# DOLLAR COMPANY, MADRAS v. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS - **Citation:** [1975] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 403 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1975-05-01 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 667 of 1968 - **Bench:** V. R. Krishna !Yer, R. S. Sarkaria, A. C. Gupta - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dollar-company-madras-v-collector-of-madras-6528 - **Pages:** 6 ## Headnote Land ~4.cquisition Act-Section 23-Market Value-Prirtciple on which Appellate Court interferes. The suit land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The Land A Acquisition Officer awaided Rs. MO per ground as compensation. The City C ~ Civil Court awarded at the rate of Rs. 1000 /- per ground. The High Court on appeal awarded Rs .. 1800 per ground. The appellant himself purchased the ,.. ....- suit land about 10 months before the notification under s. 4 was made at a price of ks. 410 per ground. The appellant spent a little money on filling up the r pond. · HEID : Dismissing the appeal, This Court interferes with the judgment of the High Court only if the High Court applies a principle wrongly or because some important point affecting valuation has been over~looked or misapplied. A court of appeal interferes not when the judgment under attack is not right, but only when it is.shown to be wrong. [404 E-FG] D HELD FURTHER-Market value is ""·hat a willing purchaser will pay a E willing vendor. The best evidence of the value of property is the sale of the very property to which the claimant is a party. If the sale was long ago, the Court \VOuld examine more recent sales of comparab1e lands as throwing better Jigbt on current land value. In the present case, the appellant himself purch.ued the land at the rate of Rs. 410 per ground. [404 H. 405 A.BJ HELD-There is no error in principle in the High Court Judgment nDr hae F any of the limited grounds on which these Court's jurisdiction can be legiti- ' mately exercised been made out. [408-CD] ## Text i DOLLAR COMPANY, MADRAS v. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS May 1, 1975 [V. R. KRISHNA !YER, R. S. SARKARIA AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ] Land ~4.cquisition Act-Section 23-Market Value-Prirtciple on which Appellate Court interferes. The suit land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The Land A Acquisition Officer awaided Rs. MO per ground as compensation. The City C ~ Civil Court awarded at the rate of Rs. 1000 /- per ground. The High Court on appeal awarded Rs .. 1800 per ground. The appellant himself purchased the ,.. ....- suit land about 10 months before the notification under s. 4 was made at a price of ks. 410 per ground. The appellant spent a little money on filling up the r pond. · HEID : Dismissing the appeal, This Court interferes with the judgment of the High Court only if the High Court applies a principle wrongly or because some important point affecting valuation has been over~looked or misapplied. A court of appeal interferes not when the judgment under attack is not right, but only when it is.shown to be wrong. [404 E-FG] D HELD FURTHER-Market value is ""·hat a willing purchaser will pay a E willing vendor. The best evidence of the value of property is the sale of the very property to which the claimant is a party. If the sale was long ago, the Court \VOuld examine more recent sales of comparab1e lands as throwing better Jigbt on current land value. In the present case, the appellant himself purch.ued the land at the rate of Rs. 410 per ground. [404 H. 405 A.BJ HELD-There is no error in principle in the High Court Judgment nDr hae F any of the limited grounds on which these Court's jurisdiction can be legiti- ' mately exercised been made out. [408-CD] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 667 of 1968. From the judgment and order dated 31st January, 1967 of the 'Madras High Court in Appeal No. 412 of 1962. N. Natesan, K. Jayaram and R. ChandraseRher, for the appellant Govind Swaminathan, N. S. Sivam, A. V. Rangam and A. Subha· shini, for the respondent. • The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G KRISHNA IYER, J.-This is a pedestrian appeal by a land-owner H whose property, having been acquired compulsorily by the State, asks ~ for more compensation, probably appetised by increases over the Collector's award granted by the City Civil Court and the High Court. The grounds urged are conventional, based on comparison of pri~es shown in land sales in the neighbourhood and the general escalation of urban land values in the country. ·tr- , SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] SUPP• S.C.R. ·A 127 odd 'grounds' (a ground is aronnd 5-112 cents; .actually2,400 sq. ft) were acquired in 1959 for the i:onstruction of a Hous- r ing Colony for the Madras Port Trust employees by the then :Madras State. They comprise R. S. No. 4032/1 and other items with which we are not concemec~, since the owners of those items have not come up in appeal to this Court .. The relevant notification under s. 4( 1) B was made on August 12, 1959 and so the compensation has to be pegged to the market value as on that date. Of course, 16 years have rolled by since, thanks to delay which bas come to stay in the administrative and forensic processes of our land. That is by the way. