VITHAL RAO & ANR. ETC. versus THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 335, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
[2017) 6 S.C.R. 335 
VITHAL RAO & ANR. ETC. 
v. 
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1645-1647 of 2016) 
JULY 07, 2017 
(ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND 
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 23 - Market value of the 
acquired land - Determination of - Land acquisition for .construction 
A 
B 
of rehabilitation centre - Award of compensation in favour of land c 
owner -
High Court re-determined the compensation at 
Rs.13,93,9201- per acre as against Rs. 6,75,0001- per acre awarded 
by the reference court with all statutory benefits - On appeal, held: 
On facts, land acquired is a large chunk of land-30 acres approx., 
not fully developed land, for establishment of rehabilitation centre 
situated within the municipal limits, one side abutting the main district 
D 
road and some, buildings have come up in its near proximity - Land 
owners did not file any exemplar '.s sale deed in relation to large 
chunk of land to prove the price in acres but all sale deeds relied 
on by the land owners pertain to very small piece of land sold in the 
range of Rs.551- per sq. ft. to Rs.851- per sq. ft. except two parcels 
of land sold for Rs.JOO/- per sq. ft. and Rs.2181- per sq. ft. - It is 
not safe to rely on one or two isolated sale deeds of high value of 
very small plots - In view thereof, it would be just, fair and proper 
to work out the average value of these plots and to deduct 40% of 
the amount towards development charges out of the average price
worked out - Thus, market value of the land is worked out as 
Rs.60/- per sq. ft. - Land owners entitled to compensation at the 
rate of Rs. 601- per sq ft. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
E 
F 
HELD: 1.1 On facts, the land acquired in question is a large G 
chunk of land (30 acres approx.); the purpose of acquisition is 
"Establishment of Rehabilitation Centre"; it is situated within 
the municipal limits; its one side is abutting the main district 
road (MDR); it is not fully developed; some buildings have come 
up in its near proximity; the appellants (land owners) have not 
filed any exemplar's sale deeds relating to large piece of land H 
335
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
A · sold in acres to prove the market value of the acquired land; all 
sale deeds relied on by the appellants pertain to very small piece 
of land such as, 25x55ft., 40x20ft., 40x40ft., etc whereas the land 
acquired, is quite large (30 acres); the price at which these small 
plots were sold was ranging from Rs.85/- per sq. ft. to Rs. 100/-
B per sq. ft., and Rs.218/- per sq. ft.; these eleven plots were sold 
prior to the date of acquisition (2000-2002) whereas the 
acquisition was in the year 2003; the small parcel of lands sold 
under these sale deeds are situated in near proximity of the 
acquired land and some were part of the acquired land; and all 
the eleven sale deeds are held bona fide and proper and these 
C sale deeds, therefore, can be relied on for determining the proper 
market value of the acquired land. [Para 30) [345-C-F) 
1.2 Taking into account the factual scenario of the acquired 
land and having regard to the totality of the circumstances taken 
note of, it would be just, fair and proper to take out the average 
D value of these plots. It is not safe to rely on one or two isolated 
sale deeds of high value of very small plots. Since the acquired 
land is not fully developed and it is required for construction of 
rehabilitation centre, it would be just, fair and proper to deduct 
40% of the amount towards development charges out of the 
average price worked out. Such deduction is permissible in law. 
E 
The
average value of the land in this way is worked out to Rs.99/ 
- per sq. ft. and after deducting 40% towards development 
charges, Rs.60/- per sq. ft.(rounded ofO. The market value of 
Rs.60/- per sq. ft. which has been worked out, is just, fair and 
proper market value of the acquired land having regard to the 
F 
totality of the circumstances. It is this value which, should have 
been award~d to the appellants for the acquired land. [Paras 31, 
32, 33] [345-G ; 346-A-B] 
1.3 The impugned order is modified to the extent that the 
appellants are held entitled to claim compensation for the acquired 
G land at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq ft. As a consequence, the 
appellants are held entitled to claim all statutory compensation 
accordingly. The compensation now awarded by this Court by 
enhanced rate be re-worked and after making proper calculation 
and verification of the land, the same be paid to the appellants 
(respective land owners) within 'the stipulated period. [Paras 36, 
H 37] [346-F-G]
VITHAL RAO & ANR. ETC. v. THE SPECIAL LAND 
ACQUISITION OFFICER 
Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition 
Officer, Poona & Anr. (1988) 3 SCC 751: [1988) 1 
Suppl. SCR 531; Union of India v. Raj Kumar Bagha! 
Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. 
(2014) 10 SCC 422: [2014) 7 SCR 709; Trisha/a Jain 
& Am: v. State of Uttaranchal & Am: (2011) 6 SCC 47: 
[2011) 8 SCR 520 - relied on. 
Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, 
Chittor v. L. Kamalamma (Smt.) Dead by LRs. & Ors. 
Etc.(1998) 2 SCC 385: [1998) 1 SCR 1153 - referred 
to. 
Case Law Reference 
[1988) 1 Suppl. SCR 531 
relied on 
Para 26 
[2014) 7 SCR 709 
relied on 
Para 28 
[2011) 8 SCR 520 
relied on 
Para 29 
[1998) 1 SCR 1153 
referred to 
Para 31 
CNILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1645-
1647 of2016. 
337 
A 
B 
c 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.07.2014 of the High Court 
ofKarnataka, Circuit Bench at Dhatwad in MFA. No. 25301/2012 c/w 
E 
MFA. No. 25302/2012 & MFA. No.25303/2012. 
WITH 
C. A. No.1648 of2016. 
Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., A nil V. Katarki, A nil C. Nishani, T. R. B. 
Sivakumar, D. L. Chidananda, Ashwin Kumar, Advs. for the Appellants. 
F 
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. for the 
Respondent. 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. These appeals are filed by 
the land owners against the final judgment and order dated 07 .07.2014 
G 
passed by the High Court of Kamataka, Circuit Bench at Dhatwad in 
M.F.A. No. 25301, 25302, 25303 and 25304
of2012 whereby the High 
Court allowed the appeals in part and modified the Award dated 
24.08.2012 passed in LAC Nos. 107, 106, 108 and 109 of 2004 by the 
Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mudhol and re-determined the compensation 
at Rs.13,93,920/- per acre as against Rs.6,75,000/- per acre with all 
H
338 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
.. 
A 
statlj;ory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 
B 
c 
2. We herein set·out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issues 
involved in these appeals. 
3. The respondent, by Notification dated 25.01.2003 issued under 
Section 4(1) of the Act followed by final Notification dated 26.03.2003 
issued under Section 6( 1) of the Act, acquired the lands belonging to the 
appellants in Survey No. 554/1 measuring 16 acres 27 guntas, Survey 
No. 55412 measuring 15 guntas, Survey No. 55512 measuring 3 acres 34 
guntas and Survey No. 553/A/l measuring 9 acres 14 guntas (total 30.8 
guntas approx.) situated at Mudhol village and Taluk for the purpose of 
construction of Rehabilitation Centre in favour of the displaced persons 
of Gudadinni Village of Bilagi Taluk, whose properties came to be 
submerged under Upper Krishna project. 
4. By awards dated 22.07.2003, the Special Land Acquisition 
D 
Officer determined the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of 
Rs.96,164/- per acre. 
E 
F 
5. Being aggrieved by the awards made by the Land Acquisition 
Officer, the appellants (land owners) sought reference to the Senior 
Civil Judge, Mudhol under Section 18(1) of the Act and claimed 
compensation at the rate of Rs.300/- to Rs.350/- per sq. ft. for the 
acquired lands inter alia on the ground of building potentiality and 
comparable sale deeds of the several
plots in the vicinity of the acquired 
lands. Their applications were registered as LAC Nos. 107, 106, 108 
and 109 of 2004. The Reference Court clubbed them together and 
recorded common evidence in LAC No. 107 /2004. 
6. By common judgment and Award dated 24.08.2012, the 
Reference Court, by relying upon its earlier judgment dated 18.12.2009 
passed in LAC No. 1659/2000 wherein the market value was determined 
at the rate ofRs.5,00,000/-per acre, fixed the market value of the acquired 
G 
lands of the appellants at the rate ofRs.5,00,000/- per acre and awarded 
the compensation of Rs.6,75,000/- per acre inclusive of Rs:il ,75,000/-
per acre towards escalation price at the rate of 5% per annum from 
21.08.1996, the date on which the Notification under Section 4(1) was 
issued in LAC No. 1659 of2000 till 25.01.2003, the date on which the 
H 
Notification under Section 4(1) was issued in the cases at hand.
VITHAL RAO & ANR. ETC. v. THE SPECIAL LAND 
339 
ACQUISITION OFFICER [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
7. Aggrieved by the compensation determined by the Reference 
A 
Court, the land owners filed appeals being M.F.A. Nos. 25301, 25302, 
25303 and 25304 of2012 before the High Court. 
