# PERIYAR AND PAREEKANNI RUBBERS LTD v. STATE OF KERALA - **Citation:** [1990] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 362 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1990-09-06 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 543 A B c to 570 of 1974 - **Bench:** L.M. Sharma, K. Ramaswamy - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/periyar-and-pareekanni-rubbers-ltd-v-state-of-kerala-11013 - **Pages:** 19 ## Headnote Kera/a Land Acquisition Regulation, 1089: Sections 22( 1), 22(2) and 25(3)/Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 23(1), 23(2) & 28: Compulsory acquisition of Land-Payment of compensation-Market value-Determination of-Principles to be followed-Interest on solatium-Entitlement to. The respondent State had acqnired a large extent of land out of the appellant's estate under the Kerala Land Acquisition Regulation, 1089 for river valley irrigation project and to establish an industrial project. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Regulation was pub0 Iished on October 31, 1961. This was followed by the declaration under Section 6(1) pnblished on February 22, 1962. The Collector by his awards dated March 29, 1962 determined the market value under Section 22(1) of the Regulation at Re.0.04 per cent for certain lands, Re.0.12 per cent for certain other lands, and Rs.30 E per cent for the wet lands as against the claim of Rs.40 and 50 per cent. Compensation for the trees at timber value was also given. The total compensation fixed was Rs.4.84 lakhs. Dissatisfied therewith the appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the Regulation. They also claimed separate value for fruit F bearing trees on potential value and charges for severence and injurious effects on the remaining lands. In support of the claim they relied on Ex. P. 7 dated March 9, 1951 a11.d Ex. P. 9 dated April 4, 1957 which worked ont at Rs.52.50 and Rs.43.50 per cent respectively, and the acquisition forming subject matter of Ex. P. 10 pertaining to the land in the vicinity of the industrial project awarded at the rate of Rs.SO per G cent for paddy lands and Rs.43 for dry land. The Govermnent pleader stated before the civil court that Ex. P. 9 could form the basis for determining the market value. The court enhanced the market value @ Rs.40-50 per cent as claimed in addition to a sum of Rs.30 to 38 per cent. It awarded in all Rs.20.20 lakhs on all counts including severence and injurious effects, 15 per cent solatium and also 6 per cent interest H on additional compensation from the date of taking possession till date of payment. 362 PERIYAR v. STATE OF KERALA 363 The High Court found that the lands covered by Ex. P. 7 and Ex. P. 9 were paddy lands cultivated by irrigation sources and situated about four miles away from the acquired lands which were not irrigated and therefore held that these could not form the basis for determining market value. Similarly, it found Ex;P. 10 could not form a base to rix the market value. The High Court did not accept the evidence adduced by the State, which was rejected by the civil court as well. The statement made by the State Advocate General across the bar that the market value could be fixed at Rs.18 per cent was also not taken into account. Consequently, it reversed the awards and decrees of the civil court. In these appeals by special leave it was contended for the appellant that having rejected the documents produced by the State the High Court ought to have relied upon the documents produced by the appellant as comparable sales and confirmed the compensation awarded by the civil court, that Ex. P. 7, 9 and 10 furnished the best material, that the Government pleader had conceded before the trial court that Ex. P. 9 could form the basis for determining the market value, that they had incurred huge expenditure on civil works for protection of the rest of the estate from injurious effects for which they should be recompensated, that the potential value of the trees had to be taken into account in determining the market value, that' they were entitled to compensation for severeace due to submersion of the lands and that they were also entitled to payment of interest on solatium. Allowing the appeals partly, the Court, HELD: 1.1 When the Courts are called upon to fix the market value of the land in compulsory acquisition, the best evidence of the value of property is the sale of the acquired land to which the claimant - himse ## Text _Characters 0–39,841 of 49,312. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39841 for what follows._ -~ A B c PERIYAR AND PAREEKANNI RUBBERS LTD. v. STATE OF KERALA SEPTEMBER 6, 1990 [L.M. SHARMA AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] Kera/a Land Acquisition Regulation, 1089: Sections 22( 1), 22(2) and 25(3)/Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 23(1), 23(2) & 28: Compulsory acquisition of Land-Payment of compensation-Market value-Determination of-Principles to be followed-Interest on solatium-Entitlement to. The respondent State had acqnired a large extent of land out of the appellant's estate under the Kerala Land Acquisition Regulation, 1089 for river valley irrigation project and to establish an industrial project. