# DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, GUJARAT & ANR v. MADHUBAI GOBARBHAI & ANR - **Citation:** [2009] 11 S.C.R. 523 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2009-07-29 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 204 of 2000 - **Bench:** S.B. Sinha, Cyriac Joseph - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dy-collector-land-acquisition-gujarat-anr-v-madhubai-gobarbhai-anr-25082 - **Pages:** 68 ## Headnote LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: s.23 - Acquisition of land that would submerge in river c water in process of construction of a dam on the river - Compensation - Computation of - Criteria for - Positive and negative factors to be taken into consideration - Explained - Exemplars considered - Market value of lands acquired determined accordingly. D ~ s. 23 - Acquisition of land with construction - Determination of compensation - HELD: For extent of land on which godowns stand, separate compensation need not be paid, when compensation based on rental value of godowns is being paid - Land Acquisition Officer to calculate the E compensation accordingly following the method adopted by High Court. Large tracts of agricultural and non-agricultural lands situate on bo!h sides of river Thebi in three villages, F namely, Amreli, Baxipure and Giriya in the State of Gujarat were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as the said area would sub-merge in water in the process of construction of a dam on river Thebi. The area on eastern bank of the river including the lands in village G Giriya :was developed whereas the area on the weste.rn bank including the lands of villages Baxipura and Amreli was under developed. A portion of the acquired land also fell within municipal limit of Amreli town. Compensation 523 H 524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. A was awarded to land owners at different rates according to the lands falling in different groups. For fands covered under Group I, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.75/- per sq. mtr. for the lands falling in Group II, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation B at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq. mtr. for 'Baayat' land, Rs.8/- per sq. mtr. for 'Jirayat' land, and Rs.50/- per sq. mtr. For non-agricultural land. The reference court awarded compensation at uniform rate of Rs.400/- per sq. mtr. The High Court maintained the compensation for none agricultural land, but reduced it to Rs.300/- per sq. mtr. for agricultural land. For the lands of Group Ill, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.50/- per sq. mtr. for agricultural land, and Rs.150/- for nonagricultural land. The reference court enhanced 0 compensation to Rs.160/- per sq. mtr. for agricultural land, and Rs.240/- for non-agricultural land. The High Court confirmed the order. Disposing of the appeals, the Court E HELD: 1.1. Determining the market value of the land acquired would depend upon a large number of positive and negative factors. Criteria for determinatio'1 of the market value of the agricultural land and homestead land may be different. Amount of consideration mentioned in F a deed of sale executed in respect of similarly situated land near about the date of issuance of acquisition notification is also a relevant factor. In the absence of any such exemplars the market value can be determined on yield basis or in case of an orchard on the basis of G number of fruit bearing trees. [Para 24 and 25] [543-G, H; 544-D] H Viluben Jha/ejar Contractor vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 sec 789, relied on. - - l DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, GUJARAT & 525 ANR. v. MADHUBAI GOBARBHAI & ANR. Group I A 1.2. In view of the Constitution Bench decision* an application filed by the appellant for placing additional documents on record was allowed by this Court's order dated 23.10.2008. Therefore, the said transactions as well 8 would be taken into consideration. [Para 23] [543-F] *Cement Corporation of India Ltd. etc. etc. v. Purya and others etc. etc. (2004) 8 SCC 270; P. Ram Reddy and Ors. Vs. Land, Acuisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 305; Ranvir C Singh and another v. Union of India (2005) 12 sec 59 and Land Acquisition Officer & Manda/ Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah (2001) 3 SCC 530, relied on . . ' 1.3. In the instant matters, the High Court mixed up o the awards made in respect of the lands situated on the eastern side of the River with that of ## Text _Characters 0–39,644 of 120,160. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39644 for what follows._ [2009] 11 S.C.R. 523 DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, GUJARAT & ANR. A v. MADHUBAI GOBARBHAI & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 204 of 2000) JULY 29, 2009 B [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: s.23 - Acquisition of land that would submerge in river c water in process of construction of a dam on the river - Compensation - Computation of - Criteria for - Positive and negative factors to be taken into consideration - Explained - Exemplars considered - Market value of lands acquired determined accordingly. D ~ s. 23 - Acquisition of land with construction - Determination of compensation - HELD: For extent of land on which godowns stand, separate compensation need not be paid, when compensation based on rental value of godowns is being paid - Land Acquisition Officer to calculate the E compensation accordingly following the method adopted by High Court. Large tracts of agricultural and non-agricultural lands situate on bo!h sides of river Thebi in three villages, F namely, Amreli, Baxipure and Giriya in the State of Gujarat were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as the said area would sub-merge in water in the process of construction of a dam on river Thebi. The area on eastern bank of the river including the lands in village G Giriya :was developed whereas the area on the weste.rn bank including the lands of villages Baxipura and Amreli was under developed. A portion of the acquired land also fell within municipal limit of Amreli town. Compensation 523 H 524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. A was awarded to land owners at different rates according to the lands falling in different groups. For fands covered under Group I, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.75/- per sq. mtr. for the lands falling in Group II, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation B at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq. mtr. for 'Baayat' land, Rs.8/- per sq. mtr. for 'Jirayat' land, and Rs.50/- per sq. mtr. For non-agricultural land. The reference court awarded compensation at uniform rate of Rs.400/- per sq. mtr. The High Court maintained the compensation for none agricultural land, but reduced it to Rs.300/- per sq. mtr. for agricultural land. For the lands of Group Ill, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.50/- per sq. mtr. for agricultural land, and Rs.150/- for nonagricultural land. The reference court enhanced 0 compensation to Rs.160/- per sq. mtr. for agricultural land, and Rs.240/- for non-agricultural land. The High Court confirmed the order. Disposing of the appeals, the Court E HELD: 1.1. Determining the market value of the land acquired would depend upon a large number of positive and negative factors. Criteria for determinatio'1 of the market value of the agricultural land and homestead land may be different. Amount of consideration mentioned in F a deed of sale executed in respect of similarly situated land near about the date of issuance of acquisition notification is also a relevant factor. In the absence of any such exemplars the market value can be determined on yield basis or in case of an orchard on the basis of G number of fruit bearing trees. [Para 24 and 25] [543-G, H; 544-D] H Viluben Jha/ejar Contractor vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 sec 789, relied on. - - l DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, GUJARAT & 525 ANR. v. MADHUBAI GOBARBHAI & ANR. Group I A 1.2. In view of the Constitution Bench decision* an application filed by the appellant for placing additional documents on record was allowed by this Court's order dated 23.10.2008. Therefore, the said transactions as well 8 would be taken into consideration. [Para 23] [543-F] *Cement Corporation of India Ltd. etc. etc. v. Purya and others etc. etc. (2004) 8 SCC 270; P. Ram Reddy and Ors. Vs. Land, Acuisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 305; Ranvir C Singh and another v. Union of India (2005) 12 sec 59 and Land Acquisition Officer & Manda/ Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah (2001) 3 SCC 530, relied on . . ' 1.3. In the instant matters, the High Court mixed up o the awards made in respect of the lands situated on the eastern side of the River with that of the western side. Admittedly, there was no development on the western side of the river. There was no railway line connecting the village with any big city nor was there any State highway E passing through the area. It has also not been shown that two crops were grown in the land. The High Court proceeded on the basis that although the acquired lands were situated on one side of the river, in view of the fact that entire acquired land was to be submerged, no justification can be made in regard to the nature of the land. The High Court erred in holding that distance of a few kilo meteFs from the Amreli town would not matter. The High Court furthermore opined that the lands in village Baxipura were also fertile and thus no discrimination can be made. [Para 32,36 and 40-41] [549G G; 548-8, C, D; 550-F, G] F 1.5. The variation in the price of the land within a few years is a matter of great significance. It is true that no single factor would be decisive for the purpose of arriving H 526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 11 S.C.R. A at the market value of the land. But