The value of acquired land is influenced by its proximity to the Highway and the need for development cost deductions.

ORDER :

S.N. Variava and H.K. Sema, JJ. - All these appeals can be disposed of by this common order.

In respect of the land in question, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 30th June, 1992. This notification pertains to 27 acres, 12 cents in Survey Nos.685, 686, 723, 724, 725 and 726/1 of Lakshmipuram Village, Kurnool District. The land was being acquired for the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited for the purposes of establishment of L.P. Gas filing plant. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre vide Award no.4/92 dated 31st October, 1992. Being dissatisfied, the claimants filed a reference.

2. The Reference Court, by its order dated 30th December, 1995, fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre for the land in Survey Nos.725 and 726/1; at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- per acre for the land in Survey Nos.724 and 685 and at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per acre for the land in Survey Nos.723 and 686. The Reference Court passed the said order on the basis that the only comparable instance of sale was a sale deed dated 20th September, 1991 which had been marked as Exhibit B-4. That Sale Deed was for 50 cents in Survey Nos.742 and 743/1, Lakshmipuram Village which had been purchased at the rate of Rs. 90,000/-. This land was 200 feet away from the National Highway and a 30 feet wide road had been provided free of charge for access to the land from the National Highway.

3. It must be mentioned that the Reference Court had also before it two other Sale Deeds, being Exhibit Nos.B-1 and B-3 in respect of which the vendor and vendee had been examined. Exhibit B-1 was a Sale Deed dated 4th June, 1990 for only 0.25 cents in Survey No.94 of Dupadu Village which had been purchased at the rate of Rs. 75,000/-. Apart from the fact that this was a very small piece of land, it was at a distance of 100 meters from Dupadu Railway Station and had a Silver Factory on the land adjoining to it. Thus, this was not a comparable instance and was rightly not considered by the Reference Court.

4. The other Sale Deed Exhibit B-3, was dated 18th December, 1991. It was in respect of 1 acre 80 cents of land in Survey Nos.134, 136 and 137 of Dinnedevarapadu Village which had been purchased for Rs. 4,00,000/-. This land was at a distance of = kilometre from the acquired land. The Reference Court excluded this on the basis that it was at some distance and in different villages whereas Exhibit B-4 was in the same village and very close to the acquired land.

5. The Reference Court rightly held that Exhibit B-4 was the most comparable instance. The Reference Court noted that the land in Exhibit B-4 was very close to the Highway and would thus have a higher value than lands which were further away from the Highway. The Reference Court also considered the fact that the Sale Deed in Exhibit B-4 was of 20th September, 1991. It, therefore, increased the price by Rs. 20,000/- (as the Notification was of 1992); deducted 33% towards development charges and arrived at a figure of Rs. 1,35,000/- for the land abutting the Highway. The Reference Court held that land which was further away from the Highway necessarily had to have a lower value and accordingly gave the lower values set out herein above.

6. The appellant being aggrieved by the increase and the claimants wanting a further increase, filed appeals to the High Court. The High Court ignoring the fact that different lands, in different Survey Nos., not identically located had been acquired proceeded to hold that the acquired land was a compact block having a road frontage of 1000 feet (300 meters) on the Highway. If such lands are to be considered as compact blocks then in all acquisitions there would only be compact blocks. On this erroneous reasoning the High Court decided that all the lands must have the same price.

7. The High Court overlooked the fact that Survey Nos.685, 686, 732 and 724 had no f