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Regulation was pub0 Iished on October 31, 1961. This was followed by the declaration under Section 6(1) pnblished on February 22, 1962. The Collector by his awards dated March 29, 1962 determined the market value under Section 22(1) of the Regulation at Re.0.04 per cent for certain lands, Re.0.12 per cent for certain other lands, and Rs.30 E per cent for the wet lands as against the claim of Rs.40 and 50 per cent. Compensation for the trees at timber value was also given. The total compensation fixed was Rs.4.84 lakhs. Dissatisfied therewith the appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the Regulation. They also claimed separate value for fruit F bearing trees on potential value and charges for severence and injurious effects on the remaining lands. In support of the claim they relied on Ex. P. 7 dated March 9, 1951 a11.d Ex. P. 9 dated April 4, 1957 which worked ont at Rs.52.50 and Rs.43.50 per cent respectively, and the acquisition forming subject matter of Ex. P. 10 pertaining to the land in the vicinity of the industrial project awarded at the rate of Rs.SO per G cent for paddy lands and Rs.43 for dry land. The Govermnent pleader stated before the civil court that Ex. P. 9 could form the basis for determining the market value. The court enhanced the market value @ Rs.40-50 per cent as claimed in addition to a sum of Rs.30 to 38 per cent. It awarded in all Rs.20.20 lakhs on all counts including severence and injurious effects, 15 per cent solatium and also 6 per cent interest H on additional compensation from the date of taking possession till date of payment. 362 PERIYAR v. STATE OF KERALA 363 The High Court found that the lands covered by Ex. P. 7 and Ex. P. 9 were paddy lands cultivated by irrigation sources and situated about four miles away from the acquired lands which were not irrigated and therefore held that these could not form the basis for determining market value. Similarly, it found Ex;P. 10 could not form a base to rix the market value. The High Court did not accept the evidence adduced by the State, which was rejected by the civil court as well. The statement made by the State Advocate General across the bar that the market value could be fixed at Rs.18 per cent was also not taken into account. Consequently, it reversed the awards and decrees of the civil court. In these appeals by special leave it was contended for the appellant that having rejected the documents produced by the State the High Court ought to have relied upon the documents produced by the appellant as comparable sales and confirmed the compensation awarded by the civil court, that Ex. P. 7, 9 and 10 furnished the best material, that the Government pleader had conceded before the trial court that Ex. P. 9 could form the basis for determining the market value, that they had incurred huge expenditure on civil works for protection of the rest of the estate from injurious effects for which they should be recompensated, that the potential value of the trees had to be taken into account in determining the market value, that' they were entitled to compensation for severeace due to submersion of the lands and that they were also entitled to payment of interest on solatium. Allowing the appeals partly, the Court, HELD: 1.1 When the Courts are called upon to fix the market value of the land in compulsory acquisition, the best evidence of the value of property is the sale of the acquired land to which the claimant - himself is a party, in its absence the sales of the neighbouring lands possessed of similar potentiality or fertility or other advantageous features made within a reasonable time of the date of notification in bona fide transactions on the hypothesis of a willing seller and a willing purchaser but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms length nor facade of sale or fictitious and unreal transactions of speculative nature brought into existence in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value, This, however, does not preclude the Court from taking any other special circumstances into consideration, the requirement being always to arrive at as nearly as possible an estimate of the market value judged by an objective standard. [181C-182D] A B c D E F G H / / A B c D E F G H 364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] Supp. I S.C.R. Gajapati Raju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, A.I.R. 1939 P.C. 98; Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Adinarayana Setty, [1959] Suppl. l S.C.R. 404; Tribeni Devi & Ors. v. Collector of Ranchi, [1972] 3 S.C.R. 208; Dollar Co. Madras v. Collector of Madras, [1975] Suppl. S.C.R. 403; Chandra Bansi Singh & Ors. etc v. Stat'e of Bihar & Ors. etc., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 579; Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Visakhapatnam v.P. Narasingh Rao & Ors., [1985] l A.P.L.J. 99; Collector, Raigarh v. Hari Singh Thakur & Anr., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 183; Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1025; Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 2051 and Hindustan Oil Co. Ltd. v. Special Duty Collector (Land Acquisition), [1990) l S.C.R. 59, referred to. , 1.2 The prices fetched for smaller plots cannot form basis for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. Smaller plots always would have special features like the urgent need of the buyer, the advantageous situation, the like of the buyer etc. Similarly, the land situated on the frontage have special advantage and the land situated in the interior undeveloped area will not have the value at par since the latter will have lower value then the former. So is the case with orchard land and agricultural land, the former being superior in quality as compared to the latter. If such sales are relied upon reasonable reduction should be given. [1828-C] Smt. Kaushalya Devi Bogra & Ors. etc. v. The Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad & Anr., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 900; Pridviraj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1977) 2 S.C.R. 633; Padma Uppal etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 329; Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona & Anr., [1988] 3 S.C.C. 751 and Mantaben Manibhai v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Baroda, A.LR. 1990 S.C. 103, referred to. I.3 In some cases for lack of comparable sales it may not be possible to adduce evidence of sale of the neighbouring lands possessed of same or similar quality. So, insistence on adduction of precise or scientific evidence would cause disadvantage to claimants in not getting the reasonable and proper market value. The courts of facts should, therefore, keep before them always the even scales to adopt pragmatic approach without indulging in facts of imagination and assess the market value which is capable to fetch reasonable compensation. They may in that process sometimes trench on the border of the guess work but mechanical assessment should be eschewed. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants' right to compensation would PEJlJY AR v. STATE OF KERALA 365 place heavy burden on.the public·exchequer to which everyone contributes by direct or indirecttaxes. [1850-G; 184F-G I 1.4 In the instant case1 the High Court found that Ex. P. 7 and J', 9 relied on by the civil court were not applicable as the lands covered by them were paddy fields cultivated by irrigation sources and situated four miles away .from the acquired unirrigated landsi Similarly, it ais9 found that Ex, P. JO could not be relied on. The High Court, therefore, could not be said to be unjustified in reversing the awards and !lecrees of the civil court. [186B-D] 2. The amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector forms an offer. It is for the claimants to adduce relevant and material evidence to establish that the acquired lands were capable of fetching higher market value and the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Collector was inadequate and he proceeded on a wrong premise or principle. It is also the duty of the State to adduce evidence in rebuttal. [183B, GI c D Ezr.a v. Secretary of State for India, I.L.R. 32 Cal. 605 (P.C.); Raja Barish Chandra v. Dy. Land Acquisition Officer, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 676; Khorshed Shapoor Chenai, etc. v. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, {1980] 2 S.C.R. 315; Dr. G.H. Grant v. State of Bihar, [1965] 3 S.C.R. 576; Asstt. Development Officer v. Tayaballi, AIR 1933 Bomb. 361; Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Visakhapatnam v. P. NarasinghRao E & Ors., [1985] 1 A.P.L.J. 99; T. W. Higgins-claimant v. Secretary of State, AIR 1919 Cal. 1008; Naresh Chandra Bose v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1955 Cal. 398; Smt. Kusumgauri Ramray Munshi & Ors. v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, AIR 1963 Gujarat 92; Maharao Shri Madansinhji v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1969 Gujarat 270 and Chaturbhuj Panda & Ors. v. Collector, Raigarh, F [1969] l S.C.R. 412, referred to. 2.2 In the instant case the evidence procb1ced by the appellant was found untrustworthy by the High Court. It also did not accept the evidence adduced by the State. [186E-F] 3.1 The Appellate Court after rejecting the evidence may have to find whether there are any circumstantial or other material evidence on record to fix reasonable market value. The State Advocate General having stated across the bar in the High Court that the market value G can be fixed at Rs.18 per cent, a concession made by him with all responsibility on behalf of the State, the High Coon was not