in a case of this nature a holistic view is required to be taken. It is wholly improper to ignore the distinction between the agricultural land and the non-agricultural land. Even in the same area, value of the agricultural land and the nonB agricultural land may be considerably different. For the said purpose, existence of the road, railway station, airport, schools, colleges, hospitals etc. play an important role. It is not a case where developed area and undeveloped area or for that matter non-agricultural and c agricultural lands are merely divided by a road. It is also not a case where the entire area is known and treated to be one and the same, although a part of it may be governed by the Panchyat and the other part comes within a municipal area. It stands admitted that the 0 acquired land for all intent and purport is divided into two parts. The eastern part and only a small part of the western side is within the municipal area, and the other, consisting of agricultural lands, is outside the municipal area. It furthermore, stands admitted that the town has developed only on eastern side of the river and E agricultural lands are situated on the western side in which there is even no residential house. In a case of this nature, indisputably different criteria and norms are required to be adopted for determination of the market value. [Para 42 and 43] [551-A-F] F Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 1; Ranvir Singh v. Union of India, (2005) 12 SCC 59; Karimbanakkal Sulaiman (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Special Tahsildarfor K.A.K.P.l.P. (2004) 13 SCC 643; Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of G Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789; Basant Kumar v. Union of India (1996) 11 SCC 542; Satish and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2009) 9 SCALE 632 and National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Mahesh Dutta & Ors. (2009) 9 SCALE 591, referred to. H - DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, GUJARAT & 527 ANR. v. MADHUBAI GOBARBHAI & ANR. 1.6. It has categorically been held by this Court that A ordinarily the entire village should not be treated as one .. unit as 'even in the same village, no two lands command I the same market value' as potentially, the fact that land abutting a National Highway or road would command a higher market value vis-a-vis the land which is not so B situated. Potential development and/or likelihood of development are also the factors which have been considered to be relevant. Building potentiality of the land ,. acquired would also be. a relevant consideration. However, the purpose for which the land is sought to be c acquired would also assume some significance. [Para 46,47,51 and 52] [555-D, F; 557-D, E] Kanwar Singh v. Union of India (1998) 8 SCC 136 and State of Maharashtra v. Basantibai Mohan/al Khetan (1986) D 2 sec 516, referred to. 1.7. The lands in question are purely agricultural ' lands. There were no buildings; there was no residential -t use; there was no factory. No development had taken pla~e-1'1or was any development expected in immediate E future. The lands were acquired only for the purpose of submergence. It had thus even no building potentiality. In view of the materials brought on record including the various sale deeds as exemplars, the valuation of the land should be determined at Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty only) F per square meter. [Para 54-55) [557-F, G] GROUP- II 3.1. The observations made by reference court regarding price rise due to inflation were wholly G irrelevant. The reference court should sit in the arm chair of a willing and prudent purchaser and put a question to ·" himself as to whether he would offer the same price sought to be awarded for the said land. Besides, the value of agricultural lands could not haye been compared with H 528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. A the value of non-agricultural lands, only because some witnesses stated that there was a potentiality of the said land becoming a developed one. [Para 66 and 71] [569D; 570-D] B 3.2. The price variation and the market value shown in the two different categories of the land, in the sale transactions relied upon by the claimants, is significant. The price variation between agricultural land and nonagricultural land almost during the same period also is c of some significance. It is furthermore of some interest to note that within a short period of time, the price of the land shot up and that too immediately after the process of acquisition of land had started. It is furthermore important to note that there existed a significant price D variation even in regard to the lands situated on Survey No. 89. which appears to be a very big plot. [Para 76 and 77] [573-D, E] 3.3. There cannot be any doubt that different potentiality of land in different villages and even in .. fE diffetent parts of the same village would be existing. It was therefore not proper for the High Court to