# PRINTERS HOUSE PVT. LTD. ETC.ETC v. 1 MST. SAIADAN (DECEASED) BY L.RS. AND ORS. ETC. ETC

- **Citation:** [1993] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 296
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1993-10-14
- **Bench:** J.S. Verma, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, Venkatachala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/printers-house-pvt-ltd-etc-etc-v-1-mst-saiadan-deceased-by-l-rs-and-ors-etc-etc-12017
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23 (1}-Principles of valuation of
land acquired-Acquisition of plots of lands with dissimilar features-DeterC mination of market value at unif onn rate per unit measure-Whether legally
sustainable-Held, Na-Adoption of Comparable Sales Method-Method of
Averaging market value fetched for different lands under sale deed and previous awards-Not a correct method of valuation-Court to choose that sale
or award which closely or nearly compares with plot of land acquired.
D
Several plots of land with differing salient features, belonging to
different persons needed by appellant company, to set up its factory for
the manufacture of printing machinery were acquired by preliminary
notification u/s 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition
Officer determined the market value of certain acquired lands at the rate
of Rs. 3,600 per acre and other acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 1,600 per
E acre. Since the claimants did not accept the said award, they made applications u/s 18 for referring their cases to the Civil Court for grant of higher
amounts of compensation for their acquired lands. The Reference court
made a common award and separate decrees. The claimants as well as the
State, dissatisfied with the common award and separate decrees of the
F - Reference Court, preferred appeals in the High Court. The appeals before
the High Court were heard by a Division Bench. As the said Judge
rendered differing judgments on the amount of compensation awardable
to the claimants, the appeals were placed before a third Judge. That judge
determined the market value of almost all the acquired lands at an
G uniform rate. The appeals of the claimants were partly allowed and the
appeals of the State were dismissed. The State did not prefer any appeals
against the said judgment. The Company for whose benefit the lands were
acquired, filed civil appeals. The claimants also filed appeals against the
judgment of the High Court.
H
The points which arose for colllsideration were :
296
1>•
·' I
\
\
PRINTERS v. SAIY ADAN
297
1. Did the High Court apply the correct principle of valuation of · A
land, in proceeding to determine the market value of separate plots of
acquired lands of the three claimants, with differing features at an uniform
rate per unit measure ?
2. Did the High Court apply the correct principle of valuation of land
in determining the market value of the acquired plots of land by fixing B
their unit rate by averaging the market value fetched for different lands
under- sale deed and previous awards?
Disposing of the matter, thi~ Court
HELD 1.1. Where the acquired plots of land belong to different C
persons and do not have similar feature they should not be treated as a
single unit for awarding a uniform rate of market value. Where there is
evidence of sales or awards of land(s), which could be compared with the
acquired land(s), the court, as a matter of course adopts the 'Comparable
Sales method of Valuation of land', in preference to other recognised D
methods of valuation of lands for determining the market value of the
acquired land. This method generally holds good for determination of the
market value of several acquired plots of land if acquisition of all such plots
of land is made pursuant to the same notification. But, if any of the factors,
such as, location, shape, size, potentiality of tenure of one plot of acquired E
land wide'· . differs from the other plot(s) of acquired land(s), then the
market value of each plot of land acquired has to be determined independently of the other (s) even if all of them had been acquired }.mrsuant to
the same preliminary Notification since the differential factors relating to
different acquired plot greatly affect their value. [311-G-H, 304-bJ
1.2. The market value of the acquired land when is determined by
adoption of the 'comparable Sales Method' the same has to be done with
reference to the price fetched in a sale or market value given in an award,
F

## Text

_Characters 0–39,941 of 63,503. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39941 for what follows._

A
B
PRINTERS HOUSE PVT. LTD. ETC.ETC.
v.
1 MST. SAIADAN (DECEASED) BY L.RS. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
OCTOBER 14, 1993
[J.S. VERMA, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND VENKATACHALA, JJ.)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23 (1}-Principles of valuation of
land acquired-Acquisition of plots of lands with dissimilar features-DeterC mination of market value at unif onn rate per unit measure-Whether legally
sustainable-Held, Na-Adoption of Comparable Sales Method-Method of
Averaging market value fetched for different lands under sale deed and previous awards-Not a correct method of valuation-Court to choose that sale
or award which closely or nearly compares with plot of land acquired.