justified in ij A B c D E 366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] Supp. I S.C.R. not taking into account this submission. · [ 186G-187B I 3.2 Any concession made by the Government pleader in the trial court cannot bind the Government as it is always unsafe to rely on the wrong or erroneous or wanton conceiision made by the counsel appearing for the State unless it is in writing on instructions from the responsible officer. Otherwise it would place undue and needless heavy burden· on the public exchequer. [187C] 3.3 The claimants are, therefore, entitled to the market value@ Rs.18 per cent to the lands other than those to which the Collector awarded @ Rs.30 per cent, as the reference court shall not reduce the market value to less than that awarded by the Collector as enjoined under the statute. From the very nature of compulsory acquisition, JS per cent solatinm as additional compensation was statutorily fixed. Therefore, determination of additional market value is unwarranted. [187E] 3.4 Section 25(3) of the Regulation contemplates payment of interest on solatinm to recompensate the owner of the land for loss of user of the land from the date of taking possession till date of payment into court. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to interest on solatinm. It is fixed at 6 per cent on the excess market value determined under the judgment including solatium from the date of taking possession till the date of payment. In other respects judgment of the High Court is confirmed. [189G~l90B] Union of India v. Shri Ram Mehar & Anr., [1973] 2 S.C.R. 720, referred to. 4. The Commissioner who collected the evidence in respect of the F injurious effects on the remaining lands of the claimants admitted in the cross examination that the appellant did not expend any money on civil works. Though from the date of the acquisition till the date of evidence more than six years had passed by the appellant had not produced any material or account books of the estate to establish that they have expended any money in this regard. Both the engineers examined on G behalf of the State and also appellant's witnesses admitted that the road passing through the lands was being used by the appellant to carry its forest produce etc. Though during rainy season that too for a short period, !lt some places the water gets stagnated on the roads at lower levels but that stand no impediment for the carriage of the goods. This phenomena was prevalent even before acquisition. The value of the land H ·of the apJ,lllllant had not been injuriously effected due to acquisition. No PERIYAR v. STATE .OF KERALA [K. RAMASWAMY, J.[ 367 damage due to severence was caused. Under these circumsiances, the appellant was.not entitled to compensation in this regard. [187F-188D] 5. The Sub-Judge appears to be too anxious to award whatever is asked for on mechanical appreciation without subjecting the evidence to legal and critical scrutiny and analysis. In such a case, even if.the assessment of valuation is modified or aftlnned in an appeal as a part of the judicial process, the conduct of the judicial officer, drawable from an overall picture of the matter would yet be available to be looked into. In approprfute cllSes it may be opened to draw inferences even from judicial acts of the misconduct. The person concerned shall not, therefore, camouflage the official act to a hidden conduct in the function of fixing arbitrary or unreasonable compensation to the acquired land. V.R. Katarkiv. State of Karnataka & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4392 of 1986 decided on March 22, 1990, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 543 A B c to 570 of 1974.. D From the Judgment and Order dated 22.1.1973 of the Kerala High Court in A.S. Nos. 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 495, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 509, 510, Sil; 512, 513, 514, 515, 52_1 and 523 of 1969. G .L. Sanghi and Ms. Lily Thomas for the Appellant. A.S. Nambiar, K.R. Nambiar and T.T. Kunhikannan for the Respondent. · E The Judgment of the.Court was delivered by F K. RAMASWAMY, J. l. This batch of 28 Appeals are against the common judgment _and decrees of the Kerala High Court in A.S. No. 487 of 1969 etc. dated January 22, 1973 and leave under Art. 136 was granted by this Court on March 14, 1971\. The High Court reversed the awards and decrees of land acquisition, Sub·Court, Emakulam 3.l)d G confirmed the separate awards of the Collector dated March 29, 1962. The notification under section 4(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisitidn 1089 for short "the Regulation" was published on October 31, 1961 and the decl~rations which are the relevant dates for determining the · market value by operation of Section 22(1) was published on October 31, 1961 and February 22, 1962. The land acquired was 190.37 acres H A B c D E F G H 368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] Supp. 1 S.C.R. and 15 .48 acres for Periyar