PETITIONER: M.V.K. GUNDARAO Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,(L.A.O.), NARASARAOPET

PETITIONER: M.V.K. GUNDARAO
Vs.
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,(L.A.O.), NARASARAOPET
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/01/1996
BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
FACTS: Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on
January 3, 1980 acquiring 5108-2/3 sq. yds. in Survey Nos.248/2, 249/2, 300/1 and 26767
sq. Ft. Or 2974-1/4 sq.yds. in temporary Survey No.249/3 and 300/2 situated in the middle
of Narasaraopet Town, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh for construction of Telephone
Exchange building, Microwave Building and Microwave Tower. The appellant has laid his
claim for a sum of Rs. 80/- per sq.yd. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award under
Section 9 determined the compensation @ Rs.40/- per sq. yd. on March 30, 1980. On
reference under Section 18, the subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet in his award and decree
dated December 15, 1982 enhanced the compensation at Rs.75/- per sq. yd. The High Court
on appeal by the State as well as by the claimants reduced the compensation to Rs.56/- per sq.
yd. Thus these appeals by special leave. The State did not file any appeal.
The High Court concluded that since the lands covered in the sale transactions relate to the
small pieces of land, they did not commend the same price for the total extent of the land to
the acquisition covering 5,000 and odd sq. Yds. Accordingly, reduced the compensation in
the impugned judgment made in A.S.No.2629/86 and 1183/84 dated February 21, 1992.
It is settled law that the burden is on the claimant to prove the prevailing market value as on
the date of the Section 4(1) Notification and it is the duty of the Court to assess the prevailing
market value applying pragmatic tests. The Court has to consider the evidence in the proper
perspective whether a willing vendee would prepare to purchase at the rates offered by the
willing vendor in an open market when the lands are put to sale. It is the duty of the Court to
sit on the arm chair of a prudent purchaser acting under normal market conditions and to
decide the prevailing prices as on the date of the notification.
JUDGMENT: It would thus be seen that the appellant having had the knowledge of the
proposed acquisition for the public purposes obviously brought these documents to
inflate the market value and that, therefore, these sale transactions cannot be pressed into
service. The learned subordinate Judge has committed palpable error of law in accepting
ipso facto those documents without subjecting the evidence to closer and critical scrutiny,
whether these documents are genuine documents executed between willing vendor and
willing vendee. The answer would be obviously “No”. The High Court, therefore, was right
in not relying upon those documents. If these documents are excluded from
consideration, there is no other evidence on record to consider for enhancement of the
compensation. The High Court, therefore, was right in reducing the compensation from Rs.
75/- to Rs. 56/- with consequential benefit of solatium and interest. The appeals are
accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.