treat all types of lands situated even in different villages as pertaining to a comparable category. This Court has deprecated the practice of awarding compensation on the F basis of an award made in regard to a neighbouring land. It is, however, also true that the court is bound to take into ·consideration the potentiality of the land. [Para 78 and 80] [573-G; 574-C] Kanwar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India (1998) 8 SCC G 136; Basant Kumar v. Union of India (1996) 11 SCC 542; Raghubans Narain Singh v. The Uttar Pradesh Government Through Collector of Bijnor 1967 (1) SCR 489 and Mahabir Prasad Santuka and Ors. v. Collector, Cuttack and Ors [(1987) 1 sec 587, referred to. H DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, GUJARAT & 529 ANR. v. MADHUBAI GOBARBHAI & ANR. l 3.5. So far as deeds of sale pertaining to the years A 1988 and 1989 are 'concerned, the same were executed more than three years prior to the date of .icquisition. However, in respect of the deeds of sale pertaining to Survey No. 89, in view of the under-valuation of the lands sold, the Collector fixed the same at the rate of Rs.125/- B per sq. mtr. Furthermore, the Collector himself has fixed the premium of Rs.300/- per sq. mtr. for conversion from agricultural land to non-agricultural land. Although the same by itself would not be a safe criterion for determining the market value, both of them may form the c basis for arriving at a reasonable conclusion. [Para 81] [575-C-E] 3.6. The distance of the lands sought to be acquired apart from other factors from the Highway also plays an D important role. Evidence has been brought on record to I show that some lands, which are the subject matter of the ~ sale deeds on which reliance has been placed by the claimants, are situated at a distance of 1.5 to 4 kms from the Highway. In that view of the matter, it would be safe to arr!ve at the market value as on the date of acquisition E for the non-agricultural lands at Rs.250/- per sq. mtr. So far as the agricultural lands are concerned, even if they had the potentiality of being converted into a nonagricultural lands as on the date of notification, they were agricultural lands albeit in a developed area. The F valuation thereof may be determined at 50% of the developed land, that is, at Rs. 125/- per sq. mtr. [Para 82 and 83] [575-F-H; 576-A] GROUP Ill G 4.1. The reference court proceeded on the basis that " ..,, the market value of the land situated in the municipal area was Rs.485/- per square meter at the time of acquisition and, thus, the lands in question being outside the municipal area, the market value thereof should be H 530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. A deducted by 50%, i.e., Rs.2401- per square meter. For determining the value of agricultural land further onethird has been deducted. [Para 99] [584-G-H; 585-A-B] 4.2. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the 8 decisions of this Court* as also the materials placed on record, the amount of compensation for the lands acquired in this matter arrived at by the High Court, that is, Rs.2401- per sq. mtr. for non-agricultural land and Rs.1601- sq. mtr for agricultural land does not warrant any C interference. The High Court, in this regard, has adopted the correct approach particularly in view of the fact that the lands in question are not only situated within a developed area but being situated near Aerodrome, Schools, Hospitals, etc. the market value thereof could not havs been determined at a lesser rate. [Para 102] [586D C-F] *Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi AIR 1988 SC 943, relied on. E 5.1. As regards the amount payable for acquisition of 21 godowns and the land, out of the total area of 4250 sq. mtrs of land, 2972 sq. mtrs. is agricultural land and 1278 sq. mtrs. is non-agricultural land on which the godowns have been constructed. Commercial complexes were constructed on it in the year 1984. The F amount of rent of the godowns has been brought on record. The respondents have claimed compensation under various heads, namely, price of the land, loss suffered due to recovery of rent for 2 years of godowns, loss for construction for deep-well, watchman quarter, G etc. [Para 103 and 104] [586-F-G; 587-A] 5.2. For the extent of land on which the godowns stand, separate compensation need not be paid when compensation with respect to rental income is being paid H for the godowns. The High Court has granted f ' ' - DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, GUJARAT & 531 ANR. v. MADHUBAI GOBARBHAI & ANR. ~ compensation, inter alia, applying the multiplier of 10 over A the annual income. The approach of the High Court is correct. [Para 107] [587-E-G] Ratan Kumar Tandon & Ors. vs. State of U.P. (1997) 2 sec 161; Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy and B Ors. (2002) 3 sec 527; Assistant Commissioner-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Bellary vs. S. T. Pompanna Setty (2005) 9 SCC 662; Addi. Special Land .Acquisition Officer