Valley Irrigation Project and PhytoChemicals Project both being public purposes. The Collector determined the market value at Re.0.04 per cent for certain lands and Re.0.12 per cent for certain other lands, Rs.30 per cent to the wet lands as against the claim of Rs.40 and 50 per cent and Compensation to the trees as timber value was given. The total Compensation fixed was Rs.4.84 Iakhs. Dissatisfied therewith the appellant sought reference under section 18 thereof. They also claimed. separate value as fruit bearing trees on potential value. They also claimed charges for severence and injurious effects on the remaining land. The Civil Court after adduction of evidence and on consideration thereof enhanced the market value to the lands @ Rs .40-50 as claimed in addition to a sum of Rs.30 to 38 per cent. It awarded in all Rs.20.20 lakhs on all counts including severence and injurious effects and 15 per cent solatium and also 6 per cent interest on additional compensation from the date of taking possession till date of payment vide page 3 of short notes of the appellant. On appeals by the State, by common judgment dated January i2, 1973, the High Court reversed the award of the Civil Court and confirmed that of the Land Acquisition Collector. Mr Sanghi, learned Sr. counsel for the appellants with his usual vehemence contended that the High Court committed manifest error of law in reversing the awards and decrees of the Civil Court which had the advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses and extensively considered the evidence in particular the unimpeachable documents Ex. p.7, p.9 and p.10. The appellant, on account of the acquisition, had to incur huge expenditure to construct Kayallas, Pathways, culverts etc. for protection of the rest of the Estate. The amount expended was to prevent injurious effects to the Estate and is to be recompensated. It is further contended that the potential value of the trees have to be taken into account in determining the market value. The appellant also is entitled to compensation for severence due to submersion of the lands when the Periyar Canal passes through the rubber. estate of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the compensation in full measure with interest on solatium. The High Court was unjustified in teversing the awards and the decrees of the Civil Court. 2. The first question, therefore, is whether the High Court is justified in reversing the awards and decrees of the Civil Court. Admittedly 190.37 and 15.48 cents of land is part of the extensive Periyar Estate of 879 .37 acres stretching over seven miles long on the banks of the Periyar River. It had a road of 14 feet width by name PERIYAR v. STAtE OF KERALA JK. RAMASWAMY, J.] 369 Alwaye Mulinar Highway running through middle of the Estate, the lands were acquired for submersion due to Periyar River Vailey Irrigation Project artd to estabiish Phyto-Chemical Project. Shri Sanghi, repeatediy reiterated that in determining the market value an element of some guesswork is involved. But in determining the market value the Court has to eschew arbitrary fixation keeping in view the settled principles of law in evaluating market value in. compulsory acquisition oil the hypothesis of a willing vendor and a willing vendee. Therefore, let us glance tliroligh the seitled principles of law in this regard. 3. in Gajapaii Raju v. Revenue Divisional Officer; A.LR. 1939 P.C. 98 popularly known as Vijji's case; the judicial committee of the Privy Council held that compensation for compulsory acquisition governed by Section 23( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under sub-sec. (1) of the Section 4 of the Act "what a willing vendor might reasonably except to obtain from willing purchaser''. The function of !he Court in awarding compensation under the Act is lb ascertain the tnarRet value of the land at the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Act (in this case under section 6(1) of the Regulation) and the evaluation may be as pointed out by this Court in Special Land Acquisiiioii Officer v. Adinarayana Setty, [1959] Suppl. 1 S.C.R. 404 at 412 ( 1) Opinion of experts; (2) The price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of ilie land acqliited or the land adjacent to the acquired land and possessing similar advantages; (3) Nlimbet of years of purchase of the actuai or immediately perspective profits of the land acquired. In that case while adopting ilie second method the High Ccilirt afuved at average price of four tiatisactions excluding two sales arid separate average was arrived fixed tlie market value of Rs.13.80. This Court calclilatirtg the average of six sale transactions fixed the market rate at Rs. t 1. In Ttibeni Devi & Ors. v. Collector of Ranchi, 11972] 3 S.C.R. 20S at 212 this Court held that for determining corripeiisation payalile to the owner of the land, the market vaiue is to be deietriiined by reference to the price which may reasotiabiy to obtain frotii willing j)tirchasers