D
Several plots of land with differing salient features, belonging to
different persons needed by appellant company, to set up its factory for
the manufacture of printing machinery were acquired by preliminary
notification u/s 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition
Officer determined the market value of certain acquired lands at the rate
of Rs. 3,600 per acre and other acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 1,600 per
E acre. Since the claimants did not accept the said award, they made applications u/s 18 for referring their cases to the Civil Court for grant of higher
amounts of compensation for their acquired lands. The Reference court
made a common award and separate decrees. The claimants as well as the
State, dissatisfied with the common award and separate decrees of the
F - Reference Court, preferred appeals in the High Court. The appeals before
the High Court were heard by a Division Bench. As the said Judge
rendered differing judgments on the amount of compensation awardable
to the claimants, the appeals were placed before a third Judge. That judge
determined the market value of almost all the acquired lands at an
G uniform rate. The appeals of the claimants were partly allowed and the
appeals of the State were dismissed. The State did not prefer any appeals
against the said judgment. The Company for whose benefit the lands were
acquired, filed civil appeals. The claimants also filed appeals against the
judgment of the High Court.
H
The points which arose for colllsideration were :
296
1>•
·' I
\
\
PRINTERS v. SAIY ADAN
297
1. Did the High Court apply the correct principle of valuation of · A
land, in proceeding to determine the market value of separate plots of
acquired lands of the three claimants, with differing features at an uniform
rate per unit measure ?
2. Did the High Court apply the correct principle of valuation of land
in determining the market value of the acquired plots of land by fixing B
their unit rate by averaging the market value fetched for different lands
under- sale deed and previous awards?
Disposing of the matter, thi~ Court
HELD 1.1. Where the acquired plots of land belong to different C
persons and do not have similar feature they should not be treated as a
single unit for awarding a uniform rate of market value. Where there is
evidence of sales or awards of land(s), which could be compared with the
acquired land(s), the court, as a matter of course adopts the 'Comparable
Sales method of Valuation of land', in preference to other recognised D
methods of valuation of lands for determining the market value of the
acquired land. This method generally holds good for determination of the
market value of several acquired plots of land if acquisition of all such plots
of land is made pursuant to the same notification. But, if any of the factors,
such as, location, shape, size, potentiality of tenure of one plot of acquired E
land wide'· . differs from the other plot(s) of acquired land(s), then the
market value of each plot of land acquired has to be determined independently of the other (s) even if all of them had been acquired }.mrsuant to
the same preliminary Notification since the differential factors relating to
different acquired plot greatly affect their value. [311-G-H, 304-bJ
1.2. The market value of the acquired land when is determined by
adoption of the 'comparable Sales Method' the same has to be done with
reference to the price fetched in a sale or market value given in an award,
F
as the case mr.y be, of a land which is closest or nearest to the acquired
land and not with reference to average price fetched by several comparable G
sale deeds or awards of different types of lands. Where there are several
comparable sales or awards produced for determining the marl t value of
the acquired plots of land by 'Comparable Sales Method of Valuation', it
is not the average price reflected in such comparable sales or awards which
should form the 'price basis' but it is the price reflected in the sale or
award pertaining to a land closest or nearest to the acquired land, in all H
298
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
its feature. When several sale-deeds or previous awards are produced in
Court as evidence of comparable sales, court has to necessarily examine
every sale or award to find out as to what is the land which is the subject
matter of sale or award and as to what is ~he price fetched by its sale or
. by the award made therefore, if it is found that the land covered by the
B basis •ir award, as the case may be, is almost identical _with the acquired
land under consideration, the land under the sale or the market value
determined for the land in the award could be taken by the court as the
'price basis' for determining the market value of the acquired land under
consideration. If there are more comparable sales or awards of the same
type, the 'price basis' to be got from them would be common. But when the
C comparable sales or awai"ds are not of the same kind and when each of
them furnish a different 'price basis', the market the value of the acquired
land could not be determined by averaging the prices fetched by all the
comparable sales or awards for getting the 'price basis'. It is so, for the
reason that such 'price ha.sis' may very largely depending even on comD
E
. F
parable sales or awards. Moreover; 'price basis' got by averaging comparable sales or awards which are not of the same kind, cannot be a correct
reOection of the price which the willing seller would have got from the
willing buyer, if the acquired land had been sold in the market. Therefore,
when there are are several comparable sales or awards pertaining to
different lands, what is required of the court is to choose that sale or award
relating to a land which closely or nearly compares with the plot of land
tb,e market value of which it has to determhu~':;"'nd total~ the,pri£e of land
of such saie or award as the basis for determining the market value of the
land under consideration. [307-F, H; 308-A-H; 309-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE 'URISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 369 of
1976 etc. etc.
'
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.8.i.975 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in R.F.A. No. 78 of 1965.
G
Rajinder Sachar, R.K. Maheshwari and Vivek Maheshwari for the
Appella.ryts. ·
Ms. S. Janani for Respondents.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PRINTERS v. SAIYADAN [VENKATACHALA,J.)
