HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.

NAVEEN RAO
&
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

LAAS NOs.73 OF 2019, 58 & 78 Of 2020 AND 18 OF 2021;

Cross Objections No.6 of 2022 in LAAS No. 58 of 2020;
and
Cross Objections No.14 of 2022 in LAAS No. 78 of 2020

Date : 28.09.2022

LAAS NO.73 OF 2019:

Between:
Barla Ram Reddy s/o.late Kota Reddy,
Aged 73 years, occu: Agriculyure,
R/o.H.no.6-3-597/D/12, Anand Nagar,
Hyderabad.
…. Appellant

And

State of Telangana, rep.by Spl.Deputy Collector

(Land Acquisition) Unit-VI, Outer Ring Road
Project (ORRP), Hyderabad Metropolitan
Development Authority (HMDA), Taranaka,
Hyderabad.
….Respondent

This Court made the following :

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
2 

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

&
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

LAAS NOs.73 OF 2019, 58 & 78 Of 2020 AND 18 OF 2021;

Cross Objections No.6 of 2022 in LAAS No.58 of 2020;
and
Cross Objections No.14 of 2022 in LAAS No. 78 of 2020

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao)

These are two sets of appeals. In separate awards, the Land

Acquisition Officer awarded 7,56,000/- per acre as compensation. The

claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (for short, Act, 1894). By order dated 17.12.2018 in LAOP No.632 of

2012, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to 9,45,000/-

per acre. Not satisfied with said enhancement claimant filed LAAS No.73

of 2019. In LAOP Nos. 56 of 2014, 258 and 457 of 2011 by separate

orders dated 27.12.2018, the reference Court enhanced the compensation

to 28,00,000/-. Challenging the same, the HMDA filed LAAS Nos.58

and 78 of 2020 and LAAS No.18 of 2021. The claimants filed Cross-

objections claiming higher compensation.

2. In LAAS No.73 of 2019, the claimant is owner of land to an extent of

Acs.6.20 guntas in Sy.No.205/2, Narsingi village. Section 4(1) notification

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
3 

was published on 4.4.2006. The notification covered Acs.30.00 guntas

spread over various survey numbers of Narsingi village.

3. In LAAS No.78 of 2020, claimant is owner of land to an extent of

Acs.5.03 and Ac.0.05 in Survey Nos.176 and 177. In LAAS No.58 of

2020, claimant is owner of land to an extent of Ac.0.10 in Survey No.177.

In LAAS No.18 of 2021 the claimant is owner of land to an extent of

Ac.01.04 in Survey No.176. All these lands are in Narsingi village.

Section 4(1) Notification was issued on 13.12.2005 to acquire several

extents of land including the three extents mentioned above. On

3.10.2007, Land Acquisition Officer passed award determining the

compensation payable as 7,56,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with said

determination claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act.

Their references are numbered as LAOP No.258 of 2011, LAOP No.56 of

2014 and LAOP No.457 of 2011 respectively. In all the LAOPs, the

reference Court enhanced the compensation to 28,00,000/- per acre.

Aggrieved thereby, the HMDA filed LAAS Nos.78 and 58 of 2020 and LAAS

No.18 of 2021 respectively. The claimants filed Cross Objections in all

these appeals seeking higher compensation.

4. Heard Sri E.Ajay Reddy, learned senior counsel for appellant in

LAAS No.73 of 2019, learned counsel Sri Gurra Peddababu for claimants
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
4 

in LAAS Nos.58 & 78 of 2020 and 18 of 2021 and Sri Y Rama Rao,

learned standing counsel for HMDA.

LAAS No.73 of 2019:

5. According to the learned senior counsel, the compensation

determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and enhancement granted by

the reference Court is grossly inadequate and not according to prevailing

market price. Having regard to the location of land, potentiality and

commercial viability, the property would have fetched a higher price than

what was awarded.

5.1. He would submit that even before Section 4(1) notification was

issued proposing to acquire appellant’s land, Government and HMDA

envisaged grand plans to sell its lands in Sy.Nos.100, 109, 147 in Kokapet

village at a far higher price. In their brochure to sell the lands in Kokapet

in the project named as ‘Golden Mile’, the base price fixed was at 4.50

crores per acre and in the auction far higher price was fetched. By

placing reliance on the documents filed before the Land Acquisition

Officer in the reference Court and herein, he would submit that the lands

in Kokapet village auctioned by the HMDA are very close to the subject

land. He would submit, in fact the claimant’s land is adjacent to Outer

Ring Road (ORR), whereas the lands in Kokapet were away from ORR.

Thus, comparatively the claimant’s land has higher potentiality.

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
5 

5.2. He would submit that the reference Court grossly erred in ignoring

the Exs.A2 to A5, A10 and A14, and holding that the lands in Kokapet

village are far away. The reference Court has not appreciated the issue in

right perspective. The plans issued by HMDA n& HMDA Map filed in

I.A.No.1 of 2022 to bring on record as additional documents (Exs.A38 and

A39), Bhuvan Map (Ex.A41) issued by National Remote Sensing Centre,

four Google Maps (Exs.A43 to A46), village maps of Nanakramguda,

Khajaguda, Poppalaguda, Narsingi and Kokapet (Exs.A74 to A78) and

Google Earth Map (Ex.A60) clearly point out that the land of the claimant

is very proximate to ‘Golden Mile’.

5.3. Further, the fact that location of ISB, MICROSOFT-INDIA, WIPRO,

etc., is proximate to claimant’s land would show the high potentiality of

the claimant’s land.

5.4. He would submit that the claimant has produced registered sale

transactions (Ex A6 to A9) on lands in Narsingi and Poppalaguda villages

fetching 12.50 crores per acre which are very proximate to claimant’s

land.

5.5. He would submit that the claimant also pleaded to provide

alternative land instead of compensation, but the same was not agreed

without any justification, whereas alternative land was provided while

acquiring the land of Telugu Film Producers Mutually Aided Co-op.

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
6 

Housing Society Limited. Their land was acquired to form ORR. The land

allotted was very near to ‘Golden Mile’ and is more valuable than the land

acquired. This clearly amounts to discrimination.

5.6. He would submit that post sale transactions in the vicinity can also

be considered to arrive at just compensation.

5.7. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:

Chimanlal Hargovind Das vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and

another1; Nadirsha Shapurji Patel (dead) by LRs., and others vs. Deputy Collector

and Land Acquisition Officer and another2; Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs. and

others vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another3; Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai

(deceased) through his heirs and LRs and others vs. State of GUjarat4;

Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi5; Jaspal Kaur

Cheema and another vs. Industrial Trade Links and others6; Himmat Singh and

others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another7; Jawajee Nagnatham vs. Revenue

Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and others8; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa

and another9; Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and others vs. State

of Punjab and others10; Atma Singh (dead) through LRs and others vs. State of

Haryana and another11; Bhender and others vs. State of Haryana and another12;

                                                        
1
(1988) 3 SCC 751
2
(2010) 13 SCC 234
3
(2012) 1 SCC 390
4
(1989) 4 SCC 250
5
(1988) 2 SCC 150
6
(2017) 8 SCC 592
7
(2013) 16 SCC 392
8
(1994) 4 SCC 595
9
(2010) 13 SCC 710
10
(2012) 5 SCC 432
11
(2008) 2 SCC 568
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
7 

Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra13; Major General Kapil Mehra and

others vs. Union of India and another14; Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing

Board vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and others15; Viluben Jhalejar Contractor

(dead) by LRs vs State of Gujarat16; Bhimasha vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer

and another17; N.Ramachadra Reddy vs. State of Telangana and others18; State of

Haryana vs Ram Singh19;Cement Corpn.of India Ltd. Vs. Purya and others20;

Trishala Jain and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and another21; Lal Chand vs.

Union of India and another22; and Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand23

6. Per contra, learned standing counsel supports the decision of the

reference Court. He would submit that the lands in Kokapet village are

far away from the claimant’s land and there can be no comparison. The

HMDA have developed the ‘Golden Mile’ with all amenities and as the

lands are without any dispute, fetched far higher price. He would submit

that the lands surrounding claimant’s land have also not fetched higher

value. He would therefore submit that the compensation determined by

the reference Court is just and equitable.

                                                                                                                                                                       
12
(2018) 11 SCC 180
13
(2009) 11 SCC 171
14
(2015) 2 SCC 262
15
(2011) 2 SCC 246
16
(2005) 4 SCC 789
17
(2008) 10 SCC 797
18
(2020) 16 SCC 478
19
(2001) 6 SCC 254
20
(2004) 8 SCC 270
21
(2011) 6 SCC 47
22
(2009) 15 SCC 769
23
2022 SCC Online SC 292
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
8 

6.1. He submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer considered all

relevant aspects to decide the compensation and having regard to the

market price in the adjourning lands he has fixed 7,56,000/- per acre,

which was just and reasonable. The land of claimant’s was acquired to

form ORR and by then there was no activity in and around claimant’s

land. Only after acquisition process was initiated the prices have gone up.

