ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. In disposal of the three appeals by this common judgment, we shall refer to SLP (C) No. 12300 of 1994 as first case and to SLP (C) Nos. 3528-29 of 1994 as second case.

3. Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the first case was published on 16-6-1983 for acquiring 9.47 acres near Eluru town of West Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh to provide house sites to the poor. Again, 14.10 acres of land was acquired in the second case for the same purpose by publishing the notification under Section 4(1) on 23-3-1985. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation under Section 11 at Rs 40,000 per acre in both the cases. On reference, the Subordinate Judge, Eluru, enhanced the market value in the first case to Rs 105 per sq. yard by deducting 30% for developmental charges out of Rs 150 per sq. yard fixed as its value, with usual solatium and interest. In the second case, he enhanced to Rs 70 per sq. yard as claimed by the claimants therein. On appeal, the High Court, by the impugned separate judgments dated 29-9-1993 enhanced the market value to Rs 150 in respect of land in the second case but he upheld in the first case the market value of the land at Rs 150 per sq. yard granting the usual solatium and interest. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

4. We have heard learned counsel on both sides and considered the reasoning of the High Court and also of the reference court vis-a-vis the evidence on record. Both the courts committed manifest error of law. The main thrust of the arguments for the claimants is that the award of the Civil Court in Ex. A-3 marked in the second case relating to notification dated 10-1-1977 acquiring 2.17 acres of land in T.S. No. 135 of the nearby lands, the LAO had awarded at Rs 8.75 per sq. yd. and the reference court determined its compensation at Rs 50 per sq. yd., which was upheld on appeal by the High Court. The fixation of market value of acquired lands as prevailing in 1983-85 at Rs 150 is not high. Claimant also relied upon another award on reference which is the subject-matter in the first case and yet another award Ex. A-12 in OP No. 6/85 which is pending in appeal in the High Court apart from the sale deed Ex. A-10 relied on and accepted by the High Court in both the cases and Exs. A-16 and 17 in the first case.

5. The question, therefore, is what would be the market value prevailing as on the respective dates of notification. In the first case claimants have relied upon two sale deeds Exs. A-16 and 17 sold on 2-2-1983 from the very same acquired land and claimed to be on the basis of a layout said to have been obtained from the competent authorities. According to the claimants, it would work out at Rs 150 per sq. yd. Since the claimants themselves had sold those lands to others, they would reflect the market value of lands as prevailing near about the date of acquisition and could be of assistance to determine the compensation as on 1983. In the other case, the claimants relied upon the very same award as also sale deed Ex. A-10 in which the land sold is 120 sq. yds. for a sum of Rs 16,000 working out at Rs 133 per sq. yd. The reference court relied upon the basic valuation register maintained by the municipalities on the basis of the notification issued by the Government under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. In fact, the reference court mainly relied upon that document and awarded compensation on its basis.

6. The admissibility and evidentiary value of the entries in the basic value register was considered by this Court in Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer{(1994) 4 SCC 595}. After an elaborate consideration this Court held that the basic value register is maintained only for fiscal purpose of collecting stamp duty and registration charges. The market value mentioned therein cannot form a foundation to determine the compensation under Section 23(1) of the Act. It is settled law that the market value should be determined