IMPORTANT POINT
For determining compensation, proximate sale deeds have more relevance.

JUDGMENT

RANJAN GOGOI, J. –

1. Leave granted.

2. By notification dated 21.10.1969 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") approximately 455 acres of land situated in villages Prahlad Garhi, Maharajpur and Karket Madan was proposed to be acquired in favour of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation'). An area measuring 42 bighas belonging to the appellant was included in the said Notification.

3. Consequential Notifications under Section 6 and 17(1) of the Act were published on 23.6.1970. Possession of the acquired land was taken over on 10.09.1970 and the award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 4.5.1972 granting compensation at the rate of Rs.1.33 per square yard. In doing so, a sale deed dated 20.1.1969 in respect of an area of about 200 square yard situated in the village Maharajpur sold for Rs.400/- was taken as the base exemplar. 33% deduction was made on account of the smallness of the area covered by the aforesaid sale deed, thereby, assessing compensation for the acquired land at Rs.1.33 per square yard.

4. The appellant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Before the Reference Court the appellant filed sale deeds dated 13.06.1969 (Ex.1) and 16.10.1969 (Ex.2) executed by it in respect of land in the vicinity of the land acquired. The Reference Court, however, refused to accept and rely on the said sale deeds on the ground that the appellant, having come to know of the acquisition proceedings, had sold land at inflated price; the correct price was not known to the vendors who were not local residents of Meerut. The Reference Court, by order dated 26.08.1975, accordingly maintained the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

5. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a first appeal before the High Court seeking enhanced compensation. The claim was refused by order dated 17.8.2004 primarily on the ground that before determining the rate of compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer had verified 66 sale deeds in respect of lands situated in the neighbourhood which were sold within one year of/from the date of issuance of the Notifications in question.

6. Not satisfied, the appellant sought a review of the aforesaid order dated 17.8.2004 which was declined by the High Court by its order dated 26.08.2008. The appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.2715 of 2009 has been instituted in respect of the order of the High Court dated 26.08.2008 passed in the review application whereas SLP (C) No.11371 of 2009 has been filed against the main order of the High Court dated 17.08.2004.

7. We have heard Mr. B.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the order dated 26.08.1975 passed by the Reference Court is ex-facie erroneous inasmuch as the sale deeds dated 13.06.1969 (Ex.1) and 16.10.1969 (Ex.2) which could have furnished a reasonable basis for computing the correct quantum of compensation was brushed aside by the learned Reference Court for reasons that are plainly unacceptable. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the fact that Exhibit-1 (sale deed dated 12.6.1969) pertains to an area measuring 233 square yards and the sale transaction was effected at Rs.5126/- i.e. Rs.22/- per square yards whereas Exhibit-2 (sale deed dated 16.10.1969) pertains to an area of 675 square yards which was sold for a total consideration of Rs.13,320/- i.e. Rs.19.73 per square yards. The aforesaid sale transactions being in respect of land located in the same village i.e. Maharajpur and additionally belonging to the appellant itself, the Reference Court was not right in brushing aside the same on the grounds, already noticed. It is urged that the High Court having failed to correct the aforesaid error, appropriate interference by this Court will be justified.

9. Controv