The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to consider relevant sale transactions of similar lands in the vicinity to determine the market value for compensation assessment under the Land Acquisition Act.

Heard both sides.

2. Animadverting upon the enhanced compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur vide judgment dated 11. 1997 in L.A.O.P.No.353 of 1996, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed this appeal. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. A resume of facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

The Government effected publication under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 26.07.1990 intending to acquire the lands in Survey No. 375/2 totalling an extent 0.73.0 hectares in Annialam Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Dharmapuri District for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidas. After complying with the procedure, the land acquisition officer passed the award dated 16.03.1993 assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.16,000/- per acre to Rs.2,18,333/-per acre. The land owner being aggrieved by it got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

4. During enquiry, before the trial Court, C.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.C1 was marked and no one was examined on the side of the respondent and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. Ultimately the Sub Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.16,000/-per acre to Rs.2,18,333/- per acre.

5. Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement, the Government has preferred this appeal on various grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:

The Sub Court simply relied on Ex.C1, which happened to be the self-serving document of the land owner himself and awarded compensation.

Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

6. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Courts assessment of compensation from Rs.16,000/- per acre to Rs.2,18,333/-per acre is justifiable and proper.

7. A mere perusal of the judgment of the trial Court would amply make the point clear that the Sub Court relied on Ex.C1, the only document marked on the side of the land owner. The ratiocination as found set out in the judgment and decree of the Sub Court is that the land owner himself an year anterior to Section 4 (1) Notification voluntarily sold the land and that would be the best criterion to assess the compensation. In support of this, the Sub Court also relied on the decision of the Honble Apex Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 2625 (Special Deputy Collector and another vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others). However, the Sub Court wrongly understood the cited precedent. An excerpt from the decision is extracted here under for ready reference:

"8. The best evidence of the value of property are the sale transactions in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party; the time at which the property comes to be sold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration; and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out. They are all relevant factors. In the absence of such a sale deed relating to the acquired land, the sale transactions relating to the neighbouring lands in the vicinity of the acquired land. In that case, the features required to be present are: it must be within a reasonable time of the date of the notification; it must be a bona fide transaction; it should be a sale of land similar to the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired; and it should possess similar advantageous features. These are relevant features to be taken into consideration to prove the market value of the acquired land as on the date of the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act. This would be established by examining either the vendor or the vendee. If it is proved that they are not available, the scribe of the document may also be examined in that behalf. Section 51-A of the Act only dispenses with the production of the original sale deed and directs to receive certified copy for the reason that partie