299
VENKATACHALA, J, These appeals arise a common judgment and A
separate decrees dated August 27, 1975 made by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana, whereby R.F.A.'s Nos. 76, 77 and 78 of 1965 filed by the
claimants seeking enchanced compensation for their acquired lands were
partly allowed, and R.F.A. Nos. 68, 69 and 70 of 1965 of the State of
Haryana seeking reduction in the compensation awarded to the claimants B
for their acquired lands were dismissed.
Civil Appeals Nos. 369-371 of 1976 are not filed by the State of
Haryana but are filed by Messrs Printers House Pvt. Lld. a company for
whose benefit the lands were acquired and in them reduction in the amount
of compensation awarded by the High Court, is sought. Civil Appeals Nos. C
946-948 of 1977 are that of the claimants and in them further enhanced
compensation for the acquired lands is sought from the State and the
company for whose benefit the State acquired the lands.
Material facts which have given rise to these appeals lie in a narrow D
compass:
(i)
Certain land situated in the Village Ranhera, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Gurgaon (Haryana), abutting DelhiMathura Road (G.T.Road) were needed by Messre Printers
House Pvt. Ud., hereinafter referred to as 'the Company', to E
set up its factory for the manufacture of printing mat t',nery.
A request was made by the Company to the Punjab Government to acquire tht said ~.mds, for its benefit. The Punjab
Government, which conceded to the request of the Company,
by a preliminary notification under section 4(1) of the Land p
Acquisition ·.ct, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',
publishc '. in the Punjab Gazette of April 7, 1961, proposed
the acquisition of the said lands. Those !ands measuring about
12 acres 3 kanals 4 marlas, comprised of 8 kanals 6 marlas
(5020.50 Sq. Yds.) and 1kanal19 marlas (1179. 75 Sq. Yds.) G
of lands owned by Mst. Saiyandan, 9 kanals 2 marlas (5505.50
Sq. Yds.) and 6 kanals 15 marlas (4083.75 Sq. Yds.) of lands
owned by Messrs Cold Stornge and Food Products and 73
kanals 2 marlas (44225.50 Sq. Yds.) of the lands owned by
the Masjid of Village Ranhera. The possession of the said
1.
land was taken over from their owner by the Sub-Divisional H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
300
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Collector, hereinafter
referred to as 'the L.A.C.', acting under section 17 of the Act.•
Notices under section 9 of the Act were, thereafter, issued by
the L.A.C. to the owners of the said lands calling upon them
to prefer claims for compensation. The owners, responding
to the s_aid notices, preferred their claims before the L.A.C.,
seeking determination of the market value_ of the acquired
lands at the rate of Rs. 10 per Sq. Yard.
(ii) The L.A.C., by his common award dated August 19,1961
made under section 12 of the Act, determined the market
, value of certain acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 3,600 per
acre and other acquired land at the rate of Rs. 1,6000 per
acre. He awarded 15 per cent solatium on the market value
of the acquired lands. He also awarded interest at 4 per cent
per annum on the amount of compensation payable to the
claimants for their acquired lands from the date of takfug
their possession until the date of his award.
(iii) Since the claimants did not accept the said award of the
LA.C., they made applications to him under section 18 of the
Act for referring their cases_ to the Civil Court for granting
higher amounts of compensation for their acquired lands.-The
LAC., accordingly, sent three References to the Court of
Additional District Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Judge,
hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court', for determination of the just amount of compensation awardable to
each of the claimants for the concerned acquired land.
(iv) The Reference Court, on consideration of the evidence adduced be for it by t_he claimants on one side and the State
and the Company on· the other side, made a common award
and separate decrees dated October 13, 1964 determining the
market-value of 8 kana1s and 6 maria:: of the acquired land
of Mst. Saiyadan comprised in Killa No. 13p. at Rs. 6,000 an
acre and of 1 kanal and 19 marlas of acquire(,f land of the
same claimant comprised in the same Kil1a at Rs. 4,800 an
acre. By the same common awara, it determined the marketvalue of 9 kana1s 2 marlas of the acquired land of Messrs
PRINTERS v. SAIYADAN [VENKATACHALA, J.]
301
Cold Storage and Food Products comprised in Killas Nos. 11 A
and 12 at Rs. 6,000 an and of 6 Kanals and 15 marlas of the
acquired land of the same claimant comprised in Killa Nos.
21 and 22 at the rate of Rs. 4,800 an acre. Besides, it determined the market-value of 73 kanals and 2 marlas of the
acquired land of the Masjid in Village Ranhera at the Rate B
of Rs. 4,800 an acre. In addition, it awarded solatium at 15
per cent on the enhanced amount of market-value of the
acquired lands and interest at 4 per cent per annum on the
enhanced compensation of the acquired lands from the date
of taking their possession until the date payment or deposit
of the amount of compensation.
