It is clear from the above testimony there were not sufficient sales in Pennington County which were comparable with the subject property as regards accessibility. Consequently, no adjustment was made in valuation that considers the Ranch's landlocked situs. Here, the Pennington County assessor was unable to substantially comply with the statute, by his own testimony, due to a lack of comparable sales information. The presumption that the county director of equalization's valuation is correct is thereby voided. As a matter of law, the County failed to properly assess Ranch's Pennington County property.
Ranch finds itself uniquely situated, both in fact and in the law.
Due to its topographical features, the portion of the property which lies in Pennington County is almost completely inaccessible. Because of this uncommon feature, the Pennington County assessor was unable to find similar properties in the county with which to compare land sales data. Ranch should not be penalized and made to support a higher tax valuation because there are no other properties similarly situated with which to make a comparison. We believe the Pennington County assessor's stopping his search where he did, after finding he did not have enough sales to make a comparison, did not go far enough and resulted in an unjust assessment of the property. In an appeal to the circuit court, the court does not merely have power to determine whether an assessment is excessive or arbitrary, but exercises independent judicial judgment to determine valuation.