Judgment

THAKKAR, J. :- Controversy is centred on the question of valuation of the lands under acquisition. The trial Court had correctly valued the lands and the High Court had erroneously revised the valuation downwards - complains the original owner of the land who is the appellant in these two allied appeals [By Certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India as it existed at the material time.].

2. The lands in question situated in a locality known as Tigris Camp within the city limits of Poona in Maharashtra, admeasuring 15 acres and 17 Gunthas, comprised in Survey Nos. 85 and 86, were placed under acquisition pursuant to a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published on March 8,1956. The acquisition was a part of the total acquisition of 101 acres 33 Gunthas made for a public purpose viz. for construction of the Headquarters, Poona Rural Police Charge. The appellant was not satisfied with the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of his parcel of 15 Acres 7 Gunthas and applied for a reference being made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Two references were made to a Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining the market value of the lands for the purpose of awarding compensation to the appellants. The Trial Court determined the market value of 2 1/4 acres forming part of Survey Nos. 85 and 86 at Rs. 15,100/- per acre. Market value in respect of the remaining 13 acres and 7 Gunthas was determined at Rs. 8692/- per acre. The present dispute is confined to valuation of 13 Acres 7 Gunthas forming part of Survey No. 85. The High Court has reduced the total compensation payable in respect of the land in question from Rs. 1,14,517/-, computed at Rs. 8692/- per acre to Rs. 63,846/- (which works out at Rs. 4845.87 per acre) thereby reducing the compensation awarded to the appellant by Rs. 50,554/- in respect of this parcel of land.

3. Before tackling the problem of valuation of the land under acquisition it is necessary to make some general observations. The compulsion to do so has arisen as the Trial Court has virtually treated the award rendered by the Land Acquisition Officer as a judgment under appeal and has evinced unawareness of the methodology for valuation to some extent. The true position therefore requires to be capsulized.

4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen :

(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court.

(2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court.

(3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.

(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.

(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under Ss. 6 and 9 are irrelevant).

(6)