Therefore, subsequent escalation in prices could not have been the basis

for enhancing the compensation.

6.2. Learned standing counsel placed reliance on the following

decisions:

Shaji Kuriakose and another vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., and others24; Lal

Chand vs. Union of India and another [(2009) 15 SCC 769]; Karan Singh and others

vs. Union of India25; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., vs.

Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another26; Manmohan Lal Gupta (dead) through

Legal representatives vs. Market Committee, Bhikhi and others27; Namdeo Shankar

Govardhane (dead) through Legal representatives and others vs. State of

Maharashtra and others28; C.N.Ramappa Gowda vs. C.C.Chandregowda (dead) by

LRs. and another29; Madan Mohan Singh and others vs. Rajni Kant and another30

and Malayalam Plantations Limited vs. State of Kerala and another31.

                                                        
24
(2001) 7 SCC 650
25
(1997) 8 SCC 186
26
(2008) 14 SCC 745
27
(2021) 10 SCC 395
28
(2019) 8 SCC 56
29
(2012) 5 SCC 265
30
(2010) 9 SCC 209
31
(2010) 13 SCC 487
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
9 

LAAS Nos. 78 AND 58 OF 2020 AND 18 OF 2021:

7. Learned counsel for claimants while adopting the submissions of

learned senior counsel in LAAS No.73 of 2019 on ‘Golden Mile’ auctions

and price fetched therein would submit that the Land Acquisition Officer

in LAAS No.78 of 2020 grossly erred in not considering sale transactions

to determine the just compensation while relying on those documents to

ascertain ownership. What is good for one transaction cannot be bad/

ignorable for another transaction. This fact was also not appreciated by

the reference Court.

7.1. He would further submit that Exs.A1 to A8 demonstrate that higher

value was fetched in the adjoining lands. While referring to them, the

reference Court erred in ignoring them to determine just compensation. It

shows clear non-application of mind. Reference Court erred in ignoring

the claim of claimants that lands covered by Exs.A1 to A8 transactions

are in the vicinity/adjacent to acquired land.

7.2. It is also urged that Land Acquisition Officer noted the sale deeds

only to recognize ownership but ignores the sale value to determine just

compensation.

7.3. The Reference Court erred in ignoring the sale of lands in ‘Golden

Mile’ on the ground that sale was based on auctions. He would submit
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
10 

that the factors mentioned in the auction proposals of ‘Golden Mile’ are

equally applicable to subject lands and the said factor was lost sight by

the reference Court. He would further submit that while recognizing the

establishment of economic zone in Kokapet and the high potentiality of

acquired lands it grossly erred in awarding only 28,00,000/- per acre as

compensation. What is determined is not just compensation and

claimants are entitled to higher compensation.

7.4. According to learned counsel for claimants as per the original

alignment of ORR in the proposals to acquire land dated 29.10.2004

claimants’ lands were not included. There was change of alignment

covering for the first time claimants’ lands. By 13.12.2005 the potentiality

of their lands increased by several times. By then, Financial District was

developed, Knowledge Corridor of Hyderabad came up and world class

companies were established. World class institutions have come up.

7.5. He would further contend that the reference Court erroneously

ignored sale transactions of land in Survey No.204/E of Narsingi village

fetching sale price of 1,41,92,391/- per acre, which is adjacent to

acquired land. The Reference Court also ignored other sale transactions

made prior to Section 4 (1) notification.

8.1. He would submit that having discarded the sale transactions of

adjacent lands relied on by claimants, there was no basis for reference

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
11 

Court to enhance the compensation to 28,00,000/- per acre. In the

facts of these cases, there was no justification to do guess work to fix

compensation at 28,00,000/-. The reasons assigned are not valid to

resort to guess work.

8.2. He would submit that the ‘Golden Mile’ land is far away. It is a fully

developed layout with all amenities with clear title. There can be no

comparison of sale prices of plots in ‘Golden Mile’ with that of claimants’

lands.

9. According to Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for HMDA

the enhancement is exorbitant. That reference Court has not properly

appreciated the evidence on record. The claimants miserably failed in

discharging their burden to seek enhancement. The Land Acquisition

Officer has considered potentiality of the lands in the vicinity of lands

acquired, value of the lands based on the sale transactions prior to the

date of notification and amount determined was just and reasonable. He

would submit that there cannot be a comparison with sale of plots in

‘Golden Mile’.

10. Based on the submissions made by both parties, following issues

arise for consideration.

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
12 

(1) Given the Supreme Court observations regarding

relying on sale transactions of other lands to establish market

value, are the subject lands contemporaneous to the ‘Golden

Mile’ Kokapet lands shown on record?

(2) Is the reference Court correct in its stance to not take

into consideration sale transactions of adjacent lands while

determining market value of subject lands? and

(3) Are post notification sale transactions an appropriate

benchmark for determining an enhanced market value, if yes,

then to what extent?

(4) Whether the compensation determined by the reference

Courts is just and equitable ?

ISSUE No.1

11. Before dwelling into the issues, it is pertinent to note that the land

in LAAS No.73 of 2019 and lands in other three appeals are meant for

construction of ORR and aspects relating to ORR and these lands are

nearer to each other. All the claimants compared their lands with that of

lands auctioned in ‘Golden Mile’ of Kokapet village. Whereas in LAOP

No.632 of 2012 (LAAS No.73 of 2019) the XIII Additional District and

Sessions Judge-cum-M.V.Act, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar, enhanced the

compensation to 9,45,000/- in the three other LAOPs, the Special

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
13 

Sessions Judge for SC and ST (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar, awarded

compensation of 28,00,000/- per acre. In LAOP No.632 of 2012, the

reference Court has not agreed to the plea of claimant on proximity to

various development activities around Narsingi village and further

potentiality. Whereas, in three LAOPs, another reference Court was also

dealing with acquisition of land in Narsingi village for the purpose of

construction of ORR. The said reference Court recognizes Narsingi village

as highly potential area and nearer to Special Economic Zone in Kokapet

village. It also recognizes escalation of market prices in the surrounding

areas of Hyderabad city. It has also recorded sale transactions in the year

2004-2005 in Narsingi village where sale value fetched 30,00,000/- and

31,00,000/-. It observes that LAO failed to fix just and fair market

value and enhanced the compensation to 28,00,000/- per acre.

12. To claim higher compensation to the land of claimants’ acquired for

ORR project, heavy reliance is placed on the development activity taken

up and offered for sale by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority

(now referred to as HMDA) nearer to claimants’ land known as ‘Golden

Mile’. It is their case that ‘Golden Mile’ project is very near to their land.

The HMDA indicated base price as 4.5 crores per acre. The work of

‘Golden Mile’ started earlier to acquisition of claimants’ land and lot of

hype was created before launching the project, received very good
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
14 

response and sold plots at a very high price, going upto 14.5 crores per

acre with an average sale price of 8.05 crores. It is the further case of

claimant that while promoting ‘Golden Mile’ project vigorously, the HMDA

projected that INFOSYS and ISB are within 3 KMs, WIPRO MICROSOFT

and POLARIS within 2 KMs, Hyderabad International Airport within 15

minutes distance, so on. Applying the same yardstick the lands of the

claimants’ are at a better location and, therefore have higher commercial

potential. These projections though might have looked imaginary, but as

things stand now they are proved to be real and happening.

LAAS No. 73 OF 2019:

13. It is contended that claimants’ land is very close to 8 lane 250 feet

wide ‘Express Highway’ connecting Gachibowli and Hyderabad

International Airport. In the vicinity several world class projects have

come up, such as INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL

(1999 on 260 acres), MICROSOFT-INDIA, WIPRO, INFOSYS, ICICI,

POLARIS, FRANKLIN TEMPLETON and so on. The Financial District and

Knowledge Corridor is stone throw away.

14. It was therefore urged that there is huge potentiality of commercial

development at the location of his land and compared to the land value in

‘Golden Mile’ project and high prospects in the surrounding area the

compensation paid to claimant is meager.

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
15 

15. As against this projection by the claimant pitching for higher

compensation, the Reference Court noted the following aspects to decline

compensation of 6.10 crores per acre.

16. It is held that the land in Sy.No.205/2 is far away from DLF New

Heights, Jayabheri the Park, Vertex Panache Apartments, Power Welfare

Society Project. It is further held that the sale transactions in Exs.A6 and

A7 are in a different village, i.e., Puppalaguda. Exs.A8 and A9 sale deeds

cover land far away from the claimant’s land and these sale deeds were in

the year 2007, after award was passed. It is further held that the lands in

Kokapet ‘Golden Mile’ are far away from claimant’s land. Though there

maybe development activity, but the buildings shown in Ex.A11 are far

away from claimants’ land in Sy.No.205/2.