C
(v) However, the claimants as well as the State, who were dissatisfied with the common award and separate decrees of the
Reference Court, preferred appeals therefrom in the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana, as adverted to by us already. D
(vi) The said appeals before the High Court were heard by a
Division Bench comprised of Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia
and Mr. Justice Man Mohan Singh Gujaral. As the said judges
rendered differing judgments on the amount of compensation
awardable to the claimants for their acquired lands, the E
. learned Chief Justice of the High Court placed the appeals
for hearing before a third judge, Mr. Justice Bhopinder Singh
Dhillon. That learned judge, by his Judgment dated August
27, 1975, since rendered a judgment concurring with the
judgment of Mr. Justice Man Mohan Singh Gujaral determinF
ing the market-value of almost all the acquired lands at an
uniform rate of Rs. 3 per Sq. Yd., the appeals of the claimants
were partly allowed and the appeals of the State were dismissed, as already adverted to. Although the State did not
prefer any appeal against the said judgment, the Company
for whose benefit the lands were acquired, preferred three G
Civil Appeals in this Court. So also, the claimants preferred
three Civil Appeals in this Court against the very judgment
of the High Court and they are in the nature of cross-appeals.
The Civil Appeals which, therefore, required our consideration, are H
302
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A .. those directed against the judgments of the High Court rendered by Mr.
Justice Bhopinder Singh Dhillon and Mr. Justice Man Mohan Singh
Gujaral. The oral argumentu .'f learned counsel appearing for the opposing
parties in the Civil Appeals were heard. The written submissions filed by
respective learned counsel are also seen.
B
From the oral arguments h..,.;.rd and the written submissions seen, we
c
D
E
F
find that for a proper disposal of the said appeals, consideration and
decision is necessary on the following points :
1.
Did the High Court apply the correct principle of valuation
of land, in proceeding to determine the the market-value of
separate plots of acquired lands of the three claimants, with
differing features at an uniform rate per unit measure?
2.
Did not High Court apply the correct principle of valuation
of land in determining the market-value of the acquired plots
of land by facing their unit rate by averaging the market value
fetched for different lands under sale deeds and previous
awards?
3.
If the said two principles of valuation of acquired lands
applied by the High Court for determining the market-value
of different plots of the acquired lands, were not correct, can
such determination of market-value be sustained? If not, is it
necessary for this Court to determine the market-value of
each plot of the acquired lands and if so, at what rate?
We shall now consider and decide the said points in their serial
order.
Point - 1:
If the amount of compensation awardable for the lands acquired
under the Act is required to be determined by a Civil Court, such amount
G of compensation has to be determined by taking into consideration the
market-value of the lands on the date of publication in Government
Gazette, of the preliminary Notification under sub-section (1) of section 4
of the Act, as is envisaged under the First Clause of sub-section (1) of
section 23 of the Act admits of no controversy. Such market~value of the
H acquired land which has to be determined by the Courts ought to be the
-
I
PRINTERS v. SAIY ADAN [VENKATACHALA, J.)
303
price which a willing vendor of the land might reasonably expect to obtain A
from a willing purchaser, has been a well accepted principle of valuati(\n
of acquired lands, ever since that the principle was expounded by the Privy
Council in the case of Vyricherala Narayana Gajapatiraju Bahadur v.
Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatnam, A.l.R. (1939) P.C. 98, known as
'Chemudu case'. In fact, this Court has approved the correctness of that B
principle by stating that the market-value means the price that a willing.
purchaser would pay to the willing seller fqr a property, having due regard
to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages and its potential
possibilities when laid out in the most advantageous manner excluding any
advantage due to the carrying out of the scheme for which the property is
compulsorily acquired vide : Rafjiubans Narain v. U.P. Govt., A.LR. (1967) C
S.C. 465, Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of M.P., (19'77) 1 S.C.C. 684.