vs. Yamanappa Basalingappa Cha/wadi (1994) 3 SCC 323; State of Kera/a vs. P.P. Hassan Kaya AIR 1968 SC 1201; and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kalinadai (HydroC Electric) Project, Dandali, Ultra Kannada District v. Vasant Gundu Bale 1995 Supp (4) SCC 649, referred to. 5.3. However, keeping in view the ratio of the decisions of this Court and the facts of the case, the D decision of the High Court is modified by excluding the payment of separate amount of compensation for the 1278 sq. mtrs. of non-agricultural land in which the 21 Godowns have been constructed and market value for these godowns would be calculated on the rental value. E Thus, whereas the market value of the land would be determined at Rs.240/- per square feet, the lands on which the godowns have been constructed, the amount of compensation shall be calculated at the rental value thereof by following the method adopted by the High Court. For the said purpose, the matter is remitted to the Land Acquisition Officer. [Para 113) [589-F-H; 590-A] Case Law Reference: 1995 Supp. (2) SC 168 relied on (1995) 2 sec 305 (2001) 3 sec 530 relied on relied on para 14 para 22 para 22 ,.... r G H 532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. A (2004) 8 sec 210 relied on para 22 ' ' (2005) 12 sec 59 relied on para 22 (2005) 4 sec 789 relied on para 25 B (2005) 12 sec 1 referred to para 45 (2004) 13 sec 643 referred to para 45 (1996) 11 sec 542 referred to para 45 (1996) 11 sec 542 referred to para 45 • c (1998) 8 sec 136 referred to para 47 (1986) 2 sec 516 referred to para 49 (2009) 9 SCALE 632 referred to para 50 D (2009) 9 SCALE 591 referred to para 50 1967 (1) SCR 489 referred to para 80 (1987) 1 sec 587 referred to para 80 E AIR 1988 SC 943 relied on para 101 (1997) 2 sec 161 referred to para 106 (2002)3SCC527 referred to para 108 (2005) 9 sec 662 referred to para 109 F ,.. (1994) 3 sec 323 referred to para 110 AIR 1968 SC 1201 referred to para 111 1995 Supp (4) SCC 649 referred to para 112 G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 204 of 2000. From the Judgment & Order dated 23.02.1998 of the High Court of Gujrat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No. 3119of1997. H DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, GUJARAT & 533 ANR. v. MADHUBAI GOBARBHAI & ANR. WITH C.A. Nos. 213. 214-219, 205-212, 221-324, 325-331, · 4090, 4091 of 2000 & 2973-2978 of 2001. A S.N. Shelati, Yashank Adhyaru, Dinesh Dwivedi, Hemantika Wahi, L.R. Pujari, Pinky, Somanath and Kirti Renu 8 Mishra for the Appellants. Ramesh P. Bhatt, Sunil Kr. Gupta, Sirish Amin, Dattatray Vyas, Manish Sharma, Chirag, M. Shroff, Saroj Raichura, H.A. Raichura, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Atul Jha, C Vikash Kr. Pankaj, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Sakesh Kumar, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. 1. These appeals involving common D questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together -t and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The State of Gujarat issued diverse notifications for acquisition of a huge tract of lands for construction of a dam over a river known as 'Thebi'. The lands sought to be acquired were spread over in three villages, namely, Amreli, Baxipur and Giriya. Whereas villages Amreli and Baxipur are situated on the western side of river and within the municipal limit of the town of Amerli; village Giriya is on the eastern bank thereof and outside the municipal limit of the said town Amreli. 3. Amreli is the headquarters of the District Amreli. It is a well developed town. A National Highway known as "Amreli - Chittal Road" passes through the town of Amreli. 4. The residents of the town enjoy the facilities of transportation, hospitals, schools, colleges,_telephone, etc. It is, "" however, admitted that the entire development has taken place on the eastern bank of the river and not on the western bank. E F G The villages situate on the western bank, however, admittedly H 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. A are wholly undeveloped. The lands under acquisition are . agricultural lands. The land upon acquisition were to be submerged under water. 5. The Land Acquisition Officer made three different 8 awards for three different villages. 6. For agricultural lands situate in village Baxipur, which are the subject matters of judgment and order dated 23.02.1998 passed in F.A. No. 3119/1997 and F.A. No. 3120/ 1997 and judgment and order dated 4.5.1999 passed in F.A. C Nos. 6184-6203/1995 and other connected appeals, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.75/- per square meter. 7. Out of 350 land owners, however, only 156 land owners 0 filed applications for reference before the Collector in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, "the said Act"). 