IMPORTANT POINT
In land acquisition compensation claim cases, the sale statistics relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer are not a proof unless persons connected with the sale deeds and the documents, also made part of the record, are examined.

ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. These appeals by special leave arise from the Judgment of Division Bench of Assam High Court, made on August 17 1992 in First Appeal Nos. 67/87 and 11-14/88. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the "Act") were published on 5.9.1981, 21.9.1982, 23.9.1982 and 24.9.1982 acquiring 123 Bighas 11 Cottahs and 13 Chitaks of the appellants tea Estate for laying Railway tracks. The Collector by his award dated March 19, 1985 and also by another award dated March 25, 1985 awarded in respect of the lands acquired a sum of Rs. 17,59,975/- against the total claim of Rs. 1,77,92,238/- on the computation made in that behalf. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 43,89,038/- with solatium and interest thereon in the sum of Rs. 67,60,730/- has been awarded as additional compensation. On appeal, the High Court reduced the compensation from Rs. 43,89,038 of Rs. 40,89,038/-. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, these appeals have been filed by the appellant.

3. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, contends that the High Court and the reference Court committed a grievous error in relying upon the sale statistics earlier relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer without examining any witness which formed basis for his award. The Courts also had wrongly rejected three sale deeds Exs. 17(1) to 17(3) proved on behalf of the appellant and, therefore, there is clear error of law in reaching that conclusion. On the face of it, we find force in the contention. The sale statistics relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer are not a proof unless persons connected with the sale deeds and the documents, also made part of the record, are examined. Therefore, the sale statistics cannot ipso facto form a basis to determine the compensation. As regards the three sale deeds relied on by the appellant, both the High Court as well as the reference Court came to the conclusion that they relate to the agricultural land while the acquisition is in respect of tea garden. Therefore, they could not form the basis to determine compensation. Moreover, it was also found that they relate to sale transactions which took place 5 years prior to the date of the notification published under Section 4(1). Neither the vendors nor the vendees were examined as witnesses. Therefore, the rejection of those sale deeds is perfectly in accordance with law. They do not form any base for determination of the compensation. It is settled law that the burden is on the claimants to prove by adducing cogent, reliable and acceptable evidence the market value under Section 23(1) of the Act. The burden does not shift over to the Government but it is the duty of the Court to assess the evidence adduced by the claimants and determine the compensation on the touchstone of prudent purchaser in the open market, i.e., whether he would offer market value at the rates proposed by the Court. The evidence has to be put to the test whether the sale deed or the evidence adduced would offer the market value higher than that has been determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is an offer that binds the Government but it is not conclusive. It is for the claimants to prove as to what would be the reasonable compensation which the land is capable of fetching in the open market. The question is: whether the land under acquisition, if put to the private sale in an open market, would be capable to secure the same price as offered by way of determination of the compensation after compulsory acquisition. Considered from this perspective, the Court considered the evidence adduced and determined the compensation. The High Court and the reference Court therefore, correctly applied the test and did not accept three sale deeds produced by the appellant in det