17. The reference Court also noted that release of brochure and date of

auction of ‘Golden Mile’ was three months after the Section 4(1)

notification. The claimant purchased the subject land on 28.03.2005, but

he has not shown the price of his purchase, whereas the sale statistics

relied by the HMDA are nearer to the compensation determined by Land

Acquisition Officer. The reference Court held that it is not possible to

escalate cost of land from 7.56 lacs to 14.45 crores within a span of

few months.
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
16 

18. The reference Court however recognizes the prospect of increase in

price in view of developments around the claimant’s land, but restricts the

enhanced compensation to only 9,45,000.00 per acre.

19. Two aspects are noticed from the contentions and the order of

reference Court.

20. Though not adjacent or in the neighbouring area, at a distance of

about 2 to 3 KMs from claimant’s land several multinational companies,

reputed national companies, international standard institutions have

come up. Showing these developments the HMDA projected the

potentiality for growth around the area to sell its lands in Kokapet village

at a very high price. It is to be noted that the land of the claimant is

abutting ORR compared to Kokapet land and is acquired to develop inter-

junction in Narsingi village. What was projected for ‘Golden Mile’ is also

applicable to Narsingi village.

21. In the connected appeals reference Court noted sale transactions of

30,00,000/- and 31,00,000/- per acre. The claimants also relied on

sale transaction of 1,41,92,391/- per acre. The claimants in all the

appeals assert payment of higher compensation by many fold than what

was granted by comparing with sale transactions in ‘Golden Mile’ project,

which according to claimants is away by about 800 Mtrs, though in a

different village, i.e., Kokapet and same reasoning for future potentiality
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
17 

as projected for ‘Golden Mile’ project by very HMDA be applied to land of

claimants.

22. At this stage, a brief parade of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court

on determination of just compensation to land acquired for public

purpose is necessary.

23. Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai v. State of Gujarat32, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held as under:

“4. We do not feel called upon to enter into a detailed scrutiny of the evidence led
by the parties before the learned Civil Judge. The main instance relied upon by the
claimants was by way of an agreement to sell dated 21-1-1957 and a sale deed
dated 2-4-1957 in respect of the sale of 42,552 square yards of land out of Survey
No. 333/2 which is adjoining the land with which we are concerned which forms
part of Survey No. 331. The land sold under this instance was known as
“Kesarbagh” and was sold to Mahalaxmi Mills Limited by Prince
Nirmalkumarsinghji. The rate at which it was sold works out to Rs 3 per square
yard. On the basis of this instance, the claimants had made their claim at Rs 3 per
square yard before the Land Acquisition Officer. The High Court inter alia rejected
this instance on the basis that the contents of the sale deed were not properly
proved. However, after an order for remand made by this Court on 25-8-1981
evidence has been led regarding this sale and the sale deed has been duly proved
by the evidence of one Dharamdas, a director of Mahalaksmi Mills Limited, the
purchaser, and the vendor Prince Nirmalkumarsinghji. It was marked originally as
Ext. 87 and after the evidence on remand as Ext. 152. The evidence shows that this
land was just adjacent to the land of the purchaser, Mahalakshmi Mills Limited.
The agreement of sale is dated 21-1-1957 and the conveyance or sale deed is dated
2-4-1957 as aforestated. The price has been fixed under the agreement of sale. This
agreement of sale was entered into about five months after the publication of
Section 4 notification in the case before us. The High Court rejected the said
instance on the ground that the contents of the sale deed were not proved although
the execution thereof was duly proved. In view of the evidence led after remand, it
cannot be disputed that this agreement of sale as well as the sale deed have been
duly proved and they have been duly marked as exhibits. The High Court further
took the view that in any event, no reliance could be placed on this instance of sale
because the acquisition of the land in question before us was for the construction
of an industrial estate at Bhavnagar and such construction was bound to have
pushed up the prices of land in the surrounding area. There is, however, nothing in
the evidence to show that there was any sharp or speculative rise in the price of the
land after the acquisition and this has been noticed by the High Court. It appears
that under these circumstances, the High Court was not justified in not taking this
instance into account at all as it has done on the ground that it was a post-
acquisition sale and could not be regarded as a comparable instance at all. The
market value of a piece of property for purposes of Section 23 of the Land
                                                        
32
(1989) 4 SCC 250
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
18 

Acquisition Act is stated to be the price at which the property changes hands from
a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms length.
Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities
under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary
notification are the usual and, indeed the best, evidences of market value.
(See: Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi [(1988) 2 SCC 150,
para 8] ).
(emphasis supplied)

24. In Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi (supra) the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“8. The determination of market value of a piece of land with potentialities for urban
use is an intricate exercise which calls for collection and collation of diverse economic
criteria. The market value of a piece of property, for purposes of Section 23 of the Act,
is stated to be the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a
willing, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms length. The determination of
market value, as one author put it, is the prediction of an economic event viz. the
price outcome of a hypothetical sale, expressed in terms of probabilities. Prices
fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bonafide
transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual,
and indeed the best, evidences of market value. Other methods of valuation are
resorted to if the evidence of sale of similar lands is not available.

,…….

12. It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for
valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. (See
Collector of Lakhimpur v. B.C. Dutta [(1972) 4 SCC 236 : AIR 1971 SC 2015] ; Mirza
Nausherwan Khan v. Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad [(1975) 1 SCC 238 : AIR
1974 SC 2247 : (1975) 2 SCR 184] ; Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 1 SCC
330 : AIR 1977 SC 580 : (1977) 1 SCR 329] ; Smt Kaushalya Devi Bogra v. Land
Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad [(1984) 2 SCC 324 : AIR 1984 SC 892 : (1984) 2 SCR
900] ). The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is
not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper
perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots
cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the
large extent to be valued does not admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes;
that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling
propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of hypothetical lay out
could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid out sites the
valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time
of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the
extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civil amenities; expenses
of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity
lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of
the price; the profits on the venture etc. are to be made. In Sahib Singh Kalha v.
Amritsar Improvement Trust [(1982) 1 SCC 419] this Court indicated that deductions
for land required for roads and other developmental expenses can, together, come up
to as much as 53 per cent. But the prices fetched for small plots cannot directly be
applied in the case of large areas, for the reason that the former reflects the “retail”
price of land and the latter the “wholesale” price.”
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
19 

25. In BSNL v. Nemichand Damodardas33, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

reversed the impugned decision of the Bombay High Court holding that

the prices mentioned in the Ready Reckoner cannot be the basis for

determining compensation for the land acquired under the Act, 1894.

While holding so the Court examined the Rule for determination of

compensation as understood so far. It placed reliance on Jawajee

Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, A.P.,34, and Krishi Utpadan Mandi

Samiti v. Bipin Kumar35. Hon’ble Supreme Court held:

“18. Whether the prices mentioned in the Ready Reckoner can be the basis for
determining the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition
Act has been dealt with by this Court in the two decisions of this Court in the
case of Jawajee Nagnatham (supra) and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti,
Sahaswan (supra). In the case of Jawajee Nagnatham (supra), this Court has
observed and held that the amount of compensation for the lands under the
Land Acquisition Act is determined by adopting the method of valuation namely,
(1) opinion of experts; (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide
transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands
acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (3) a number of years purchase
of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. It is
observed that in determining the market value, the Court has to take into
account either one or the other of the three methods to determine market value
of the lands appropriate to the facts of a given case to determine the market
value. Thereafter, this Court considered whether the Basic Valuation Register
would form the foundation to determine the market value. While negating the
same and accepting the view taken by the High Court that the entries under the
Basic Valuation Register cannot form the basis to enhance the market value, it is
observed and held in paragraph 5 as under:—

“5. The question, therefore, is whether the Basic Valuation Register is

evidence to determine the market value. This Court in Special Land
Acquisition Officer v. T. Adhinarayan Setty [AIR 1959 SC 429] in
paragraph 9 held that the function of the Court in awarding
compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the
land at the date of the notification under Section 4(1). The methods of
valuation may be (1) opinion of experts (2) the price paid within a
reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands
acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing
similar advantages; and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual
or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. Same was the
                                                        
