ORDER

1. The application for substitution is allowed.

2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1874 (for short the Act) acquiring, land admeasuring about 5.29 acres (28 bighas) comprised in Khasra Nos. 351/305/162 etc. situated in Yaquatpur, Delhi for the planned development (was published in the Union Gazette on 4-2-1964). The Collector in his award dated 26-5-1965 determined compensation at Rs 5000 per bigha together with 15% solatium and interest @ 6%. The Additional District Judge by his award and decree dated 5-8-1969, determined the compensation at the rate of Rs 30 per sq. yard. On further appeal under Section 54 of the Act, the learned Single Judge determined market value at Rs 78 per sq. yard, deducted Rs 7 for development charges, fixed the land available as per the layout at 78.45% of the land areas saleable for plots. The learned Judge further held that market value for undeveloped area was Rs 23 per sq. yard while for the developed area in Greater Kailash Part I, the market value came to Rs 39.34 per sq. yard. On application of the average, the learned Judge fixed the market value at Rs 40 per sq. yard. On letters patent appeal, the Division Bench in the impugned judgment and decree dated 26-8-1981 dismissed the appeal. Thus this appeal by special leave.

3. Shri Mukul Mudgal, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, contended that the learned Single Judge having found that a sum of Rs 7 per sq. yard would be required for development charges of the saleable land of 78.45% as per the layout, committed an error of law in fixing average price of developed and undeveloped land at Rs 40 per sq. yard. Having determined the market value at Rs 78 per sq. yard and having deducted an amount towards development charges and also determined the saleable plots of land at 78.45% of the land, he committed an error of law for further reducing the market value. Thus the learned Single Judge has applied wrong principle of law warranting interference.

4. The question, therefore, is what would be the correct market value that could be fixed as compensation of the land in question. It is seen that strong reliance was placed before the Reference Court on the sale transaction relating to developed area and undeveloped area. In the undeveloped area, the market value was Rs 23 per sq. yard and in the developed area, the market value was Rs 39.34 per sq. yard. It is seen that the High Court found these lands connected with developed roads.

5. It has been repeatedly held by a catena of decisions of this Court that when the market value is to be determined on the basis of small plots of land the same price cannot be expected to be realised when a large track of land is offered to a willing purchaser by a willing vendor. When layout has been obtained and the land is situated in a developed area, though sale relating to small plots of lands were produced before the Court, on recording a finding that such sales are genuine and not intended to inflate the market value of the land, this Court held that necessary directions should be given in determining the true market value based on resaleable price at a future date.

6. It is an admitted fact that the lands in question are in undeveloped area though adjacent to the developed area, viz., Greater Kailash-I. The average price given by the Court also does not appear to be correct. In Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector [(1988) 2 SCC 150 : AIR 1988 SC 943], in paragraph 6, this Court had laid the principle of deduction of 53%, when small plots of land were found to be of genuine sale and situated in a potentially developed area as a wholesale price. In Hasanali Khanbhai and Sons v. State of Gujarat [(1995) 5 SCC 422] this Court also considered all the earlier cases and held that the small extents of land sold in plots, would not furnish the sole basis to fix same price offered by them. Therefore, the deduction of 60% of the value per sq. yard by the High Court was uphe