Where there is evidence of sales or awards of land(s), which could
be compared with the acquired land(s), the Court, as a matter of course,
adopts the 'Comparable Sales Method of Valuation of land', in preference D
to other recognised methods of valuation of lands, such as 'capitalisation
of net income method' or 'Expert Opiilion Method' for determining the
market value of the acquired land(s). 'Comparable Sales Method' is the
most favoured method, since the prices paid within a reasonable time in
bona fide transactions of purchase or sale of the very acquired land or a
portion thereof, or of the land adjacent to those acquired and possessing E
similar advantages, could furnish to the Court the 'price basis' for determination of the market value of the acquired land, in that, there can be no
better evidence of what the willing purchaser would pay for the acquired
land if it had been sold in 'the market at the time of publication of
preliminary Notification'. Evidence of prices fetched by sale of lands p
similar to the acquired land will be taken by the Court to be the price which
a willing purchaser would have paid for the acquired land, if the same had
been sold to him in the open market. However, if the price under comparable sale to be taken by the Court, as furnishing the 'price basis' for
determination of the Jllarket yalue of the acquired land, the comparable
sale must, firstly be genuine, secondly it IQ.list have taken place at a time G
proximate to the date of publication of the preliminary Notification under
section 4(1) of the Act, thirdly the land sold under the sale must be similar
to the acquired land, and fourthly the land sold under the sale must be in
the vicinity of the acquired land. It has, therefore, to be noted that the
location size, shape, tenure, user or potentiality of land under comparable H
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
sale, if do not compare favourably with the acquired land, price fetched in~
comparable sale cannot furn;~t.. the 'prices basis' for determining the
market value of the acquired land. ri::>wever, if any differing feature of
factor in a land covered by comparable sale admits of adjustment in terms
of money, depending on whether !t is plus factor or minus factor, the
B market-value of the acquired land if. ::etermined either by increasing it
price or decreasing its price vis-a-vis the price fetched for land under
comparable sale. What applies to comparable sale, equally applies to
comparable award, if such award is relied upon as that furnishing a
price-basis for determination of the market-value of the land, cannot be
disputed. Thus, the best evidence for determining the market-value of the
C acquired land could be an authentic transaction of sale relating to the very
acquired land or a portion thereof of any other land which could be
favourably compared with the acquired land. The same would be. the
position when the available evidence relates to land covered by a previous
award.
D
If 'Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land' is adopted for
· determining the market-value of an acquired plot of land, it generally holds
goods determination of the market-value of several acquired plots of land
if acquisition of all such plot of land is made pursuant to the same
prelitllinary Notification. But, if any of the factors, such as, location shape,
E size, potentiality or tenure of one plot of acquired land widely differs from
the other plot(s), acquired land(s) then the market-value of each plot of
land acquired has to be determined independently of the other(s) even if
all of them had been acquired pursuant to the same preliminary Notification. The reason is not far to seek since the differential factors relating to
F
different acquired plots greatly affect their value. Hence, if any salient
factors of different acquired plots of land, which greatly affects their value
is ignored or is not taken into consideration by the Court while determining
the market-value of acquired lands, it will have failed to apply the correct
principle of valuation adoptable in valuation of different types of acquired
lands.
G
Whether the High Court has, in valuing several plots of acquired
lands with differing salient factors, ignored the aforesaid principle of
valuation of such acquired lands is the point which needs our consideration
now. The locations, sizes and shapes of the several acquired plots of land,
H the market ~ue of which had to be determined by the High Court w~re
..
PRINTERS v. SAIYADAN [VENKATACHALA, J.]
305.
not at all comparable, becomes apparent from its judgments. The concurA
.. ring judgment of Mr. Justice Bhopinder Singh Dhillon, shows that several
acquired plots of land with the market-value of which he was concuned
were different, for be states that :
"Another relevant question, which has to be considered is whether
the entire block of the acquired land could be assessed at a flat B
rate of there is justification for assessing at a flat rate or there is
justification for assessing the market value by dividing the land into
blocks."
But the leaned Judge proceeded to value the different plots of C
acquired lands, as a compact block on his view that all the plots of acquired
lands even if treated as a single block, would be smaller in size than some
of the instances of sales with which it has to be compared. In so proceeding
to value the different plots of acquired lands, the learned Judge overlooked
the important aspect that three were in reality 5 different types of plots of
acquired lands belonging to there different persons and the unit rate which D
each of the owners (Claimants) could have by sale of their respective plots
in the open market, could n\lt have been the sam.e, for the features (factors)
i.e., advantages and disadvantages, possessed by each plot varied greatly.
Mst. Saiyadan (Appellant in C.A. No. 946 of 1977), Masjid of Village E
Ranhera (Appellant in C.A. No. 947 of 1977) and M/s. Cold Storage &
Food Products (Appellant in C.A. NO. 948 of 1977) are the owners of the
several acquired plots of land aggregating to 99 kanals and 4 marlas.
