The determination of compensation in land acquisition cases involves imponderables and approximation, and unless inherently unacceptable, the court should not substitute the exercise undertaken by the lower court.

ORDER :

Civil Appeal Nos. 4146-4147 of 2013 have been filed by the landowners–claimants seeking enhancement of compensation; Civil Appeal No. 4620 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No. 4621 of 2013 have been filed by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") being aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation as made by the High Court.

2. For acquisition of land measuring roughly about 17 acres compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per square yard was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector which was enhanced to Rs. 25 per square yard by the Reference Court and to Rs.29 per square yard by the High Court.

3. We have perused the relevant records and the orders of the High Court as well as the Reference Court. We have also looked into the details of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

4. The landowners had exhibited several documents in support of their claim for higher compensation. Of these, specific notice was taken by the High Court of four sale deeds which were exhibited as Exhibits 139, 140, 141 and 142. On the other hand, on behalf of the Corporation reliance was placed on four documents which were marked as Exhibits 271, 306, 307 and 322. The High Court in the appeal filed by the land-owners exhaustively considered the evidentiary worth of the exemplars relied upon by the contesting parties and came to the conclusion that the sale deeds relied upon by the Corporation cannot form a reasonable basis for computation of compensation in view of the location of the land involved in the sale deeds and as the value/rate per square yard, on the basis of the prices mentioned in the sale deeds, is less than what was offered by the Land Acquisition Collector. Additionally, the High Court also took into account the fact that for parts of the acquired area other landowners had settled the compensation package by negotiation and agreement and the price agreed to was Rs. 16.10 per square yard.

5. Coming to the sale deeds exhibited on behalf of the landowners the High Court took the view that Exhibits 139, 140 and 141 were not reliable. The price mentioned in Exhibit 139 was found to be artificially high whereas Exhibits 140 and 141 were executed on dates which were roughly 20/21 months prior to the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the instant case. Considering the fact that the sale deed exhibited as Exhibited 142 (10th March, 1969) was closest in proximity of time to the date of the acquisition notification (10th September, 1970), though the sale was for an area of about 420 square yards, the High Court thought it proper to take the same into consideration. The price mentioned in the said sale deed (Exhibit 142) i.e. Rs.39.75 per square yards was taken as the base price and considering the time lag between the date of sale and the acquisition notification the High Court thought it proper to grant increase of 15% over the price mentioned in Exhibit 142. Thereafter 35% of such price was deducted to take care of development charges, conversion charges, etc. It is by the aforesaid method of calculation that the High Court came to the conclusion that the market price for the land should be Rs. 29 per square yard.

6. Having perused the reasons given by the High Court for accepting the sale deed dated 10th March, 1969 (Exhibit 142) and for deducting 35% from the value computed on the basis thereof, taking into account the evidence on record with regard to the location and the advantages and disadvantages of the land, we do not find any fault in the exercise undertaken and the market value determined by the High Court. Quantification of compensation is an exercise involving several imponderables and approximation and the figure arrived at may admit of different opinions. However, unless the exercise undertaken is inherently unacceptable the same ought not to be substituted by the appeal Court.