but since it may itot be possible to ascertain ihis witii ariy a!Ilount of precision tlie authority charged witli the diity lo award compensation is bound to make aII estimate judged by an objective standard. Whifo reiterating the three tests laid down in S.L.A. tiffi' cer's case, it was further emphasised that these metiiods, liowevef, do not preclude the Court from taking ariy otlier special citctiiiisiances into consideration, the requirement lieing always to arrive at as riearty A B c H A B c D E F G H 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] Supp. 1 S.C.R. as possible at an estimate of the market value. In arriving at a reasonable correct market value it may be necessary to take even two or all these methods into account inasmuch as the exact evaluation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which the valuation cao be accurately determined. This Court rejected the sale deeds of the laods situated farther away from the lands acquired and also disallowed 10 per cent additional compensation over market rate fixed. In Dollar Co., Madras v. Collector of Madras, [1975] Suppl. SCR. 403 this Court held that "we may even say that the best evidence of the value of the property is the value of the sale in the very property to which the claimants are the party. If the sale is of recent date and all that need normally be proved is that the sale was between a willing purchaser and willing seller, that there has not been any appreciable rise or falls since and that nothing has b~en done on the laod during the interval to-raise the value. But if the sale was long ago, may be the court would examine more recent sales of comparable lands as throwing better light on current land value. This Court further emphasised the fact that because the appellant therein himself purchased the land which is 10 months prior to the date of notification under section 4, at a price of Rs.410 per ground, that would be the measure of prevailing market value. The High Court enhanced the market value to Rs.1800 per ground and on appeal was filed by the State. Though the appellant still claimed higher value, this Court negatived further enhancement. 4. In Smt. Kaushalya Devi Bogra & Ors. etc. v. The Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad & Anr., [1984] 2 SCR. 900 the transaction in respect of small properties do not offer proper guidelines and, therefore, the price fetched therein cannot be taken as real basis for determining compensation for large tracts of property. This was also the view in Pridvirajv. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1977] 2 SCR 633 and Padma Uppal Etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1977] l SCR 329. If they are relied upon reasonable reduction should be given. Accordingly, this Court has fixed the market value in the light of the development of the land in the neighbour-hood of the township etc. In Chandra Bansi :lingh & Ors. etc. v. State of Bihar & Ors. etc., [ 1985] 1 S_CR 579 notification under section 4(1) was issued for acquiring 1034 acres of land for housing construction by the Housing Board. This Court held that compensation shou~ be paid as per the value of the land prevailing as on the date of the notification but not on the date of taking over possession. PERIYAR v, STATE OF KERALA [K. RAMASWAMY. J.] 371 5. In Tahsi/dar, Land Acquisition, Visakhapatnam v. P. Nara. singh Rao and Ors., [1985] 1 A.P.L.J. 99 a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to which one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J) was a member while reiterating the principles referred to above held that the object of determining the compensation with reference to comparable sales of the land adjacent to th.e land acquired is to find the fertility, quality, the probable price of the lane! und~r acquisition is likely to fetch and the actual price paid by the vendee to the vendor under those transactions as a prudent vendee and is not actuated with any other speculative features. It is to ascertain these facts, the sale deeds are insisted to be produced. The market value fixed must be reasonable and fair to the owner as well as to avoid undue burden to the exchequer. Therefore, the transaction relating to the acquired land of recent dates or in the neighbour-hood lands that possessed of similar potenti~lity or fertility or other advantageous features are relevant pieces of evidence. When the Courts are called upon to fix the market value of the land in compulsory acquisition, the best evidence of the value of property is the sale of Ille acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party, in its absence the sales of the neighbouring lands. In proof of the sale transaction, the relationship of the parties to the transaction, the market conditions, the terms of the sale and the date of the sale are to be looked into. These features would be established by examining either the vendor or vendee and if they are not available, the attesting witnesses who have personal }