The market value of land for compensation must be determined based on genuine transactional evidence rather than artificial valuation methods like Guideline Register Value.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2015 passed in L.A.O.P. No. 2 of 2014 by the learned District Judge, Karaikal, whereby the market value of the acquired land was enhanced from Rs. 1,500/- per Are, to Rs. 5,268/- per Are after deducting 30% with statutory benefits.

3. In this appeal, appellants are the Referring Officers and the respondent is the claimant. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to in the same rank as they stood in the Reference Court.

4. The brief facts leading to the appeal are that the respondent is the owner of land in R.S. No. 302/2 of Kurumbagaram Revenue Village, measuring 01H–05A–50Ca, classified as wet land. The said land was acquired under G.O.Ms.No.131 dated 17.10.2005, for the public purpose of providing free house-site pattas to SC/OEBC families. The Section 4(1) Notification was published in newspapers, gazette and by affixture, the last date being 05.12.2005.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer, for determining the market value, examined 70 sale deeds for the one-year period prior to the Notification, rejected 64 of them and retained only 6 low-value transactions. Among these, he particularly relied on the sale in R.S.No.193/4, where the sale value is Rs. 1,092/- per Are and the Guideline Register Value for 2004–2005 is Rs. 1,500/- per Are. Since the GLR Value was higher than the rates disclosed in the retained sale, he adopted the GLR and fixed the value of land at Rs. 1,500/- per Are. The total compensation awarded was Rs. 2,83,558/-, inclusive of solatium and additional amount.

6. The claimant, dissatisfied with the valuation, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, asserting that the acquired land is located within a fully-developed residential and industrial locality, surrounded by Air City Nagar, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar and Kottapakkam Layout, and proximate to Godrej, Kannan Chemicals and a Carbide Factory. It was submitted that the land required no reclamation or earth-filling and the Government itself immediately formed house-site layouts upon acquisition.

7. In support of her claim, the respondent relied upon three sale deeds, Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, all executed within the statutory one-year period and relating to lands situated at distances of 200–300 metres from the acquired land. These sale deeds reflected values of Rs. 7,711/-, Rs. 7,865/- and Rs. 7,000/- per Are respectively.

8. The Reference Court, finding Ex.C1–C3 to be proximate in time and situation and reflective of the true market condition, adopted the average rate of Rs. 7,525/- per Are, applied a 30% deduction for development, and fixed the market value at Rs. 5,268/- per Are. Aggrieved by the enhancement, the Referring Officers filed the present appeal.

9. In the appeal, the appellants contend that the Reference Court wrongly enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.5,268/- per Are by relying on Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, which relate to dry/manai lands situated near the main road, unlike the acquired wet land located farther away. They argue that these sales are not comparable, that the Court improperly considered future utilisation of the land, and that only the market conditions as on the date of the Section 4(1) Notification should have been considered.

10. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the LAO undertook a proper sale-data analysis and adopted GLR only because the retained transactions were of lesser value. It was further submitted that Ex.C1–C3 relate to superior lands situated nearer to the main road and therefore cannot be treated as comparable to the acqui