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 800/- per ground. The City • Civil Court, approaching the problem of valuation plot;wise, as for, a housing colony, made the necessary deductions involved in that C process and awarded at the rate. of Rs. 1,000/- per ground. The .,- High Court, on appeal, made an upward revision, c!iscarding the trial • court's approach and awarded Rs. 1,800/- per ground. The State • has ·not come up in appeal, but the unquenched claimant asks ; for more in appeal, demanding at least Rs. 2,200/- per ground. D E Generally speaking, a cardinal component in the escalation of prices of urban realty which does not find sufficient expression in the ancient Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is the developmental operations inevitable in a rapidly industrialising society for which the individual owner ' makes no social contribution. Be that as it may, courts have to apply the legislation as extant, it being left to the law-makers to harmonize social justice which individual rights by appropriate reforms. We have to proceed to determine the compensation according to the canons crystallized in s. 23 of the Act . . · At ihe outset, we must. warn ourselves of the broad guideline that in an appeal from· an award ·granting compensation this Court F will not interiere unless there is something to show not merely that on the balance of evidence it is possible to reach a different conclusion but that the judgment cannot be supported by reason of a wrong . • application or principle or because some important point affecting valuation has been overlooked or misapplied. Moreover. there is a prudent condition to which the appellate power, generally speaking, is subject. A court of appeal interferes not when the judgment under < _ G . attack is not right but only when it is shown to be wrong. These twin . principles serve as backdrop to our approach ·to the rival_ contentions in the case. · · · · · · It is· true that compem.atio'u for c~~puls~ry . acqulsition, as gcr vemed by s. 23, gives high priority to the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification imder s. 4, sub-s. (1). H But what is market value ? It is a common place of this branch of jurisprudence that the main criterion is what a willing purchaser would • pay· a willing vendor.' Ordinarily a party will be entitled to get the amount that he actually and willingly paid for a particular property; provided the transaction be bona fide and entered into with due regard to the prevalent market conditions. and is proximate in time to the relevant date under s. 23. We may even say that the best evidence of. ·. the value of property is the sale of tlu!very property to which ,._ ' , ... DOLLAR CO., MADRAS v. COLLECTOR (Krishna Iyer,!.) 405 the claimant is a party. If the sale is of recent date, then all that need normally be proved is that the sale was between a willing purchaser and a willing seller, that there has not been any appreciable rise or fall since and that nothing has been done on the land during the short interval to raise its value (See Parks 'Principles & Practice of Valuations' p. 29-Eastern Law House--Calcutta,-IV Edition 1970). But if the sale was Jong ago, may be the Court would examine more recent sales of comparable lands as throwing better light on current land value. We emphasize this facet because the appellant himself purchased the land in question just ten months before the notification under s. 4(1), at a price of Rs. 410 per ground. There was a pond in the pot, the filling up of which is alleged to have cost some extra money according to the appellant, but he gave no evidence before the court on this matter with the result that we arc left with the estimate made by the Public Works Department for the filling up of the pond wliich works out at a much lesser figure. In short, less than a year before the date of commencement of acquisition proceedings, the appellant himself had purchased this land at a price around Rs. 450 (making allowance for the pond which he had filled up) and he has been awarded Rs. 1,800 per ground by the High Court Instead of wandering around neighbouring lands or guessing as to what the_ price of the disputed land might have been, we have before us the actual purchase of the suit property by the appellant himself and he has not set up any case of special features or circumstances depressing the land value or affecting the particular transaction so that one could ignore that sale as the product of artificial circumstances. We have thus a situation where the law should express a judgment from the experience of the appellant himself as against a judgment from speculation based on other transactions. A B c D Clinching evidence to correct uncertain prophesy is furnished here by the