclusion that the speculative nature of the transaction wasIt was more so as nearly six years after the purchase of the, MGF sold the same at a meager price rise of, which gave not even 1% increase in the value of the landnearly six years. All these aspects clearly demonstrated that MGF was not an informed buyer. Referring to the decision of this Court in Mohammad Raofuddin v. Land Acquisition(2009) 14 SCC 367 , the High Court opined that such a speculative transaction could not be taken as reflective of the real market value inasmuch as in respect of sale of land it is settled law that the test is the price which an informed buyer would pay to the willing seller and to be an informed buyer there must be evidence that the buyer has knowledge of the topology of the area, the land available for sale and such other factors showing that the buyer was an informed buyer.We also findrd thatcounsel for thehad pointed out to Exhibita sale deed dated 22.11.2003 executed in favour of one Nisha Tyagi, which showed that she had purchased agriculture land in Village Burari on 22.11.2003 forin respect of land admeasuring 5 bigha and 19 biswa. There was also a sale deed Exhibitdated 02.01.2004 which reflected that Raj Bal, his wife, Usha Tyagi and his sisterShobha Tyagi had purchased 02 bigha and 10 biswa land in the same village for. These sale deeds were clear indicators, reflecting that MGF sale deed (Exhibitshowed inflated figure therein.We find that the aforesaid finding of the High Court, on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, is absolutely valid thereby rejecting the credit worthiness of Exhibitfor the purposes of ascertaining the market value of the land. In view thereof, judgments relied upon by thecounsel on this aspect have no application in the instant cases.It has come onfrom theaforesaid sale deed, thecounsel for theparties had not produced any other sale deeds either of the year 1998 or of the year 2003. Some sale deeds post 2003 were produced in evidence but the parties rightly chose not tom, a fact specifically noted by the High Court. This would show that there is no sale deed of the area in question which could provide an exemplar for fixing the market value of the land. We are, thus, left with the Government Notifications issuing circular rate of the lands in question. There is a Notification dated 1st April, 1998 as per which the value of the land is fixed ater acrefor category A. Then, there is Notification dated 09.08.2001 fixing circular rate at. This Court can indulge in the same reasonable guesswork to balance the equity for fixing just and fair market value. In the absence of any other exemplar in the form of sale deed, though it is difficult to say as to what extent the actual market value was higher in contradistinction to the value of land fixed by the Government in the aforesaid Notifications, we are of the opinion that as a thumb rule an increase ofer acrebe granted, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.Accordingly, we fix the market value of the land situate in Village Jharoda Mazra Burari, which was acquired vide Notification dated 24.07.1998, atnd in Village Burari, which was acquired vide Notification dated 18.07.2003, at. This brings us to the land aspect of the matter which was argued by thosewhose lands are classified in inferior category, namely, whether it wasze the land and after fixing the market value for category A land, depress the same by 10% each for category B and C respectively.Insofar as land situate in Village Burari is concerned, as already noted above, though the LAC had given the categorisation, the Reference Court had refused to accept the same finding that the entire land was to be treated uniformly as category A land. Aparthy of the land, which was almost identical, the Reference Court also pointed out that the distinction had no relevance because the acquisition was for the same purpose, namely,Park, and, therefore, potentiality of the land would be theaforesaid purpose and it did not matter as to whether a particular parcel of the land was differenter (though it was not even factually correct). We find this reason to be quite convincing. There appears to be no manifest justification in the judgment of the High Court inthe said categorization. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the compensation should be awarded to all theFor the same reasons, similar treatment is to be accorded to thewhose lands in Jharoda Mazra Burari are acquired by granting compensation at uniform rate of