33
2022 SCC Online SC 815
34
(1994) 4 SCC 595
35
(2004) 2 SCC 283
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
20 

view in Tribeni Devi v.Collector of Ranchi [(1972) 1 SCC 480]. It was

reiterated in catena of decisions, vide, Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers
Ltd. v. State of Kerala [(1991) 4 SCC 195]. Therefore, it is settled law
that in determining the market value, the Court has to take into account
either one or the other three methods to determine market value of the
lands appropriate on the facts of a given case to determine the market
value. Generally the second method of valuation is accepted as the best.
The question, therefore, is whether the Basic Valuation Register would
form foundation to determine the market value. The Indian Stamp Act,
1899 provides the power to prescribe stamp duty on instruments, etc.
Entry 44 of List III, Concurrent List, of the VIIth Schedule read with
Article 254 of the Constitution empowers the State Legislature to
amend the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In exercise thereof all the State
Legislatures including the Legislature of A.P. amended the Act and
enacted Section 47-A empowering the registering officer to levy stamp
duty on instruments of conveyance, etc., if the registering officer has
reason to believe that the market value of the property, covered by the
conveyance, exchange, gift, release of right or settlement, has not been
truly set forth in the instrument, he may refuse registering such
instrument and refer the same to the Collector for determination of the
market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon.
On receipt of such opinion, he may call upon the vendor as per the
rules prescribed, to pay the additional duty thereon. If the vendor is
dissatisfied, he has been given the right to file an appeal and further
getting reference made to the High Court for decision in that behalf.
Section 47-A would thus clearly show that the exercise of the power
thereunder is with reference to a particular land covered by the
instrument brought for registration. When he has reasons to believe it
to be undervalued, he should get verified whether the market value
was truly reflected in the instrument for the purpose of stamp duty;
the Collector on reference could determine the same on the basis of the
prevailing market value. Section 47-A conferred no express power to
the Government to determine the market value of the lands prevailing
in a particular area, village, block, district or the region and to
maintain Basic Valuation Register for levy of stamp duty for
registration of an instrument, etc. No other statutory provision or rule
having statutory force has been brought to our notice in support
thereof. Whether an instrument is liable for higher stamp duty on the
basis of valuation maintained in the Basic Valuation Register, came up
for consideration in Sagar Cements Ltd. v. State of A.P. [(1989) 3 ALT
677] B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J., as he then was, considered the question
and held that the Government has unilaterally fixed the valuation of
the lands, the Basic Valuation Register had no statutory foundation
and therefore it does not bind the parties. Neither the Registrar nor the
vendor is bound by it. The market value of the land for proper stamp
duty has to be determined as per the law under Section 47-A itself. That
view was followed by another learned Single Judge in P. Sasidar v. Sub-
Registrar [(1992) 1 ALT 49]. It is, therefore, clear that the Basic Valuation
Register prepared and maintained for the purpose of collecting stamp
duty has no statutory base or force. It cannot form a foundation to
determine the market value mentioned thereunder in instrument brought
for registration. Equally it would not be a basis to determine the market
value under Section 23 of the Act, of the lands acquired in that area or
town or the locality or the taluk etc. Evidence of bona fide sales between
willing prudent vendor and prudent vendee of the lands acquired or
situated near about that land possessing same or similar advantageous
features would furnish basis to determine market value. The Division
Bench followed, in support of its view a decision of another Division
Bench in Land Acquisition Officer v. Venkateswara Prasad [A.S. No.
880 of 1980, decided on 11-11-1981] which also decided that Basic
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
21 

Valuation Register cannot be relied on to determine the market value.

It would appear that in Govt. of A.P. v. Sohan Lal[(1988) 2 ALT 306] a
Division Bench of that High Court, without noticing these two binding
decisions, held that the Basic Valuation Register would form
foundation to determine the market value and directed to determine
the compensation on that basis. The entire controversy was
considered by yet another Division Bench in Vasireddi Bharata
Rao v. Revenue Divisional Officer[(1992) 1 ALT 591]. The Division
Bench, after considering the case law disagreeing with Sohan
Lal [(1988) 2 ALT 306] view as per incuriam, also reiterated that
the Basic Valuation Register maintained by the registering
authority has no statutory foundation to determine the market
value and cannot form the base under Section 23(1) to determine
the market value. This Court in Gulzara Singh v. State of
Punjab [(1993) 4 SCC 245] held that mutation entries of the land
transactions in the revenue records are not evidence unless the parties
to the transactions have been examined in proof of documents.
InDirector of Survey-cum-LAO v. Mohd. Ghouse [(1985) 1 Mad LJ 116]
relied on by Mr. Ganguli, the Division Bench of Madras High Court,
relying upon the instructions issued by the Government to determine
the market value for the purpose of registration of the instrument
under Section 47-A, held that it would form basis to determine the
market value under Section 23 in an appropriate case, subject to proof
of the market value. What were the instructions issued by the
Government and whether they had any statutory foundation, have not
been stated by the Division Bench. If the broad proposition of law that
under Section 47-A of Stamp Act such instructions could be issued, as
contended for the appellant herein, as appears to be the view of the
High Court, it is not correct law. As we have already noted, Section 47-A
being local amendment, made by each State Legislature did not find any
such statutory basis. Like A.P. Act, Tamil Nadu Act is also referable to
transactions intra vivos and not as general guidelines. If they are based
on evidence inter partes it would be consistent with Section 47-A.
Accordingly we hold that the basic value of registration has no
statutory base. It cannot form any basis to determine the market value
of the acquired lands under Section 23 of the Act. The burden of proof
is always on the claimant to prove, in each case the prevailing market
value as on the date of notification published in the State Gazette
under Section 4(1) of the Act with reference to the sale deeds of the
same lands or neighbour's lands possessed of same or similar
advantages and features executed between willing vendor and willing
vendee or other relevant evidence in the reference court. The State did
not file any appeal against the award of the reference court which itself
is a matter gone in favour of the appellant. We do not find any
justification to further enhance the market value.”

19. The aforesaid decision in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham (supra) has been
subsequently followed in a subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Lal
Chand (supra)…

21. …… In the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition

Officer, Poona, (1988) 3 SCC 751, this Court has laid down the broad
principles to be followed in the case of determination of compensation, which are
as under:—

“4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
22 
(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal
against the award and the court cannot take into account the material relied upon
by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced
and proved before the court.

(2) So also the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a
judgment of the trial court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing
the reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and
the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by
the court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the
court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning,
or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by
the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate court.

(3) The court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it
and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced
before it.

(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price
offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials
produced in the court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other
side can also be taken into account for this purpose.

(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on

the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are
irrelevant).

(6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date
of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical
purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a
reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is
willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.

(7) In doing so by the instances method, the court has to correlate the market
value reflected in the most comparable instance, which provides the index of
market value.

(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances
are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land.)

(9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are
very proximate, (2) genuine, and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated
the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement
in development prospects.

(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be
identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle.

(11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value, the
price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land
under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus
and minus factors vis-à-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in
juxtaposition.

(12) A balance sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and
the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent
purchaser would do.
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced
by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and
unloading it for minus factors.
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
23 
(14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a
common sense manner, as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We
may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:

Plus factors Minus factors

1. smallness of size
2. proximity to a road
3. frontage on a road
4. nearness to
developed area
5. regular shape
6. level vis-à-vis land
under acquisition
7. special value for an
owner of an adjoining
property to whom it
may have some very
special advantage
1. largeness of area
2. situation in the interior at a
distance from the road
3. narrow strip of land with very small
frontage compared to depth
4. lower level requiring the depressed
portion to be filled up
5. remoteness from developed locality
6. some special disadvantageous
factor which would deter a purchaser

22. Thus, there may be various factors, which are required to be considered for
determining the market value of the land. The market value of the land depends
upon the location of the land; area of the land; whether the land is in a developed
area or not; whether the acquisition is of a small plot of land or a big chunk of land
and number of other advantageous and disadvantageous factors are required to be
considered. Therefore, there cannot be the same market value for the different
lands while determining the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act. Therefore, the rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner, which are
basically for the purpose of collection of stamp duty and as observed hereinabove,
which are the uniform rates for all the lands in the area, cannot be the basis for
determination of the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act.”
(emphasis supplied)

26. In paragraph-19 of the above-discussed judgments, the Court refers

to another Supreme Court Judgment, i.e., Lal Chand (supra), as having

followed Jawajee Nagnathan. Since Lal Chand has been placed on record

by both counsels it bears a closer examination. In Lal Chand (supra), the

Court held that allotment rates of plots adopted by development

authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for

acquisition of undeveloped lands for several reasons. First, market value

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
24 

has to be determined with reference to large tracts of undeveloped

agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of

development authorities are with reference to small plots in a developed

layout falling within urban area. Second, DDA and other statutory

authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference

to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to ascertain the

real market value, whereas market value determination for acquisitions is

uniform and does not depend on the economic status of the land loser.

Third, market value of free hold land is under consideration, whereas the

allotment “rates” in the DDA brochure refer to the initial premium payable

on allotment of plots on leasehold basis. The Court elaborated that the

percentage of “deduction for development” to be made to arrive at the

market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land with

reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20 % to

75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon

the nature of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are

situated. The “deduction for development” consists of two components.