8. By impugned judgment dated 07 .07.2014, the High Court allowed 
the appeals in part and while setting aside the award of the reference 
Court and disagreeing with its reasoning re-determined the compensation 
B 
at Rs.13,93,920/-per acre as against Rs.6,75,000/-per acre awarded by 
the Reference Court with all statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 
23 of the Act. 
9. The High Court, inter alia, held by relying on the price 
(Rs. 64/- per sq. ft.) value of one exemplar sale deed (Ex.P-61) out of c 
11 sale deeds filed by the appellants and deducting 50% towards 
development charges from its price determined the market value at 
Rs.13,93,920/- per acre (Rs. 32/- per sq. ft.). · 
10. Against the said judgment, the appellants have filed these 
appeals before this Court seeking further enhancement in the D · 
compensation awarded by the High Court. 
11. Heard Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel for the 
appellants and Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel for 
the respondent. 
12. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing for the 
E 
appellants(land-owners) while assailing the legality and correctness of 
· the impugned order mainly raised five submissions. 
13. In the
first place, learned counsel urged that the High Court 
having rightly held that the appellants were not awarded adequate 
compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer and the reference Court 
F 
" -
commensurate with the market value of the acquired land erred in 
awarding compensation only at the rate ofRs.13,93,920/-per acre., i.e., 
at the rate of Rs. 32/- per sq. ft. 
14. According to learned counsel, firstly, the compensation awarded 
by the High Court is wholly inadequate and not commensurate with the 
G 
market value of the acquired land and secondly, it is against the evidence 
adduced by the appellants and hence unsustainable in law. 
15. In the second place, learned counsel urged that the appellants 
have filed in evidence 11 sale deeds of the exemplar's land to prove the 
market rate of the acquired land. Learned counsel pointed out that out 
H
.340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
of 11 sale deeds, some sale deeds were part of the acquired land whereas 
the remaining pertained to the land adjacent to the acquired land. 
16. It was urged that since these 11 sale deeds were executed 
much prior in point of time from the date of issuance of Notification 
under Section 4, therefore, such sale deeds are the best piece of evidence 
B 
as they represent the correct price/value of the acquired Jan~ for proving 
the market value of the acquired land. 
c 
17. Learned counsel urged that out of 11 sale deeds, two sale 
deeds, which represent the highest value should have been made the 
basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. 
18. In the third place, learned counsel urged that out of 11 sale 
deeds, the High Court having rightly held the four sale deeds (Ex- 55,56,59 
and 61) to be of relevance for proving the market value of the acquired 
land erred in excluding the three sale deeds out of the four white 
determining the market value of the acquired land and confined its reliance 
D 
only on one sale deed, namely, Ex-61 (which was for Rs. 64/- per sq. ft.) 
for determining the market value without any justification. It was also 
his submission that the High Court erred in making deduction of 50% out 
of the price ofEx.P-61 sale deed without there being any justification 
and reduced its price to Rs. 32/- per sq. ft. This finding, according to 
E 
learned counsel, is legally unsustainable and
hence deserves to be set 
aside. 
19. In the fourth place, learned counsel urged that out of 11 sale 
deeds, 2 sale deeds, viz., Exs. 55 and 56 represented the land to have 
been sold at Rs. 218/- per sq. ft. and, therefore, Rs.218/- per sq. ft. rate 
should have been held to be the market rate of the acquired land that 
F 
being the highest price of the land out of 1 I sale deeds and, accordingly, 
the compensation should have been determined at the rate of Rs.218/-
per sq ft., if not more. 
20. In the fifth place, learned counsel urged that it being an admitted 
fact that the acquired land is abutting the main district road (MDR) in 
G 
the city and further surrounded by developed colonies and several 
institutions/organisations etc. in its near proximity and being non-
agricultural land situated within the limits of municipality has potentiality 
to undertake any housing project over the land and, therefore, the rate 
claimed by the appellants is well justified having regard to the totality of 
the circumstances. 
H
VITHAL RAO & ANR. ETC. v. THE SPECIAL LAND 
341 
ACQUISITION OFFICER [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
21. It is essentially these submissions learned counsel for the 
A 
appellants(land owners) elaborated in his arguments with the aid of 
evidence adduced and \fecided case law of this Court. 
