( 1 ) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of First Appeal No. 35 of 1968 also. Both the appeals arise out of the acquisition of open land belonging to the respondent for the construction of Auto Exchange building of the Post and telegraph Department at Jabalpur.

( 2 ) UNDER two notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act), 31330 sq. ft of land and 32400 sq. ft. of land, adjoining each other, were acquired. The notifications are dated 30-3-1963 and 26-7-1962, respectively. 31330 sq. ft. of land has frontage of 175 feet and is about 200 feet deep. The other land is situated immediately behind it and has no frontage. Behind both the acquired lands there is left to the respondent about 50000 sq. ft. of open land. In continuation of that land the respondent has his buildings. For brevity's sake, we will call the acquisition of 31330 sq. ft. of land as the 'first case' and the other case as the 'second case' throughout this judgment.

( 3 ) IN the first case, the Land Acquisition Officer came to the conclusion that the entire land abutting the road up to the depth of 70 feet was of higher value as it could be used for commercial purposes and therefore awarded for that portion of the land compensation at the rate of Rs. 3/-per sq. ft. For the remaining land in the first case, which, according to the Land Acquisition Officer, was only useful as residential plots, he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1. 87 paise per sq. ft. In the second case, the award of compensation was made by the Land Acquisition officer at the rate of Rs. 1. 87 paise per sq. ft. The Land Acquisition Officer also awarded compensation for severance of other land left with the respondent at the back of the land acquired at Rupees 2000/ -.

( 4 ) ON references made to the Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in both the cases, he awarded compensation for land at the uniform rate of Rs. 9/-per sq. ft. Placing reliance on three sale-deeds to which we shall refer in detail presently, he further awarded Rupees 30,000/-as damages for severance. Statutory compensation at the rate of 15% has also been awarded. Thus, in the first case, he awarded Rs. 281970/-as compensation for the land, Rupees 4295. 50 paise as solatium for compulsory acquisition, and Rs. 30000/-as damages for severance. In the second case, he awarded Rs. 291600/- as compensation for the land and rs. 43740/- as solatium for compulsory acquisition, total Rupees 335340/ -.

( 5 ) THE grievance made in both the appeals is that the basis adopted by the learned Additional District Judge in fixing the compensation at Rs. 9/- per sq. ft. is wholly unjustified and the award made to the respondent is excessive. It has also been urged that the award of Rs. 30000/-as damages is also unreasonably excessive.

( 6 ) IT will be helpful to state a few principles before we take up for consideration the two points involved in the case. The general principles for determining the compensation are specified in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. The compensation must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor would reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. The value to be ascertained is the value to the seller of the property in its actual condition at the time of expropriation with all its existing advantages and with all its possibilities, excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired; see Lala Narsingh Das v. Secretary of State, AIR 1925 PC 91.

( 7 ) THE market value is required to be considered as it was on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The value of the potentialities has to be taken into account even where the only possible purchaser is the authority purchasing under powers enabling compulsory acquisition. The sentimental considerations and enhanced valuation by reason of the scheme itself have to be totally excluded. The land is not to be