The court considered the market value of the acquired land based on its location, potential use, and the market value of a similar land nearby.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Cl. X of the Letters Patent is against the judgment and decree passed by Hon ble Mr. Justice Avadh Behari dated 10th March, 1980 in R. F. A. No. 35/70 dismissing the appeal for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.

( 2 ) THE land situate in the estate of Sadhora Kalhan was needed by the Government at the public expenses for a public purpose, namely, for the planned development of Delhi. A preliminary notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was made vide notification dated 25th March, 1964. A declaration under S. 6 of the Act was made vide notification dated 15th July, 1964. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award No. 1801 and announced on 12th March, 1965. It covered a total area of 60 bighas and 5 biswas. The acquired land was divided into three blocks. He offered compensation for block a @ Rs. 5,500. 00 per bigha, for block b @ Rs. 5,000. 00 per bigha, and for block c @ Rs. 4,500. 00 per bigha.

( 3 ) SHRI Prakash Chand Kashyap, the appellant herein, had purchased field No. 203/2 measuring 7 bighas and 4 biswas situate in the revenue estate of Sadhora Kalan in an auction held by the Ministry of Rehabilitation on 1st Sept. 1959 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,50,500. 00. This land was acquired by the aforesaid award No. 1801. He was aggrieved with the compensation offered by the Collector and filed reference petition under S. 18 of the Act claiming the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 250. 00 per sq. yard. The reference was entrusted to the court of Shri G. R. Luthra, the then Additional District Judge, Delhi. The learned Additional District Judge taking in view the good situation of the land and the lapse for 4 years after the purchase of land gave an increase of 25% and found the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,55,000. 00. The appeal of the appellant against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge was dismissed by Avadh Behari, J. vide order dated 10th March, 1980.

( 4 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge, the resolution dated 9th Feb. 1954, Ext. Al, of the Delhi Improvement Trust was relied upon whereby plot No. 5 in block No. 23 in Roshanara Extension Scheme measuring 312 sq. yards was allotted for an electric sub station to the Electricity Board. This allotment was on payment of premium at the rate of Rs. 88,000. 00per acre plus 2% p. a. as ground rent thereon on perpetual lease basis. The second resolution No. 308 dated 27th July, 1963, Ext. A3, relied upon was in respect of allotment of plot No. SF 6, block No. 23, Roshanara Extension measuring 400 sq. yards for extention of the existing electric sub station building. In this resolution it is noticed that an enquiry from the property dealers was made and it had been found that the freehold value of the land in that locality varied from Rs. 225. 00to Rs. 275. 00 per sq. yard and, thus, giving an average of Rs. 250. 00 per sq. yard freehold. The land was leased to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi @rs. 167. 00persq. yard plus 21/2 p. a. as ground rent thereon. The third resolution No. 624 dated 16th Oct. 1965, Ext. A2, is in respect of allotment of plots. Nos. SF9,10 and 11 (each measuring 257. 91, 257. 91 and 314. 16 sq. yards respectively), block No. 27, Roshanara Extension Scheme to the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking for an office building. This was allotted to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for the purpose @rs. 150. 00per sq. yard on perpetual leasehold basis plus 2 P. a. ground rent thereon. Reference is also made to statement of Shri E. V. Wayali, Clerk, Delhi Development Authority, AW 2, about the sale of leasehold rights in plots in Roshanara Extension Scheme in the years 1961 to 1963. The tendered rate in the year 1961 for residential plots is deposed as Rs. 70. 00 per sq. yard.

( 5 ) IN our view the learned single Judge rightly opined that the aforesaid evidence is entirely irrelevant. The