Relying upon the evidence of C.W.1, Dyal Dass Patwari, Halqua Ballabhgarh, who was called as Court witness to the exact location of the
acquired plots of lands with reference to a plan prepared by him, S.S. F
Sandhawalia, J. has referred to the fact situation in his judgment, thus :
"No serious challenge is posed to the correctness of the plan,
Exhibit C.1 prepared from the official records and this would show
that an Saidy~dan, land-owner abut$ on the Delhi- Mathura road
with a fromtage of nearly 23 karems or 44 yards thereon. The G
southern block of the land of Messrs Cold Storage and Food
Products measuring 9 kanals and 2 marlas is in an identical
situation because it adjoins the G.T. Road with a frontage of nearly
40 yards. In sharp contrast thereto, however, is the situation of the
land of the third claimant the Masjid of village Ranhera. This area H
A
B
c
306
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
of 73 kanals and 2 marals is compeletely locked on all sides and
has no direct ingress to the G.T. Road above-mentioned. Indeed
C.W.1, Dayal Das deposed that the distance of the Masjid Ranhera
is about 100 to 105 Yards from the main road and no portion
thereof adjoins the highway. Similarly, a small portion of Mst.
Saiyandan's land comprising 1 Kanals and 19 Marlas is situated
equally away from the road and thus falls in the same class as the
Masjid land. The identical situation exists as regards the northern
portion comprising an area of 6 kanals 15 marlas belonging to
Messrs Colds Storage and Food Products which also has no proper
access to the road and an insignificant comer thereof merely
touches the same. This area is also irregular in shape and in no
way superior to the land belonging to the Masjid. •
The fact situation as to the location, size and shape of the acquired
plots of lands referred to as above by Sandhawalia, J. is unassailable for
it is based on the unrebutted evidence of Court Witness, C.W.1. If that be
D so, two learned Judges of the High Court, by their judgments under appeals
could not have proceeded to determine the market-value of almost all the
plots of the acquired lands which varied .greatly in situation (location),
shape and size, at a uniform rate per unit measure of land.
E
F
G
Thus, when the evidence in the case clearly established that the
different plots of lands of three claimants acquired, varied greatly as to
_their sizes, shapes and location (situation) they could not have fetched a
uniform rate, if the same had been sold in the open market by each of the
claimants. That being the correct position, two learned Judges of the High
Court did err on a principle of valuation applicable to valuation of different
types of acquired land, when they by their judgments under present appeals
determined the market-value of almost all the acquired plots of lands at a
uniform rate, on the wrong assumption that all the 5 plots of acquired lands
would have fetched the same rate if sold in the open market.
Point- 2:
This point relates to making the choice of sales when market value
of the acquired land has to be determined by 'Comparable Sales Method'.
If a land sold under a sale-deed is comparable with the acquired land, then
the courts will have, ordinarily, recourse to 'Comparable Sales· Method of
H Valuation' to determine the market value of.the acquired land, cannot be
..
PRINTERS v. SAIY ADAN [VENKATACHALA, J.)
'307
doubted. What is done under the 'Comparable Sales Method' of valuation A
of land is to find out the price fetched for sale of land under the saledeed claimed to be comparable sale and take that price as that which the
acquired land would have fetched, if its sales had been effected in the open
market and determine the market value of the acquired land accordingly.
The 'Comparable Sales Method of Valuation' of land is preferred to other
known methods of valuation of land since the variety of factors appertainB
ing to the land, which require adjustment by th~ Court (valuer) in determining the market value of the acquired land, would be the least. Where,
however, certain factors appertaining to the land in a comparable sale has
to be adjusted, it is done by varying the price of land covered by the sale,
i.e. by adding certain amount to the price fetched for the land sold or by C
deducting a certain amount in such price, depending on the nature of the
factor concerned being a plus factor or a minus factor. Whatever it be, the
genuineness or authenticity of the sale is a factor which permits no adjustment in price.
As the price fetched under a genuine Sale-deed could form the basis D
for determining the market value of. the acquired land, the market value
determined by an award made under the Act for an earlier acquired land,
by either the umd Acquisition Officer or the Court could also form the
basis for determining the market value of subsequently acquired land.
If the comparable sales or previous awards are more than one, E
whether the average price fetched by aii the comparable sales should form
the 'price basis' for determination of the market value of the acquired land
or the price fetched by the nearest or closest of the comparable sales
should alone form the 'price basis' for determination of the market value
of the acquired land, being the real point requiring our coiisideration here,
we shall deal with it. When several sale-deeds or previous awards are
produced in Court as evidence of comparable sales, Court has to necessarily examine every sale or award to find out as to what is the land which
is the subject of sale or award and as to what is the priee fetched by its
sale or by the award made therefor.