The first is with reference to the area required to be utilized for

developmental works and the second is the cost of development works. The

two factors taken together would be the “deduction for development” and

can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot. The

Court held:
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
25 

“44. One of the recognised methods for determination of market value is with
reference to the opinion of experts. The estimation of market value by such
statutorily constituted Expert Committees, as expert evidence can therefore form
the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a
relevant piece of evidence. It will be however open to either party to place
evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow from such guideline market
value. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a
relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily appointed
Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed assessment procedure
(either streetwise, or roadwise, or areawise, or villagewise) and finalised after
inviting objections and published in the gazette. Be that as it may.

45. We have referred to this aspect only to show that there are different
categories of basic valuation registers in different States and what is stated with
reference to the stamp law in Andhra Pradesh or Uttar Pradesh, may not apply
with reference to other States where State stamp laws have prescribed the
procedure for determination of market value, referred to above.

46. In the instant case, there is nothing to show that the circle rates have been
determined by any statutorily appointed committee by adopting scientific basis.
Hence, the principle in Jawajee Nagnatham [(1994) 4 SCC 595] will apply and
they will not be of any assistance for determining the market value. Further, they
do not purport to be the market value for lands in rural areas on the outskirts of
Delhi, nor the market values relating to Rithala Village. The circle rates relate to
urban/city areas in Delhi and are wholly irrelevant.

47. …… This Court had occasion to examine this issue recently. In ONGC
Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel [(2008) 14 SCC 745] this Court held: (SCC p.
751, para 15)

“15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the

market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved
market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale
transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any
contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable
lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe
where the relied-on sale transactions/acquisitions precede the
subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to five
years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a
neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of
only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where
the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a
land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with
reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many
pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the ‘rate’ of annual
increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood
of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden
spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.”

48. Even if the relied upon transaction is only two to three years prior to the
acquisition, the court should, before adopting a standard escalation, satisfy itself
that there were no adverse circumstances.”
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
26 

27. The aforementioned judgments lay down the framework within

which determination of market value has to be considered. The following

broad parameters are culled out from the above decisions:

(i) For comparable instance of sale what is required is there

must be a willing buyer but not too anxious a buyer ( in other

words a buyer who makes a calculated assessment of future

prospects of the property); Transactions are bonafide; Lands

are similar with similar advantages and potentialities; sales

are at or about the time of preliminary notification.

[Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi (supra);

Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (supra)].

(ii) Three methods to determine market value are:

(1) opinion of experts; (2) the price paid within a reasonable

time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands

acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and

possessing similar advantages; and (3) a number of years of

purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of

the lands acquired. The Court has to take into account either

one or the other of the three methods [(Jawajee Nagnathan)

supra]

(iii) The entries in basic valuation register cannot form the basis

to determine the market value.

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
27 

(iv) The award of the Land Acquisition Officer is merely an offer

made by him. The Court has to treat the reference as original

proceedings and determine the market value afresh on the

basis of material produced before it. The market value of

land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial

date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act as if the valuer is a hypothetical

purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and

is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. In doing

so, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in

the most comparable instance, but only genuine instances

have to be taken based on proximity from time angle and

situation angle. Post notification instances can be taken into

account. However, Court must note that acquisition itself

was not the motivation to raise the price. [Chimanlal Hargovind

Das (supra)].

(v) Various factors are required to be considered to determine the

market value. It depends upon 1) the location; 2) the area;

3) whether the land is in developed area or not; 4) whether

the acquisition is a small plot of land or big chunk;

5) other advantageous and disadvantageous factors are also

required to be considered.
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
28 

28. Based on these parameters, the respective contentions need

consideration.

29. To recapitulate, appellant asserts the potentiality and prevailing

market price to contend that the compensation arrived upon by the Land

Acquisition Officer and the enhancement granted by the Reference Court

as grossly inadequate. To show that the prevailing market price was much

higher than the enhancement granted, the appellant heavily relied on

brochure issued by the HMDA on ‘golden mile’ property and their base

price fixed at 4.5 crores per acre. According to the claimants these

Kokapet lands auctioned by the HMDA are very close to the subject lands.

It is also urged that the Kokapet land auction plans were formulated prior

to section 4(1) notification in LAAS No.73 of 2019. Assumption of the

Reference Court that ‘Golden Mile’ is not nearby /in the vicinity of subject

land is contradicted by the appellant and it is asserted that the Reference

Court has not appreciated the material filed by the appellant in right

perspective. Appellant urges that registered sale deeds of proximate lands

with their purchase price was produced to establish prevailing market

price. He also submits that post-notification sales especially in similarly

situated areas or contemporaneous sales can be relied upon for

determining just compensation.

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
29 

30. Per contra, the respondents submit that the Kokapet land being

relied on as basis for determining correct market value is in fact far away

and Reference Court correctly observed so. The ‘Golden Mile’ lands are

dispute free lands and HMDA provided all civic amenities. Therefore,

there cannot be a comparison. As such subject land could not have

fetched higher value and is not contemporaneous to the ‘Golden Mile’

lands. It is submitted by the respondents that the claimants’ land was

acquired to construct the ORR and prior to envisaging ORR Project there

was no activity nor amenities available to suggest a higher value for the

land. The land prices went up only post acquisition to construct ORR.

Subsequent escalation of prices, especially in response to the ORR that

was to be constructed, cannot form the basis for higher compensation as

it does not reflect the true value a buyer would pay at the time of

acquisition. Respondent counsel further submitted that the sale

transactions produced by appellant of adjacent lands were discarded by

the Reference Court for valid reasons.

31. In support of the claim for higher compensation claimant marked

additional documents as Exs.A16 to A78.

32. The claim to grant higher compensation than determined by the

Land Acquisition Officer and by the reference Court is two fold. 

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
30 

33. First and foremost is on auction conducted by HMDA in the land

developed and named as ‘Golden Mile’ in Kokapet village, where highest

value fetched was 14.05 crores with base price fixed at 4.50 crores.

Exs.A2 to A5, A10 to A14, A38 to A45, A60 to A78 are relied on to support

the claim.

34. Second line was on four sale transactions nearer to acquired land

located in Narsingi and Poppulaguda villages. The highest consideration

received was 12.50 crores per acre. To show that those lands are

proximate to his land claimant relied on Exs.A6 to A9, A14, A35, A47 to

A51.

35. Ex.A3 is the brochure and application of HMDA to auction plots in

‘Golden Mile’ in Kokapet village. It was a 100 acre project. Plot sizes

varied. The brochure proclaimed that it is nearer to proposed ORR under

construction; near to Gachibowli, termed as Knowledge Corridor of

Hyderabad; extension of Financial District; within 2 KMs radius of ‘Golden

Mile’ where some of the Worlds Blue Chip Majors, like IIIT, WIPRO,

MICROSOFT, POLARIS, IB, Kanbay, UB, Franklin Templetion and many

more are situated. The distance of these corporate offices and institutions

from ‘Golden Mile’ were between 2 to 3 KMs. The proposed International

Airport would be just 15 minutes away. Many other features are also

indicated. Brochure fixed upset price at 4.50 crores per acre. The
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
31 

location plan enclosed to the brochure showed that the ‘Golden Mile’

project is little away from proposed ORR. Some plots are separated by

service road and some plots are far away connected by other proposed

roads. But, upset price is same for all and price secured was very high.

The response stunned even HMDA. It did not anticipate such competition

and response. Compared to this, land of claimant is abutting to the

proposed ORR inter junction and is also far nearer to prestigious offices

and institutions already established, such as, Microsoft, IIIT, JSB and so

on mentioned in the brochure.

36. Claimant relied on maps issued by HMDA (Exs.A38 and A39),

Bhuvana Map issued by National Remote Sensing Centre (Ex.A41), Google

Maps (Exs.A43 to A46). Village maps of Nanakramguda, Khajaguda,

Poppulaguda, Narsingi and Kokapet (Exs.A74 to A78) and Google Earth

Map (Ex.A60) to contend that his property is not far but is in fact

strategically located. Ex.A38 is proposed land use and road network for

Moinabad and Rajendra Nagar Mandals. Ex.A39 map, and Ex.A43 to A46

Google Maps, Exs.A74 to A78 village maps show that the land of claimant

is on the Narsingi inter-junction connecting ORR and other roads and

strategically located compared to the ‘Golden Mile’ Project, which gets

connected to ORR through service roads. Google Earth Map (Ex.A60)

shows the distance of claimant land to that of ‘Golden Mile’ (part of

Sy.No.239 of Kokapet village) as only 800 meters.

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
32 

37. In the claim statement before the reference Court the claimant has

taken the specific plea that his land is near to ‘Golden Mile’ and in the

vicinity there was rapid commercial development, establishment of ISB,

MICROSOFT, WIPRO etc., and also marked Ex.A10 (ORR Narsingi to

Puppalaguda old and new alignments), Ex.A14 (map showing alignment of

ORR) and Ex.A15 (Narsingi junction map including survey numbers and

development project in the vicinity). These assertions are not denied by

HMDA.