8. The Reference Court awarded compensation calculating the market value thereof at the rate of Rs. 75/- per E square meter in respect of lands situate in Baxipur village (western side of river Thebi), Giriya village (eastern side of river Thebi) and Amreli village (western side of river Thebi). So far as the lands situate within the Amreli town, which is within the municipal area and situate on the eastern side of the river F comprising of residential and commercial area which was developed since 1984, are concerned; the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per square meter in respect of agricultural lands, but the Reference Court and the High Court awarded compensation at the rate of G Rs.160/- per square meter of land. For the same area in respect of non-agricultural lands, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.150/- per square meter whereas the Reference Court as also the High Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.240/- per square H meter. • DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, GUJARAT & 535 ANR. v. MADHUBAI GOBARBHAI & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.] "' 9. So far as acquisition of lands which are subject matter A of C.A. No. 325-331/2000, situated in village Giriya are concerned; whereas the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.12/- per square meter in respect of agricultural lands and Rs. 50/- per square meter in respect of non-agricultural lands, the Reference Court awarded B compensation for both categories of land at the rate of Rs.400/ - per square meter, the High Court, however, while upholding > the said amount of compensation in respect of non-agricultural lands reduced the amount of compensation to Rs.300/- per square meter for agricultural lands. c 10. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforementioned judgments, the State of Gujarat is before us. An appeal has also been filed by some of the claimants owning non-agricultural lands and raised constructions for use of the same as godown. D .. 11. We may deal with the relevant facts and submissions made before us in each group separately. GROUP -1 12. With a view to appreciate the rival contentions of the E· parties, we may notice heretobelow the number of matters and the other relevant facts for our purpose which are involved in Group -I wherein compensation has been awarded at the rate ""' of Rs. 75/- per square meter F Group Total C.A. No. F.A. No. Notification Date No. matters Section 4 F compensation at the rate of Rs.75/- per square meter in respect of agricultural lands which admittedly are situated in an undeveloped area and, thus, committed a serious error of law. G (vii) The Reference Court ought not to have disregarded the distance between the "Amreli - Chittal Road" and the village in question which is 1.5 kilometers to 2 kilometers and, thus, committed a serious error in relying upon the sale instances being Exhs.35 to H 40 which were in respect of the lands adjacent to DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, GUJARAT & 539 - ANR. v. MADHUBAI G03ARBHAI & ANR. [S.S. SINHA, J.] ~ "Amreli - Chittal Road" for the purpose of holding A that the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was unjustified. (viii) Ignoring the distance of 1.5 to 2 kilometers (holding it to be of not much consequence by the High Court) B for the purpose of ascertaining the true market value of the land situated in an undeveloped area was wholly erroneous particularly in view of the fact that the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents categorically stated that there was no c likelihood that the said area would be developed in future. (ix) The High Court furthermore should not have failed to take into consideration the evidence of Jerambhai Devsinhbhai (Exh. 12) who had D categorically admitted that except Oil Mills there was no other industry in village Amreli and there was neither any State High Way passing through the said village nor there was any railway connection. Even witness Bhagvandas had E admitted that between the dam and Pratappura area there were no residential houses. Similarly witness Bharatbhai K.Mehta had admitted that he had purchased the land for his own purpose, namely professional and residential purpose. F (x) The Reference Court as also the High Court should not have relied upon the valuation report proved by Bhikhabhai Rami who in no uncertain terms had admitted that he had not seen any document in G ' respect of surrounding lands and furthermore had not taken into consideration the deeds of sale ... mentioned in the award and moreover there was neither any road facility available nor any residential house could 'be traced out and there was no possibility of any industrial development also on the H 540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. ' • A western side of the river. (xi) The Reference Court as also the High Court committed a serious error insofar as they failed to take into consideration that the land owners failed B to discharge their burden to show that the land in question had any potentiality of development. 