claimant's conduct. An actual transaction with respect to the specific land of recent date is a guide-book that courts may r not neglect when called upon to fix the precise compensation. Viewed fri>m a slightly different aspect, it is but fair that compulsory landacquisition while assuring a just equivalent should not be converted into an avaricious windfall. Can an owner who brought the land at Rs. 400 per ground and laid out a little more money on it, grouse on the score of inadequate or unjust recompense, if within a year after his own purchase he is paid by the State 400 per cent of what he G spent for the identical land ? Neither morality nor legality is violated in such a ca.se; for even a black marketeer's bosom may not be uneasy at the prospect of such a fortune which he could not have bargained for when he became the owner of the land some months before. 'It is the duty of the state or federal government, in the conduct of the inquest by which compensation is ascertained, to see that it is just, not merely to the individual whose property is taken, but to the public H which is to pay for it' (See 27 Am Jur 2nd paragraph 266, p. 53 of Vol. 27). All things considered, the appellant stands self-condemned by his own deed of purchase. . Property valuation as a practfaed art is greatly influenced by legal and economic constraints. But, in this case, we do not have any , 406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1975) SUPP· S.C.R. "A complex considerations since helpful indicators are. available. Pr!ce paid by the owner recently represents an expression of market . value, as bona fide evidence of value, subject, to such matters as (a) the relationship of the parties; (b) the market conditions and the. terms of sale and (c} the date of sale .. It may not end the enquiry but goes a long way to solve the problem. In this concction it may be useful B to refer to the . decision of this Court in S. L. A. Officer v. c D E F T .A. Setty(1 ) where it was observed : "It is not disputed that the function of the court in award- · · ing compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of the notification• . under ·· S. 4(1) and the methods of valuation may be (1) opiniol) of experts, (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bone fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing sirni-, Jar advantages and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquir- . ed"~. (p. 432, para 9-emphasis; ours) · Appreciating this lethal consequence, Sri Natesan, learned counsel, suggested rather obscurely that there might have . been pecuc liar possibilities why this land was sold to his client at a low price. But the reasoning breaks down because the claimant has not even hinted in his pleading or cared to testify what special circumstances played upon the transaction by which he got this identical ·land at the price he paid. We cannot be swayed by surmises floating in midair, particularly where the party who urges these feathery likelihoods stood mute at the trial stage. He failed to speak only to become a martyr for silence. · · Sri Natesan switched on to the prices of other lands in the locality to overcome the self-created obstacle of his client's purchase. 'J'.his is specious logicWhen decisive evidence of the market value. of the land compulsorily acquired is unavailable you seek light from com~ parable neighbourhood. Such is not the case here. Even so, we travelled with counsel on to other lands, to gather whether any grave G error had crept into the High Court's assessment. The discovery made was that lands in the near neighbourhood were sold sometime earlier at prices ranging from Rs. 300 . to Rs. 400 and in one case Rs. 900 (Ex. R2 to R7) while distant neighbours like that covered by Ex. Cll were valued by court at around Rs. 2,200 or Rs. 2,400 per ground. This wide disparity may be a trifle mystifying. Even so, we go by lands close by and not by one a mile-and-half. away as Ex-Cll H plot. In an industrial area, land prices are sensitive to an intricate variety of factors.· · Propinquity to highway or ports and. many. industriai. and social: imponderables enter the verdict of evaluation. So much so we cannot antomatically assert, witlt reference to a piece _of l_::nd a mile-and-half . (I) AJ.R. · 1959 S.C. 429· , • ... I •• / / ·- ... DOLLAR co., MADRAS v. COLLECTOR (Krishna Iyer, J.) 407 .. ' away, tha1 it serve5 as a guide for fixing the price of the suit plot. What the High Court has done is to have at the back of its mind the various sales, Exhibits R2 to R7, which fall far below the value demanded by the claimant and the high prices awarded by the same High Court in regard to ot11er lands distances away, have regard to the then growing industrial potential and make an intelligent guess. May be as the learned Advocate General has pointed out, in theilight of evidence regarding the precise land and the particular owner, there was no justification for awarding such a high price as has been dune but the State has not bothered to come up in appeal and we cannot hold that the High