ISSUE Nos. 2 & 3:

38. These exhibits show the strategic location of claimant land

compared to ‘Golden Mile’ project, that it is near to said project and

several important offices/institutions and private ventures that have

already come up. Contrary to the evidence brought on record, the

reference Court held that the claimant land is far away and that there was

no development activity.

39. At this stage, a perusal of the statutory framework within which

‘sale deeds’ as evidence for determination of true market value is required.

The Supreme Court in the Lal Chand case (supra) considered this in

detail.

“57. The fact that the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation at a
particular rate does not mean that the sale deeds which are otherwise reliable,
cannot be relied upon to find out what was the real market value. Further the
very assumption that all awards made by the Collector were at a rate higher than
what was disclosed by the sale deeds (Exts. R-3 to R-7) is also not correct.
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
33 

63. The variation between the sale deeds relied upon by the respondents and the
appellants is as much as 400%. The question then is which set of sale deeds
should be accepted for determination of the market value of the acquired lands.

What is the effect of Section 51-A of the LA Act?

67. Before the amendment to the LA Act, introducing Section 51-A, it was
necessary to examine either the vendor or a vendee to exhibit a sale deed and
prove its contents. If the vendor or vendee was so examined, it was possible to
cross-examine them so as to ascertain whether the transaction reflected by the
exhibited instrument was a genuine transaction or a transaction showing a
depressed value or a boosted value. But with the insertion of Section 51-A,
certified copies of registered sale deeds could be tendered as evidence without
examining the vendor or vendee thereof and the court is enabled to accept them
as evidence of the transaction recorded therein.

68. The scope of Section 51-A was explained by a Constitution Bench of this
Court in Cement Corpn. of India v. Purya36 [(2004) 8 SCC 270] thus: (SCC pp.
281-82, paras 28 & 33)
“28. … 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. …
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 would automatically be
accepted. (emphasis supplied) The legislature advisedly has used the word
‘may’. A discretion, therefore, has been conferred upon a court to be exercised
judicially i.e. upon taking into consideration the relevant factors.
***
33. The submission of Mr G. Chandrashekhar to the effect that the contents of
a sale deed should be a conclusive proof as regards the transaction contained
therein or the court must raise a mandatory presumption in relation thereto in
terms of Section 51-A of the Act cannot be accepted as the court may or may not
receive (emphasis in original) a certified copy of sale deed in evidence. It is
discretionary in nature. Only because a document is admissible in evidence, as
would appear from the discussions made hereinbefore, the same by itself would
not mean that the contents thereof stand proved. Secondly, having regard to the
other materials brought on record, the court may not accept the evidence
contained in a deed of sale. (emphasis supplied) When materials are brought on
record by the parties to the lis, the court is entitled to appreciate the evidence
brought on record for determining the issues raised before it and in the said
process, may accept one piece of evidence and reject the other.”

69. The following view expressed earlier in Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal
Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah [(2001) 3 SCC 530] was approved in Cement
Corpn. of India [(2004) 8 SCC 270] and is extracted below: (Narasaiah
case [(2001) 3 SCC 530] , SCC p. 535, para 14)

“14. The words ‘may be accepted as evidence’ in the section indicate

that there is no compulsion on the court to accept such transaction as
evidence, but it is open to the court to treat them as evidence. Merely
accepting them as evidence does not mean that the court is bound to
treat them as reliable evidence. What is sought to be achieved is that
the transactions recorded in the documents may be treated as
evidence, just like any other evidence, and it is for the court to weigh
all the pros and cons to decide whether such transaction can be relied
on for understanding the real price of the land concerned.”
Therefore, courts may accept and act upon certified copies of sale
deeds exhibited without examining the vendor or vendee. They may not

                                                        
36
This judgment has also been placed on record by the Appellant
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
34 

be relied upon if there is other acceptable evidence which throws a

doubt about the correctness of the sale price shown therein.

70. The evidence to reject an exemplar sale deed as not relevant, may be either
extrinsic or intrinsic. The statement of a witness describing the advantageous or
disadvantageous features of the land which is the subject-matter of such
document will be extrinsic evidence. An absurdly low or high freakish value when
compared to the prevailing price disclosed by other contemporaneous
transactions may also be an extrinsic evidence. Where the sale deed recites the
financial difficulties of the vendor and the urgent need to find money as reasons
for the sale, that will be an intrinsic evidence of a distress sale.

71. Therefore, though a certified copy of a sale deed may be received in evidence
and exhibited even without examining the vendor and vendee, and accepted as
proof of the transaction to which it relates, the courts have the discretion to rely
upon it or reject it as unreliable or unacceptable for reasons to be recorded. But
a word of caution. What Narasaiah [(2001) 3 SCC 530] and Cement Corpn. of
India [(2004) 8 SCC 270] clarified was that a certified copy of a sale deed could be
marked as an exhibit and its contents may be relied upon as evidence of the sale
transaction, even without examining either the vendor or the vendee, in view of
the enabling provision in Section 51 of the LA Act.

72. If the acquisition is in regard to a large area of agricultural lands in a village,

and the exemplar sale deed is also in respect of an agricultural land in the same
village, it may be possible to rely upon the sale deed as prima facie evidence of
the prevailing market value, even if such land is at the other end of the village at
a distance of one or two kilometres. But the same may not be the position where
the acquisition relates to plots in a town or city where every locality or road has a
different value. For example in a place like Delhi there are some areas where the
plot value is many times more than the value of plots in a neighbouring middle
class locality which in turn may be many times more than the value of plot in a
neighbouring slum area. Or the price of a property on a main road may be many
times more than the price of a property on a parallel smaller road, though the
two properties may be situated back to back.

73. It cannot be said that merely because two properties adjoin each other or
touch each other the value applicable to the property facing a main road, should
be applied to the property to its rear facing a service road. Therefore, while a
distance of about a kilometre may not make a difference for the purposes of
market value in a rural village, even a distance of 50 metres may make a huge
difference in market value in urban properties.

74. There would be lesser likelihood of rejection of a sale deed exhibited to prove
the market value, if some witness speaks about the property which is the
subject-matter of the exemplar sale deed and explains its situation, potential, as
also about the similarities or dissimilarities with the acquired land. The distance
between the two properties, the nature and situation of the property, proximity to
the village or a road and several other factors may all be relevant in determining
the market value.

75. Mere production of some exemplar deeds without “connecting” the subject-
matter of the instrument, to the acquired lands will be of little assistance in
determining the market value. Section 51-A of the LA Act only exempts the
production of the original sale deed and examination of the vendor or vendee.”
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
35 

40. Thus, Sale deeds can be received as evidence without examining the

vendor or vendee, if the Court deems it fit and can be considered to

assess the claimants’ plea to enhance the compensation.

41. Exs.A6 to A9 are four sale deeds. Ex.A6 sale deed was executed on

12.9.2007. The total extent of land owned by vendors was Acs.41.34

guntas spread over survey numbers 262 to 274 of Puppalaguda village.

The sales disclose total sale consideration as 22,50,00,000/-. Out of

this extent, the Belmont Estate Developers Limited purchased Ac.1.32

guntas spread over survey nos.263 to 269. For this extent, sale

transaction showed more than 2 crores. Ex.A7 is the sale deed

executed on 22.8.2007 in favour of Grand Bay Estate Developers Limited

and another covering Acs.14.02 guntas spread over survey nos.263 to 269

of Puppalaguda village for a sale consideration of 175,62,50,000/-.

Ex.A8 is a sale deed dated 24.8.2007 concerning land in survey nos.218,

219 and 225 of Narsingi village covering total extent of Acs.6.07 guntas

land. Total sale consideration was 64,37,50,000/-. Ex.A9 is a sale

deed executed on 23.8.2007 covering total extent of Acs.5.00 spread over

survey nos.217/part, 220, 221 and 222, 223 and 224 of Narsingi village

for a total sale consideration of 62,50,00,000/-

42. Claimants relied on Ex.A10 and Ex.A14 which are maps covering

Narsingi, Puppalaguda and other villages to emphasize that the sale

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
36 

transactions covered by Exs.A6 to A9 are proximate to the land of

claimants fetching very high value within few months of acquisition.

43. Also relied on is Sub-Division sketch marked as Ex.A35, Google

earth maps marked as Exs.A47 to A51 to show that his land is proximate

to lands covered by Exs.A6 to A9.

44. The Reference Court only looked at physical distance of lands

covered by sale deeds Ex A6 to A9 without looking into the development

activity in the zone surrounding claimants’ land, more so, having regard

to yardsticks adopted by HMDA itself to sell plots in ‘Golden Mile’.