F
G
If the sale if found to be a genuine one or the award is an accepted
one, and the sale or award pertains to land which was sold or acquired at
about the time of publication of preliminary Notification under the Act in
respect of the acquired land, the market value of which has to be determined, the Court. has to mark the location and the fe!ltures (advantages H
308
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
and disadvantages) of the land covered by the sale or the award. This
process involves the marking by Court of the size, shape, tenure, potentiality etc. of the land. Keeping in view the various factors marked or
noticed respecting the land covered by the sale or award, as the case may
be, presence or absence of such factors, degree of presence of degree of
B absence of such factors in the acquired land the market value of which has
to be determined, should be seen. When so seen, if it is found that the land
covered by the sale or award, as the case may be, is almost identical with
the acquired land under consideration, the land under the sale of the
market value determined for the land in the award could be taken by the
CourJ as the 'price basis' for determining the market value of the acquired
C land under consideration. If there are more comparable sales or awards of
the same type, no difficulty arises since the 'price basis' to be got from them
would be common. But, difficulty arises when the comparable sales or
awards are not of the same kind and when each of them furnish a different
'price basis'. This difficulty /cannot be overcome by averaging the prices
D fetched by all the comparable sales or awards for getting the 'price basis'
on which the market value of the acquired land could be determined. It is
so, for the obvious reason that such 'price basis' may very largely depending
even no comparable sales or awards. Moreover, 'price basis' got by averaging comparable sales or awards which are not of the same kind, cannot be
E a correct reflection of the price which the willing seller would have got
from the willing buyer, if the acquired land had been sold in the market~
For instance, in the case on hand, there are three claimants. The,plots of
their acquired land, which are five in numbers, are not similar, in that, their
location, size, shape greatly vary. One plot of land of one claimant and
F
another plot of another claimant appear to be one type. ~~ther plot of
land of one of them appear to be of a different type. Yet ~other plot of
the second of them appears to be different. If so far as thjrd claimant's plot
of land is concerned, it appears to be altogether diff ~rent from the rest.
Therefore, if each of claimants were to sell her/his r~pective plots of land
in the open market, it is impossible to think th~ they would have got a
G uniform rate for their lane. The position cannot be different if the comparable .sales or awards when relate to different lands. Therefore, when
there are several comparable sales or awards pertaining to different lands,
what is required of the Court is to choose that sale or award relating to a
land which closely or nearly compares with the plot of land of market value
H of which it has to determine, and to take the price of l~d of such sale or
.
PRINTERS v. SAIY ADAN [VENKATACHAlA, J.)
309
I
award as the basis for determining the mar.ket value of the land under A
consideration.
In the judgments of learned Judges of the High Court, which are
under appeals, what is taken as the basis for determining the market value
of the acquired plots of lands of the three claimants is to take the average B
of prices fetched by several sale-deeds and awards relating to different
types of lands and determine the market value of the acqUired plots of land
accordingly. The relevant passage in the concurring judgment of Dhillon,
J. which needs to be seen in the context reads. :
"While assessing the market value of the acquired land as comC
pared to the instances of sale of acquisition which furnish guide
line for assessing the market value, the sizes of the plot of land,
subject matter of sale or acquisition, which have been found to be
relevant, and their locatirn has to be compared with the acquired
land. It would be noticed that the land of Nawal Singh measured D
8 kanals only but it similarly situate as the acquired land. However,
this being a small plot, the value of this plot also goes quite deep
towards the railway lines and its depth is a little less than the
acquired land. However, this being a small plot, value of this plot
is bound to be higher than the acquired which is quite a big chunk
of land. The land purchased by the Globe Motors measures 99 E
kanals and 4 marlas. The area is thus more of less the same as the
same as that of the acquired land. As regards the location, its
frontage does not touch the G.T. Road but touches the Ballabhgarh Road. The situation of this plot can not be termed in any
way better than the acquired land. The area acquired for the p
Gurgaon canal is with a very little width the quite a good length,
and, therefore, it can not be compared with the acquired land in
the sense of its dimensions. The land sold by Shaha-bu-din
(A.W.18) measuring 6 kanals, for Rs. 4,000 is again a small area.
It would thus be seen that out of five instances, which have been
found to be useful for' arriving at the market value of the acquired G
land, three instances are of small plots whereas two are of big plots.
It would thus be appropriate to draw the average and work out
the price per sqnare yard on the basis of the said transactions
which comes to Rs. 4.60 per Sq. Yard. But some reduction has to
be made on account of the acquired land being low lying. It would H
310
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R ..
appear appropriate that the deduction of Rs. 1.60 per square yard
be made from the average price as the entire land is 6 or 7 feet
below the road. The land fallen in Killa No. 14 Rectangle No. 11,
has been proved to be a Jauhar. T~e market value of Killa No. ·14
. which is a Jauhar, awarded by the learned Additional District
· Judges, appears to be a fair compensation. Therefore, Rs. 3 per
Sq. Yard would be a reasonable price of the acquired land except
the land falling in Killa No. 14 Rectangle No. 11."