22. In reply, Mr. B.P.S. Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for 
the respondent supported the impugned order and contended that the 
submissions urged by the appellants' counsel has no merit. Learned B 
counsel contented that 11 sale deeds relied on by the appeilants relate to 
very small area/plots whereas the acquired area is quite large ( 30 acres) 
and, therefore, the price shown in such sale deeds is of no relevance and 
nor can these sale deeds be relied on to determine the tme market value 
of the acquired land. 
23. Learned counsel also doubted the bonafides of the sale deeds 
and contented that the manner in which the transactions were made 
pursuant to these sale deeds, clearly show that the transactions made 
therein are not genuine. In substance, the submission oflearned counsel 
for the respondent was that the appeals have no merit. 
24. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on pemsal 
of the record of the case, we find force in some of the submissions of 
learned counsel for the appellants. 
c 
D 
25. Before we examine the facts of this case, it is necessary to 
take note of general principle oflaw on the subject which is laid down by 
E 
this Court in
several cases some of which were also cited at the bar by 
the learned counsel for the parties. Indeed, if we may say so, law on the 
several issues urged herein by the le.arned counsel for the parties is 
fairly well settled and what has varied is its application to the facts of 
each case. 
26. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs Special Land Acquisition 
Officer, Poona & Anr. ( 1988) 3 SCC 751, this Court dealt with the 
question as to how the Court should determine the valuation of the lands 
under acquisition and what broad principle oflaw relating to acquisition 
of land under the Act should be kept in consideration to determine the 
F 
proper market value of the acquired land. 
.....0 
27. In Para 4 of the judgment, this Court laid down as many as 17 
principles, which are reproduced below for pemsal: 
"(l) to (4) ....................................... . 
(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to 
H
342 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 6 S.C.R. 
· A 
be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the 
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 
(dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant). 
(6) The determination has to be made standing on the 
date line of valuation (date of publication of notification 
B 
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. 
c 
(7) 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. 
(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into 
. D 
account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation 
of acquisition of land.) 
(9) 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 
E 
pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement 
in development prospects. 
F 
·G 
H 
(10) 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. 
(11) 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. 
(12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be 
drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be
VITHAL RAO & ANR. ETC. v. THE SPECIAL LAND 
343 
ACQUISITION OFFICER [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser A 
would do. 
(13) 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. 
B 
(14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) 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: 
Plus factors 
Minus factors 
1. 
smallness of size 
1. largeness of area 
2. 
proximity to a road 
2. 
situation in the interior at 
a distance from the road 
3: 
frontage on a road 
3. narrow strip of land with 
very small frontage 
compared to depth 
4. nearness to developed 
4. 
lower level requiring the 
area 
depressed portion to be 
filled up 
5. regular shape 
5. 
remoteness from 
developed locality 
6. level vis-a-vis land 
6. 
some special 
under acquisition 
disadvantageous factor 
which would deter a 
purchaser 
7. 
special value for an 
owner of an adjoining 
property to whom it 
may have some very 
special advantage 
(15) 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 10,000 
sq. yds. or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the 
reach of many, a large block ofland will have to be developed 
by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, le,aving open 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
344 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
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 approximately between 20 
per cent to 50 per cent to account for land required t9 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. 
(16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact 
pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent 
purchaser of land in which position the judge must place 
himself. 
(17) These are general guidelines to be applied with 
understanding informed with common sense." 
28. These principles are invariably kept in mind by the Courts 
while determining the market value of the acquired lands (see also Union 
of India vs. Raj Kumar Baghal Singh (Dead) Through Legal 
Representatives & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 422). 
29. In addition to these principles, this Court in several cases 
have aJso laid down that while determining the true market value of the 
acquired land and especially when the acquired land is a large chunk of 
undeveloped land, it is
just and reasonable to make appropriate deduction 
F 
towards expenses for development of acquired land. It has also been 
consistently held that at what percentage the deduction should be made 
vary from 10% to 86% and, therefore, the deduction should be made 
keeping in mind the nature of the land, area under acquisition, whether 
the land is developed or not and, if so, to what extent, the purpose of 
G acquisition, etc. It has also been held that while determining the market 
value of the large chunk ofland, the value of smaller piece ofland can 
be taken into consideration after making proper deduction in the value of 
lands and when sale deeds of larger parcel of land are not available. 
