Judgment

K. RAMASWAMY

( 1 ) THIS appeal by special leave arises against the Division Bench judgment dated 24/11/1975 in A. S. No. 691 of 1972 of the A. P. High Court fixing the market value @ Rs. 10 per square yard. The facts lie in a short compass are stated thereunder. By notification under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short the Act) was published in the State Gazette on 21/11/1963 to acquire 5 acres - 589-1/ 3 sq. yards in T. S. No. 981, Block No. 34 of Waltair Ward, Vishakapatnam for a housing scheme. The Collector awarded at Rs. 1. 58 per sq. yard and on reference, the Civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10 per sq. yard with solatium at 15 per cent and interest at 4 per cent. The respondent claimed @ Rs. 12 per sq. yard. On appeal and cross appeals the High Court confirmed the award and dismissed the appeal as well as cross objections for enhancement to Rs. 12 per sq. yard. Two contentions have been raised by Shri Narsimahachari, the learned counsel for the appellant. Under Ex. B. 6 dated 3/08/1961; under Ex. B-7, dated Sept. 5, 1961 and Ex. B-8, dated Sept. 8, 1961 the respondent purchased one acre - 1936 sq. yards in each documents in the same T. S. No. 981 @ -0. 42 p. per sq. yard. He sold on 24/01/1963 in an extent of one acre under Ex. B. 10 @ Rs. 5 per sq. yard. Therefore, the aforesaid sale deeds, Exs. B. 6, B. 7, B. 8 and B. 10 will reflect the prevailing market value of the land in question. The trial Court and the High Court committed grievous error in placing reliance on a decision of the High Court in A. S. No. 191 of 1967 dated 11/11/1970 awarding @ Rs. 10 per sq. yard in respect of 6,209 sq. yards in T. S. No. 1008, Block No 39, Waltair Beach Road which was acquired under a notification dated 19/03/1961 for the purpose of Caltex Oil Refinery. The price fixed therein does not reflect the correct market value while the bonafide sale deed of purchase and sale by the respondents relating to the acquired land are available on records and form correct basis. The courts below committed grave error of law in completely excluding those sale transactions and relying upon that judgment. We find force in the contention, though Shri Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently resisted it. It is settled law by catena of decisions that the market value postulated in S. 23 (1) of the Act designed to award just and fair compensation for the lands acquired. The words "market value," would postulate price of the land prevailing on the date of the publication of the notification under section 4 (1 ). This Court repeatedly laid the acid test that in determining the market value of the land, the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser would form the basis to fix the market value. For ascertaining the market rate, the Court can rely upon such transactions which would offer a reasonable basis to fix the price. The price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the acquisition of the land in question would be the best piece of evidence. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about the time of the notification would supply the data to assess the market value. It is not necessary to cite all the decisions suffice to state that in a recent judgment in Periya and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, Civil Appeals Nos. 543 to 570 of 1974 dated 6/09/1990 (reported. in AIR 1990 SC 2192), a Bench of this Court, to which one of us K. R. S. , J. , was a member surveyed all the relevant precedents touching the points. In the light of the settled legal position let us consider whether the High Court and the Civil Court are justified in excluding the sale deeds completely and to place reliance on another judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of A. P. Admittedly, the claimant is a vendee in Exs. B. 6 to B. 8