The comparable sales and awards which are made the basis for
fmding average price of lands covered by them by Gujaral, J. with whose
C judgment Dhillon, J. has concurred are 5 number and are these:·
"SI.
Description of '
Area
Total Price
Approximate price
No.
land
per Sq. Yard.
1.
Sale by N awal 6 Kanals
Rs. 40,000. Rs.10
D
Singh (Mutation
No. 63}
2.
Land purchased lOOKanals Rs.2,84,000 Rs. 5.50 (Only the:
by
Globe
amount paid before
Motors (Ext.
the Sub-Registrar i::
E
A.W. 14/1}
accepted as the price)
·3.
Land acquired
Assessed by the Land
for Spun Pipe
Acquisition Collector
Factory
at Rs. 4 per Sq. Yard.
4.
Land acquired
The portion situated
for the Gurgaon
between G.T. Road
canal (on 20.9.60
and railway line
F
vide Exhibit Passessed by the Land
26)
A~uisition Collector
at Rs. 3.25 per Sq.
Yard.
G
5.
Sale by Shah-bu- 6 Kanals
Rs. 4,000
Rs. 1.33"
din dated 11th
August, 1959
(Exhibit R-8)
H
The relevant sentence in his judgment which needs to be seen in t~e
PRINTERS v. SAIYADAN [VENKATACHALA,J.)
311
co'ntext reads :
A
"I am clearly of the view that the average price worked out on the
-.
basis of the five transactions mentioned above would fairly represent the market value of the land in the vicinity of the acquired
land on the relevant date "
B
When the rate per Sq. Yd. of land in the said 5 instances relied upon
by the learned Judge for averaging the price, showed the highest rate in an
instance was Rs. 10 per Sq Yd. and the lowest rate in another instance was
Rs.1.33 P., he should have seen that averaging of prices could bring about
unrealistic results. For instance, if the sale in item-5 related to 600 kanals c
of land instead of 6 kanals of land, the average price of all transactions
could be even below Rs. 2.
The determination of market value of the acquired plots of lands
made by the High Court on average price basis, therefore, is incorrect, in
that, it overlooks the important principle of valuation that the market value D
of the acquired land when is determined by adoption of the 'Comparable
Sales Method' the same has to be done with reference to the price fetched
in a sale or market value given in an award, as the case may be, of a land
which is closest or nearest to the acquired land and not with reference to
average price fetched by several comparable sale deeds or awards, of E
different types of lands.
p,·u-3:
Both the leaned Judges (Gujral, J. and Dhillon, J.) who·rendered
their judgments under appeals, as is pointed out by us, in dealing with F
Points 1 and 2, have failed to determine the market value of the acquired
•(
lands by applying the warranted two principles of valuation of land - the
first of them being that where the acquired plots of land belong to different
persons and do not have similar feature they should not be treated as a
si.i.~e unit for awarding a uniform rate of market value and the second of G
them being that where there are several comparable sales or awards
produced for determining the market value of the acquired plots of land
by 'Comparable Sales Method of valuation', it is not the average price.
reflected in such comparable sales or awards which should form the 'price
basis' but it is the price reflected in the sale or award pertaining to a land
closest or nearest to the acquired land, in all its features. As could be seen H
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
from their judgments, an obvious mistake is committed in determining the
market value of acquired lands possessed of dissimilar features by applying
the unwarranted principle of valuation adaptable in valuation of agricultural lands in a large tract of acquired agricultural land or vast extent of
non-agricultural land or strip of agricultural or non-agricultural acquired
B
land comprised of several plots of similar land on the basis of price
fetched by a comparable sale of a similar plot of land or amount awarded
in a comparable award for a plot of acquired land. Consequently, the
market value of the acquired plot:; of lands with dissimilar features, determined by the two learned Judges of the High Court in their judgmentS
under appeals become unsustainable. This situation, should have, in th~
C normal course, led us to make an order _setting aside the judgments under
appeals and remitting the cases to the High Court for their fresh disposal
by application of the appropriate principles of valuation relating to valuation of dissimilar plots of l~ds although such plots adjoining each other
were acquired pursuant to a common preliminary notification and for a
D common purpose. But the period of 32 years during which the parties are
in litigation has made us feel that we should ourselves decide the matter
finally and save the parties from the agony of further litigation.
In the judgment of Sandhawalia, J. we find reference to Ex.1 plan
prepared from the official records by C.W.1 Dyal Das Patwari and his
E
evidence where the acquired lands, the market value of which is to be
determined by us, are described ~ detail thus :
F
G
H
" ........... This (Ex.C-1) would show that an area of 8 kanals 6 marlas
belonging to Mst.