15. Mr. R.P. Bhatt learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would submit: 1 c i. As upon perusal of the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer itself it would be evident that the entire area is a developed one and the land owners were progressive farmers, no infirmity can be said to have been committed in comparing nonD agricultural lands with agricultural lands particularly when in respect of the lands situated in one area • he had granted compensation at the rate of Rs.50/ - per square meter, there was absolutely no reason as to why the award at the rate of Rs.3.50 per E square meter for non-irrigated lands and Rs.5/- per square meter for the irrigated lands should be awarded. ii. For determining a just and fair amount of compensation, no sole decisive factor existed and F each case was required to be considered on its own merit. However, when such determination can be made upon applying more than one factor, the appellate court should not have interfered therewith even if another view was possible. G iii. Location of a land although material keeping in view the fact that for all intent and purpose all the three " villages are part of one town, only because a part of the acquired land is situated at a distance of 1.5 H to 2 kilometers, the sale instances in respect of : DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, GUJARAT & 541 ANR. v. MADHUBAI GOBARBHAI & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.] developed area can be applied subject of course A to such deduction as is applicable in respect thereof. 16. Notifications for acquisition of different parcels of land were issued on diverse dates. 17. Indisputably the purpose of acquisition was construction of a dam over river Thebi. The lands acquired are situated in three villages. Nature of lands acquired was both agricultural B and non-agricultural. Some are situated in the urban area which were well developed and some were not completely developed C and mainly agricultural lands. 18. The lands at Baxipur which are non-agricultural lands and situate on the Western bank of river Thebi, indisputably were agricultural lands. The purpose for their acquisition was D that the said lands would be submerged in water. 19. It is also not in dispute that various parts of the village Giriya and Amreli are within the municipal limits while only a portion of the lands situate in village Baxipur is within the municipal limit. 20. The parties hereto in support of their respective cases relied upon a large number of documents including deeds of sale. A large number of witnesses including some experts were examined in the matters. 21. We have noticed hereinbefore the reasonings of the Land Acquisition Collector; the Reference Judge as also the High Court for arriving at their respective opinions. E F 22. The learned Reference Judge, however, rejected the G deeds of sale produced by the acquiring authority inter alia on the premise that to prove the same neither, vendor or the vendee thereof had been examined. For the said purpose, it relied upon a decision of this Court in P. Ram Reddi v. Land Acquisition Officer, (Supra). The said decision of this Court, H 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. .. A however, has since been reversed inter alia by a Three Judge Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer & Manda/ Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah, [ (2001) 3 SCC 530 ]. Later, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Cement Corporation of India Ltd. etc. etc. v. Purya and others etc. etc., [ (2004) 8 SCC B 270 ], while interpreting Section 51-A of the Act opined that the said provision seeks to make an exception in regard to proving of sale deeds stating :- "25. Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act seeks c to make an exception to the aforementioned rule. 26. In the acquisition proceedings, sale deeds are required to be brought on record for the purpose of determining market value payable to the owner of the land when it is sought to be acquired. D 27. Although by reason of the aforementioned provision the parties are free to produce original documents and prove the same in accordance with the terms of the rules of evidence as envisaged under the E Indian Evidence Act, the LA Act provides for an alternative thereto by inserting the said provision in terms whereof the certified copies which are otherwise secondary evidence may be brought on record evidencing a transaction. Such transactions in terms of the aforementioned provision may F be accepted in evidence. Acceptance of an evidence is not a term of art. It has an etymological meaning. It envisages exercise of judicial mind to the materials on record. Acceptance of evidence by a court would be dependent upon the facts of the case and other relevant G factors. A piece of evidence in a given situation may be accepted by a court of law but in another it may not be. 28. Secticn 51-A of the LA Act may be read literally and .. having regard to the ordinary meaning which can be attributed to the term "acceptance of evidence" relating to H transaction evidenced by a