The market value of acquired land can be determined by considering the sale deeds of similar lands in the same village, especially when the acquired land is a homestead land and has already been developed.

P. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector. Challenging the award passed by the Subordinate Judge, Jaipur in L. A. Misc. Case No. 38 of 1986.

( 2 ) AC. 0. 80 decimals of land appertaining to Plot No. 748 recorded as homestead in mouza Charinangal was acquired for construction of Krushnadaspur-Ratnagiri Road under Gazette Notification No. 2139 dated 7-12-1984. The Land Acquisition Collector had offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per decimal of land and Rs. 3,000/- for the house standing thereon, but no compensation had been awarded for the well situated in the acquired land. The original claimant, Dhanu Behera, the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents received the compensation under protest and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per decimal of land, Rs. 50,000/- for the house and Rs. 6,000/- for the well. The Subordinate Judge by his order dated 13-9-88 awarded compensation of Rs. 7,000/- for the house and Rs. 1,000/- for the well but confirmed the market value of the land. The original claimant filed F. A. No. 260 of 1991 which was disposed of on 11-5-1993. While confirming the valuation in respect of the house and the well, the Hon'ble High Court remanded the matter to the Subordinate Judge for fresh determination of market value in respect of the land and directed that opportunity shall be given to the claimant to prove the sale deeds of the years 1980 and 1982 in respect of other lands in village Charinangal and to prove the other similar transaction, if any. Opportunity was also given to both sides to adduce oral evidence to explain the nature of land etc. in the sale deeds as well as the acquired land. The present respondents were substituted in the earlier first appeal and one of them was examined as P. W. 4 after remand. He has proved the sale deeds dated 26-4-82 and 5-9-80 as Exts. 4 and 5. No further evidence was adduced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector.

( 3 ) AS per Ext. 4, PW. 4 had sold Ac. 0. 2 decimals of homestead land on 26-4-82 for Rs. 2,000/- that is to say at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per decimal. Ext. 3 shows that another co-villager had sold Ac. 0. 5 decimals of land in the year 1980 for Rs. 3,000/- that is to say at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per decimal. From the unchallenged evidence of P. W. 4, it is apparent that the aforesaid pieces of homestead land were at a higher level than the acquired land. Keeping in view the fact that the aforesaid lands had been sold in the year 1980 and 1982 and the land in the present case had been acquired in December 1984, the Subordinate Judge fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per decimal.

( 4 ) IN the appeal, it is contended that the valuation of a small tract of land should not have been taken into consideration while deciding about the market value of acquired land which was a larger area. The learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the reasons given by the trial Court has cited a decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 2298; Bhagwathula Samappa v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer Visakhapatnam Municipality and submitted that the proposition that a large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not an absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. He has further submitted that since the large tract which was acquired had already been developed, the price reflected in Exts. 4 and 5 should not be ignored. In the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court it was held (Para 13) :-"the proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the smal