45. It is important to note that in the instant case either before the

Reference Court or before this Court, no conflicting sale deeds have been

placed on record by HMDA to show that the market value is indeed lower

as they have urged. Before the Reference Court HMDA only marked

Awards as Ex.B1 and B2. No other document was marked. The

Reference Court relied heavily on Awards to deny higher compensation to

claimants. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovind Das

(supra) award of Land Acquisition Officer is merely an offer and material

utilized by him for making his valuation can not be utilized by the Court

unless produced and proved before it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lal

Chand (supra) has considered the issue of respondent counsel relying on

certain sale deeds to justify the enhancement ordered by the reference

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
37 

Court or price fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is held that in such

instances where the claimant manages to contradict such sale deeds with

other awards, deeds etc in comparable land or other acceptable evidence,

showing the market value as much higher, then the Court must infer that

the certain sale deed relied upon by the respondents are in fact

undervalued or not reflecting true value as such being unreliable

evidence.

46. In the light of the judgment in Lal Chand it can be concluded that the

sale transactions of adjacent lands produced by the appellant have to be

weighed with several considerations. It is apt to note that respondents did

not dispute these as unreliable evidence by bringing on record any

acceptable material to show that they do not reflect true market value.

While the reference court retains full discretion to not consider the sale

transactions as evidence it cannot do so without reason.

47. While keeping in mind the above, i.e. consideration of sale deeds as

evidence for market value, it is also important to be cautious of what was

established by the Supreme Court in the Chimanlal case in paragraph-4 of

its judgment and also reiterated by the Supreme Court in

[BSNL Vs. Nemichand Damodardas (extracted supra)] before concluding on the

issues enumerated above.

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
38 

48. From the assessment of above exhibits, it is apparent that land of

petitioner was very near to express highway already formed and adjacent

to interchange of ORR with other arterial roads and in the zone

surrounding petitioner’s land there was extensive development with big

companies and institutions coming up. While seeking to attract very good

response and secure good value to proposed ‘Golden Mile’ the HMDA has

shown the developments in a radius of 2 to 3 Kilometers. It has also

indicated travel time to reach airport as 15 minutes. If it would take 15

minutes from ‘Golden Mile’, it would take far less time from claimants’

land. The post sales and subsequent developments clearly mirror what

claimant was asserting i.e., value of properties rising by many folds and

therefore higher the potentiality of his land. This appreciation is

notwithstanding proposal to construct ORR.

49. The reference Court erred in not appreciating the stand of claimant

on how he acquired title to the land. According to claimant, he could not

secure sale deeds as land was acquired as part of compromise arrived in

O.S.No.64 of 1989. Alleging that names of two other persons were

wrongly shown in the sale deed, he filed O.S.No.64 of 1989 claiming entire

land as belonging to him only. The suit was decreed in his favour.

Aggrieved thereby, A.S.No.115 of 1997 was filed. However, parties arrived

at a compromise and in terms thereof a sale deed was executed by

defendant in favour of claimant without disclosing sale consideration. In

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
39 

those circumstances, claimant could not have produced sale deeds

disclosing the transaction value.

50. In substance, the lands of claimants are located in the vicinity of

‘Golden Mile’ property of HMDA and in the growth corridor spread over 2

to 3 KMs radius. Adopting the reasoning and projection to promote

‘Golden Mile’ by HMDA, the subject lands are contemporaneous to the

‘Golden Mile’ property. Further, there is no straight jacket formula or

water tight compartment to assess a claim to grant compensation on land

acquired for public purpose. The fundamental principle to be kept in

mind is determination of just and fair compensation to a land owner

whose land was compulsorily acquired giving no option to him. While

doing so, post Section 4(1) notification sale transactions also can be

looked into. While considering the sale transactions of other lands, their

proximity to acquired land, similar prospects and potentiality should be

assessed. The Court can consider sale deeds as evidence of market value.

The issues 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

51. Cumulatively, it is apparent that Reference Court has not

appreciated evidence brought on record and erred in looking at the claim

of claimant in a narrow perspective of physical distance to ‘Golden Mile’

project and land covered by four sale deeds Exs.A6 to A9.

  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
40 

LAAS Nos.58 and 78 of 2020 and LAAS No.18 of 2021 with Cross-objections:

52. It is appropriate to note that ORR was envisaged and

G.O.Ms.No.459 was issued on 29.10.2004. In the initial layout to form

ORR, claimants’ lands were not included. There was change of alignment

notified vide G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 12.12.2005. The claimants’ lands are

affected by this changed alignment. But, for this change, their lands

would have been very close to ORR having higher potential. There were

several sale transactions showing higher price to lands adjacent to

claimants’ lands. The reference Court holds that the Land Acquisition

Officer has not explained how he has adopted market value @

7,56,000/- per acre. Holding that price fetched in an auction cannot

be the basis to determine compensation and holding that ‘Golden Mile’

lands are in different village, the reference Court has not agreed to the

claim to enhance compensation on par with ‘Golden Mile’ lands. The

reliance on sale transactions in Sy.Nos.189, 194, 196 to 202 of Narsingi

village was not accepted on the ground that claimants failed to show

sketch map to show proximity.

53. Though reference Court recognizes and holds that land in Narsingi

village has high potential value and is nearer to the Special Economic

Zone in Kokapet it only grants 28,00,000/- per acre. The reference

Court has not assigned reasons why it has restricted the enhancement to
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
41 

28,00,000/- per acre having held that the lands have high potentiality.

It has also failed to consider sale transaction in Sy.No.204/E where per

acre 1,41,92,391/- per acre was paid to the owner of the land. It is

pertinent to note that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at

7,56,000/- per acre taking the compensation fixed for land in

Sy.No.205 and land in Sy.No.204/E is adjacent to land in Sy.No.205.

54. The lands in these three cases stand on a par with land in LAAS

No.73 of 2019 in all other respects. The analysis and reasoning to answer

issues 1 to 3 are applicable to these cases.

ISSUE NO.4:

55. Comparing the acquired land, which was not developed with

developed land to determine just compensation has been considered by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. In Chandrashekar vs.

37
Land Acquisition Officer , Hon’ble Supreme Court reviewed the opinion

expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in precedent decisions.

Paragraphs 19, 20 and 22 to 27 read as under:

“19. Based on the precedents on the issue referred to above it is seen

that as the legal proposition on the point crystallised, this Court divided
the quantum of deductions (to be made from the market value
determined on the basis of the developed exemplar transaction) on
account of development into two components.

19.1. Firstly, space/area which would have to be left out, for providing
indispensable amenities like formation of roads and adjoining

                                                        
37
(2012) 1 SCC 390
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
42 

pavements, laying of sewers and rain/flood water drains, overhead water

tanks and water lines, water and effluent treatment plants, electricity
sub-stations, electricity lines and street lights, telecommunication
towers, etc. Besides the aforesaid, land has also to be kept apart for
parks, gardens and playgrounds. Additionally, development includes
provision of civic amenities like educational institutions, dispensaries
and hospitals, police stations, petrol pumps, etc. This “first component”
may conveniently be referred to as deductions for keeping aside
area/space for providing developmental infrastructure.

19.2. Secondly, deduction has to be made for the expenditure/expense

which is likely to be incurred in providing and raising the infrastructure
and civic amenities referred to above, including costs for levelling hillocks
and filling up low-lying lands and ditches, plotting out smaller plots and
the like. This “second component” may conveniently be referred to as
deductions for developmental expenditure/expense.

20. It is essential to earmark appropriate deductions out of the market

value of an exemplar land, for each of the two components referred to
above. This would be the first step towards balancing the differential
factors. This would pave the way for determining the market value of the
undeveloped acquired land on the basis of market value of the developed
exemplar land.

21. …

22. In 2009 in Lal Chand case [(2009) 15 SCC 769 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ)
766] and in 2010 in A.P. Housing Board case [(2010) 12 SCC 707 :
(2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 711] it has been held that while applying the sale
consideration of a small piece of developed land, to determine the
market value of a large tract of undeveloped acquired land, deductions
between 20% to 75% could be made. But in 2009 in Subh Ram case
[(2010) 1 SCC 444 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 138] , this Court restricted
deductions on account of the “first component” of development, as also,
on account of the “second component” of development to 33⅓% each.
The aforesaid deductions would roughly amount to 67% of the
component of the sale consideration of the exemplar sale transaction(s).

23. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the analysis of the

legal position referred to in the foregoing four paragraphs, we are of the
view that there is no discrepancy on the issue in the recent judgments
of this Court. In our view, for the “first component” under the head of
“development”, deduction of 33⅓% can be made. Likewise, for the
“second component” under the head of “development”, a further
deduction of 33⅓% can additionally be made. The facts and
circumstances of each case would determine the actual component of
deduction, for each of the two components. Yet under the head of
“development”, the applied deduction should not exceed 67%. That
should be treated as the upper benchmark. This would mean, that even
if deduction under one or the other of the two components exceeds
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
43 

33⅓%, the two components under the head of “development” put

together, should not exceed the upper benchmark.