sale deed, its admissibility in • DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, GUJARAT & 543 ANR. v. MADHUBAI GOBARBHAI & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.] evidente would be beyond any question. We are not A oblivious of the fact that only by bringing a documentary evidence in the record it is not automatically brought on the record. For bringing a documentary evidence on the record, the same must not only be admissible but the contents thereof must be proved in accordance with law. B But when the statute enables a court to accept a sale deed on the records evidencing a transaction, nothing further is required to be ,done. The admissibility of a certified copy of sale deed by·itself could not be held to be inadmissible as thereby a secondary evidence has been brought on c record without proving the absence of primary evidence. Even the vendor or vendee thereof is not required to examine themselves for proving the contents thereof.This, however, would not mean that the contents of the transaction as evidenced by the registered sale deed 0 would automatically be accepted. The legislature advisedly has used the word "may". A dis_9retion, therefore, has been conferred upon a court to be exercised judicially i.e. upon taking into consideration the relevant factors. ' (See also Ranvir Singh and another v. Union of India, E [(2005) 12 sec 59 J. - 23. In view of the aforementioned Constitution Bench decision we allowed an application filed by the appellant for placing additional documents on record by our order dated F 23.10.2008. We, therefore, are required to take into consideration the said transactions as well. 24. The core question which arises for our consideration is what principles should be applied for determining the market value of the land. It is now a well settled principle of law that G the determination of the market value of the land acquired, indisputably would depend upon a large number of factors, nature and quality of the lands is one of them. The norms which are required to be applied for determination of the market value of the agricultural land and homestead land may be different H 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. A In given cases location of land and in particular, closeness thereof from any road or high-way would play an important role for determination of the market value wherefor belting system may in appropriate cases have to be resorted to. The position of the land, particularly in rainy season, existence of any B building etc. also plays an important role. A host of other factors including development in and around the acquired land and/or the potentiality of the development will have a bearing on determination of the value of the land. C 25. Determination of the market value of the land may also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, amongst them, however, would be the price of land, amount of consideration mentioned in a deed of sale executed in respect of similarly situated land near about the date of issuance of Notification under Section 4( 1) of the Act ; in the absence of D any such exemplars the market value can be determined on yield basis or in case of an orchard on the basis of number of fruit bearing trees. It is also well settled that for price ' determination purposes, the courts would be well advised to consider the positive and negative factors, as has been laid E down by this Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor vs. State of Guj91.at [(2005) 4 sec 789]. namely :- Positive factors F (i) Smallness of size (ii) proximity to a road G (iii) frontage on a road H (iv) Nearness to developed area Negative factors (i) Largeness of area (ii) situation in the interior at a distance from the road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth (iv) lower level requiring the depressed portion to , "' ,. DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, GUJARAT & 545 ANR. v. MADHUBAI GOBARBHAI & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.] depressed portion to be A filled up (v) regular shape (vi) Level vis-a-vis land under acquisition (vii) Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. (v) Remoteness from developed locality (vi) Some special disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaser B c 26. The Reference Judge as also the High Court had D proceeded to determine the market value inter alia relying upon or on the basis of some deeds of sale ; valuation report; the circular letter issued by the Collector in regard to premium payable on conversion of land etc. 27. The Reference Court and the High Court while ign-C,ririg the deeds of sale whereupon reliance was placed by the State, for the reasons stated hereinbefore, principally relied upon a few deeds of sale. We shall take notice of some of them, E .. namely, Exhibits 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40. F 28. It will also be beneficial to consider some of the documents upon which the State relied upon, they are Exhibits 86, 90 , 91 and 96. 29.