The market value of acquired land is determined based on the material showing the value of the land at the time of acquisition, and post-notification sale instances may not be reliable for this purpose.

V.K.Bali, J.

1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of three connected L.P.A. Nos 395 of 1989, 396 of 1989 and 397 of 1989 as common questions of law and facts arise in all these matters. Learned counsel for the parties also suggest likewise. All these appeals arise from a common judgment dated August 25, 1988 rendered by learned Single Judge dealing with land acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , dated February 10, 1982. The bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention have, however, been extracted from L.P.A. No. 395 of 1989.

2. Brief facts of the case reveal that area measuring 23 Kanals 19 Marias belonging to the claimant-appellants was acquired by the State Government for the construction of 66 K.V. Grid Station by the Electricity Board vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , dated February 10, 1982. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 13,000/- per acre, which, on reference by the claimants was enhanced to Rs. 40,000/- per acre by learned District Judge vide his order dated 6.3.1986. Learned Single Judge vide judgment dated August 25, 1988 has further enhanced market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre. The claimants are still not satisfied and have filed these Letter Patent Appeals.

3. The only contention that has been raised before us is that the land is located in developed area and has a potential for residential and commercial sites and, therefore, the compensation, as determined by learned Single Judge is too inadequate. It is further urged that even though the land of the appellant Raj Kaur in L.P.A. No. 395 of 1989 has been severed into two parts as a result of severance of land, yet no compensation on that count has been determined by learned Trial Court or Learned Single Judge. Insofar as, the first contention of learned counsel, as noted above, is concerned, we may mention that howsoever potential a land may be, the market value of the same is always determined on the basis of material showing market value of the land there, at the time of acquisition. Insofar as the sale deeds produced by the appellants are concerned, the same are wholly irrelevant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants, during the course of arguments, for the purpose of determining market value of the acquired land, has relied upon the following sale deeds :-

Sale deeds Date of Sale Area Sold Sale Price (per acre)

Consideration

Ex. A-1 7.12.1982 3-12 Rs. 49,680/- Rs. 1,10,400A/-

Ex. A-2 2.3.1983 3-10 Rs. 48,470/- Rs. 1,10,788/-

Ex. A-3 8.8.1983 3-10 Rs. 48,470/- Rs. 1,10,788/-

Ex. A-4 13.1.1982 0-5 Rs. 7,500/- Rs. 2,40,400/-

Ex. A-8 21.6.1985 20-5 Rs. 2,76,562/- Rs. 74,999/-

A bare look at the sale instances referred to above shows that but for sale instance Ex.A4 which pertains to 13.1.1982, all other sale instances are post-notification. Learned Single Judge, however, preferred to rely upon Ex.A8 dated 21.6.1985 pertaining to sale of an area of 20 Kanals 5 Maria for a sum of Rs. 2,76,562/- at the rate of Rs. 74,999/- per acre. It is on the basis of the above sale instance that the market value of the land was determined at Rs. 50,000/- per acre.

5 Sale instance Ex.A8 is post-notification pertaining to a period of three years when notification under Section 4 was issued. It is doubtful whether such a sale instance could at all be relied upon for the purpose of determining the market value at the time when Notification under Section 4 was issued. Be that as it may, inasmuch as the State of Punjab has not chosen to file any appeal, we do not want to comment on this aspect any further but for to say that the appellants, in any case, do not deserve any further enhancement. In so far sale instance Ex.A-4 is concerned the same pertains to just a mo