24. In Lal Chand case [(2009) 15 SCC 769 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 766] and
in A.P. Housing Board case [(2010) 12 SCC 707 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 711]
, this Court expressed the upper limit of permissible deductions as 75%.
Deductions up to 67% can be made under the head of “development”.
Under what head then, would the remaining component of deductions
fall? Further deductions would obviously pertain to considerations other
than the head of “development”.

25. Illustratively, a deduction could be made keeping in mind the waiting

period required to raise infrastructure, as also, the waiting period for sale
of developed plots and/or built-up areas. This nature of deduction may
be placed under the head “waiting period”. Illustratively again,
deductions could also be made in cases where the exemplar sale
transaction is of a date subsequent to the publication of the preliminary
notification. This nature of deduction may be placed under the head “de-
escalation”. Likewise, deductions may be made for a variety of other
causes which may arise in different cases. It is however necessary for us
to conclude, in the backdrop of the precedents on the issue, that all
deductions should not cumulatively exceed the upper benchmark of
75%. A deduction beyond 75% would give the impression of being
lopsided, or contextually unreal, since the land-loser would seemingly get
paid for only 25% of his land. This impression is unjustified, because
deductions are made out of the market value of developed land, whereas,
the acquired land is undeveloped (or not fully developed). Differences
between the nature of the exemplar land and the acquired land, it should
be remembered, is the reason/cause for applying deductions.

26. Another aspect of this matter must also be kept in mind. Market
value based on an exemplar sale, from which a deduction in excess of
75% has to be made, would not be a relevant sale transaction to be taken
into consideration, for determining the compensation of the acquired
land. In such a situation the exemplar land and the acquired land would
be incomparable, and therefore, there would be no question of applying
the market value of one (exemplar sale) to determine the compensation
payable for the other (acquired land). It however needs to be clarified,
that even though on account of developmental activities (under the head
“development”), we have specified the upper benchmark of 67%, it would
seem, that for the remaining deduction(s), the permissible range would
be up to 8%. That however is not the correct position. The range of
deductions, other than under the head “development”, would depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case. Such deductions may even
exceed 8%, but that would be so only, where deductions for
developmental activities (under the head “development”) is less than 67%
i.e. as long as the cumulative deductions do not cross the upper
benchmark of 75%. We therefore hold that the range for deductions for
issues other than developmental costs, would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case, they may be 8%, or even the double thereof,
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
44 

or even further more, as long as, cumulatively all deductions put

together do not exceed the upper benchmark of 75%.

27. Before applying deductions for ascertaining the market value of the
undeveloped acquired land, it would be necessary to classify the nature
of the exemplar land, as also, the acquired land. This would constitute
the second step in the process of determination of the correct quantum
of deductions. The lands under reference may be totally undeveloped,
partially developed, substantially developed or fully developed. In arriving
at an appropriate classification of the nature of the lands which are to be
compared, reference may be made to the developmental activities
referred to by us in connection with the “first component”, as also, the
“second component” (in paras 19 to 22 above). The presence (or absence)
of one or more of the components of development, would lead to an
appropriate classification of the exemplar land, and the acquired land.
Comparison of the classifications thus arrived, would depict the
difference in terms of development, between the exemplar land and the
acquired land. This exercise would lead to the final step. In the final step,
the absence and presence of developmental components, based on such
comparison, would constitute the basis for arriving at an appropriate
percentage of deduction, necessary to balance the differential factors
between the exemplar land and the acquired land.”

56. From the reading of the brochure and application of HMDA

published in July, 2006, conducting auction of plots in ‘Golden Mile’,

Kokapet would show that projecting the ‘Golden Mile’ project as a golden

opportunity beckons people to participate with talk line “Bid now or settle

for something far lesser than gold”. ‘Golden Mile’ is divided into three

blocks. First site is abutting service road adjacent to ORR. Second site is

on the proposed connecting road of 36 Mtrs wide to Gandipet and abutting

existing road of 18 Mtrs. Third site is abutting proposed 36 Mtrs wide

road between Gandipet and Patancheruvu NH-9 and small way connecting

a proposed 24 Mtrs. Road. The project also informs the participants that

for plots abutting ORR building permission would be considered with a

minimum setback of 15 Mtrs from ORR and the main entrance of the
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
45 

proposed building would not be permitted facing towards ORR and each

project should earmark mandatory open spaces as per the rules. It also

requires environmental clearance, NOCs from Airport Authority and from

Director General of Fire Services. Each project should provide individual

sewerage treatment plant. In the brochure it is undertaken that external

trunk services like roads, water supply line and electricity will be provided

within a period of six months from the date of auction with liberty to

extend time limit if it is beyond the control of HMDA. It also indicated that

proposal to connect 120 feet road from Financial District will be laid by

APIIC upto Golden Mile layout site and extending upto Gandipet road.

57. In other words, it is not a fully developed layout offered for public to

participate in the open auction and purchase the plots. It only gives an

undertaking that it would provide required infrastructure within six

months after the auction was completed, but projects to everybody that it

would be a golden opportunity and one should not lose the opportunity to

purchase the land. The positive factor in favour of HMDA was that it is a

project envisaged with 100 acres sized plots divided into three sites with

an assurance of clear title, providing full civic infrastructure and wide

connectivity to various roads. Participants in such auction can be big

industrial estates or real estate companies, who wants large extent of

unencumbered clear title land, as it turned out to be, compared to the

land in issue. The land size is big with assurance of all amenities provided
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
46 

by the HMDA and with good connectivity. The claimants land size in

comparison is smaller with no development activity. Therefore, it restricts

the possibility to create equal amount of infrastructure facilities as

proposed by HMDA in ‘Golden Mile’. Positive factor in favour of claimants

land is that it is abutting ORR.

58. As held in Chandrashekar space/area would have to be left out for

providing indispensable amenities like formation of roads, pavements,

sewerage, flood water drains, overhead water tanks and water lines, water

and effluent treatment plants, electricity substations, electricity lines,

street lights and creation of telecommunication network. A portion of the

land also has to be kept apart for parks, gardens and playgrounds.

59. Having regard to the size of the land of the claimants the layout

cannot have additional facilities like educational institutions,

dispensaries, hospitals, police stations, petrol bunks etc. Secondly, aside

from leaving space for such basic infrastructure, there has to be

deduction for the expenditure/expenses likely to be incurred in providing

and raising such infrastructure and civic amenities discussed above

including making out smaller plots. Thus the amount claimed as market

value by the claimants based on comparison to Golden Mile will require

appropriate deductions under the above-discussed components while

keeping in mind the upper bench mark laid down by the Supreme Court
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
47 

(67% cumulatively for development). Even HMDA has not fully developed

the Golden Mile project before the plots were put to auction and therefore

a deduction of 60% is just and equitable. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court further deduction also has to be made for waiting period in the case

of exemplar sale transactions being post notification. It includes waiting

period required to raise infrastructure as well as for sale of developed

plots. On developing a private land the developer requires good amount of

marketing to secure customers to purchase the plots and can take

considerable time to sell all plots in a layout; sometimes it may even

extend to more than a year or two. As against this, Golden Mile project

plots were sold in open auction conducted on scheduled dates though the

infrastructure was not fully created. Thus under these two headings of

waiting period and de-escalation, there can be a deduction of 10%, which

is just and equitable. Cumulatively there has to be a deduction of 70%

from the market value as claimed by HMDA in Golden Mile. Again it has

to be noted that while HMDA fixed base price as 4.5 crores in its open

auction it has secured far higher prices with different prices for different

plots. Therefore we have taken the base price of HMDA of Golden Mile

project as comparison for determining market value of claimants land,

ignoring higher value secured to individual plots based on location and

size of the plots. After deducting the 70% from 4.5 crores the
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
48 

compensation payable to the claimants arrives at 1,35,00,000/-. We are

of the opinion that this amount is just and equitable.

60. Accordingly, L.A.A.S.No.73 of 2019 and Cross-Objections No.6 of

2022 in L.A.A.S.No.58 of 2020 and Cross-Objections No.14 of 2022 in

L.A.A.S.No.78 of 2020 are allowed and consequently, L.A.A.S.Nos.58 & 78

of 2020 and L.A.A.S.No.18 of 2021 are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous

petitions if any shall stand closed.

__________________________
P.NAVEEN RAO,J

__________________________
SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU,J

Date:28.09.2022
KKM/tvk

 
  
  PNR,J &  SSRN,J 
LAAS No.73 OF 2019  
  & batch  
49 

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

&
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

LAAS NOs.73 OF 2019, 58 & 78 Of 2020 AND 18 OF 2021;

Cross Objections No.6 of 2022 in LAAS No. 58 of 2020;
and
Cross Objections No.14 of 2022 in LAAS No. 78 of 2020

Date: 28.09.2022

kkm/tvk