This Court has also laid down that the Court should also take into 
consideration the potentiality of the acquired land apart from other 
H
VITHAL RAO & ANR. ETC. v. THE SPECIAL LAND 
345 
ACQUISITION OFFICER [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
relevant considerations. This Court has also recognized that the Courts 
A 
can always apply reasonable amount of guesswork to balance the equities 
in order to fix a just and fair market value in terms of parameters specified 
under Section 23 of the Act. (See Trishala Jain & Anr. Vs. State of 
Uttaranchal & Anr., (2011) 6 SCC 47) 
30. Keeping the aforementioned principles in mind when we take 
note of the facts of the case at hand, we find that firstly, the land acquired 
in question is a large chunk of land (30 acres approx.); Secondly, the 
purpose of acquisition is "Establishment of Rehabilitation Centre"; Thirdly, 
it is situated within the municipal limits; Fourthly, its one side is abutting 
B 
the main district road (MDR); Fifthly, it is not fully developed; Sixthly, 
some buildings have come up in its near proximity; Seventhly, the 
C 
appellants(land owners) have not filed any exemplar's sale deeds relating 
to large piece of land sold in acres to prove the market value of the 
acquired land; Eighthly, all sale deeds relied on by the appellants pertain 
to very small piece ofland such as, 25x55ft., 40x20ft., 40x40ft., 12x45ft, 
30x40ft., 12x45ft., 60x60ft., 10x65ft., 50x65ft., 40x65ft. and 29x49ft. 
D 
whereas the land acquired, as mentioned above, is quite large (3 0 acres); 
and, the price at which these small plots were sold is Rs.85/- per sq. ft., 
Rs.70/- per sq.
ft., Rs.80/- per sq. ft., Rs 69/- per sq. ft., Rs. 55/- per sq. 
ft., Rs. 64/- per sq. ft., Rs. 65 per sq. ft., Rs. 100/- per sq. ft., and 
Rs.218/- per sq. ft.,; Ninthly, these eleven plots were sold prior to the 
date of acquisition (2000, 2001 and 2002) whereas the acquisition was in 
the year 2003; Tenthly, the small parcel of lands sold under these sale 
deeds are situated in near proximity of the acquired land and some were 
part of the acquired land; Eleventhly, all the eleven sale deeds are held 
bona fide and proper and lastly, these sale deeds, therefore, can be 
relied on for determining the proper market value of the acquired land. 
31. Taking into account the factual scenario of the acquired land 
E 
F 
and having regard to the totality of the circumstances taken note of 
supra, we are of the considered view that it would be just, fair and 
proper to take out the average value of these plots. Since the acquired 
land is not fully developed and it requires for construction ofrehabilitation 
G 
centre, it would be just, fair and proper to deduct 40% of the amount 
towards development charges out of the average price worked out. Such 
deduction is permissible in law (Land Acquisition Officer Revenue 
Divisional Officer, Chittor vs. L. Kamalamma (Smt.) Dead by LRs. 
& Ors. Etc.(1998) 2 sec 385. 
H
346 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
32. The average value of the land in this way is worked out to 
Rs.99/-
per sq. ft. and after deducting 40% towards development 
charges, we get a rate ofRs.60/- per sq. ft.(rounded off). 
33. In our considered opinion, the market value ofRs.60/- per sq. 
ft. which we have worked out, is just, fair and proper market value of 
· B 
the acquired land having regard to the totality of the circumstances taken 
note of above and on applying the aforementioned principle oflaw laid 
down by this Court. It is this value which, in our opinion, should have 
been awarded to the appellants for the acquired land. 
· 
34. We are unable to accept the submission ofleamed counsel for 
c the appellants when he urged that the appellants are entitled to claim 
compensation at the rate ofRs.218/- per sq. ft. or even more that being 
the highest rate of the land out of total sale deeds. 
35. As held supra, firstly, all the sale deeds relate to very small 
piece ofland; secondly, except two parcels ofland sold for Rs. I 00/- and 
D 
Rs.218/-, remaining plots were sold in the range ofRs.?5/- to Rs.85/-
and lastly, the appellants did not file any sale deed in relation to large 
chunk ofland to prove the price in acres. For these reasons, in our view, 
it is not safe to rely on one or two isolated sale deeds of high value of 
very small plots. We have, therefore, preferred to work out the average 
. E 
of these sale deeds for determining the market value
of the acquired 
land. 
36. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed and 
are accordingly allowed in part. The impugned order is modified to the 
extent that the appellants are held entitled to claim compensation for the 
acquired land at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq ft. As a consequence, the 
F 
appellants are held entitled to claim all statutory compensation accordingly. 
G 
37. Letthe compensation now awarded by this Court by enhanced 
rate be re-worked and after making proper calculation and verification 
of the land, the same be paid to the appellants (respective land owners) 
within 3 months from the date of this order. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeals partly allowed.