The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others vs Patel Hareshbhai Muljibhai

H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned AGPs Mr. Raval and Mr. Sharma for appellant State authority and Mr. SP Majmudar learned advocate for respondents-claimants in appeals and respective cross objections filed by claimants. Learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar for claimants submitted that in respect of each appeal filed by appellant State, respondents claimants have filed cross objection. He further submitted that in some of cross objection filed by claimants, court fee stamp has not been affixed, therefore, such cross objections have been dismissed for default on ground of non payment of court fees and he will file application for restoration of such cross objections which have been dismissed by this Court for default on said ground. Today, this Court has taken up first appeals and those cross objections which have been notified before this Court, by registry of this Court.

By filing aforesaid first appeals, appellant State Authority has challenged judgment and award dated 31.8.2005 passed by reference court, Bharuch in LAR No. 1142/98 to 1155/98, (Main LAR No. 1142/98), decided on 31st August, 2005, wherein reference court awarded compensation of Rs. 125.00 per square meter viz. Rs. 12,5000.00 per Are including amount already awarded by special land acquisition officer. Therefore, these appeals and cross objections are arising from said judgment and award made by reference court, Bharuch Exh. 79.

Brief facts of present group of appeals are to effect that lands of original claimants situated in sim of village Jhadeshwar, Taluka and District Bharuch were acquired for purpose of construction of a canal under Narmada Yojna Branch of Jhadeshwar Distributory. Notification u/s 4 and 6 were published on 30.11.95 and 30.9.1996 respectively. Special Land Acquisition Officer made award dated 20.10.97 and awarded compensation of Rs. 2100.00 per Are for acquired lands against which aforesaid references were made by claimants wherein reference court made aforesaid award which is under challenge in these appeals and cross objections filed by Respondents claimants.

Learned AGP appearing for appellant State Authority submitted that reference court has committed gross error in exercising jurisdiction not vested in him by law. He submitted that reference court has committed error in not applying principles of compensation under provisions of Land Acquisition Act rightly and correctly. According to submission made by learned AGP, amount of compensation of Rs. 125.00 awarded by reference court is on higher side. Reference Court has ignored award passed by special land acquisition officer without assigning any cogent and convincing reason. He submitted that contention was raised by appellant before reference court that references are barred by limitation but it was not examined at all by reference court. There is no finding given by reference court that the award made by special land acquisition officer is not proper and amount awarded is inadequate and improper and, therefore, reference court is not justified in passing impugned award. Learned AGP further submitted that burden is upon claimant to prove that such compensation awarded by special land acquisition officer is inadequate, unjust and on lower side. Learned AGP further submitted that before reference court, written statement was filed by appellant at Exh. 6 wherein specific contention was raised by appellant that award passed by special land acquisition officer is just, proper and no interference is required by reference court. He further submitted that Special Land Acquisition Officer has considered various factors and thereafter, declared his award fixing market value of land in question. Learned AGP further submitted that sale instances which were taken into account by special land acquisition officer have not been taken into account by reference court while passing impugned award. Learned AGP further submitted that while relying upon previous judgment in present case, reference court has failed to appreciate that claimants have failed to prove that lands under previous judgment and acquired lands are similar to all respects and necessary pre-conditions for applying previous award are not fulfilled as indicated time and again in various judgments of apex court and hence impugned judgment and award is liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned AGP further submitted that reference court ought to have appreciated fact that acquired land is of small village having no irrigation facility and in event of claimants having failed to produce any documentary evidence with regard to their annual yield, reference court has erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 12500.00 per Are. As per his submission, award of interest on amount of compensation is also on higher side and reference court ought to have awarded interest at rate of 6 per cent per annum and not 12 or 15 per cent. In short, his submission is that interference by reference court is contrary to law and also contrary to record.

On other hand, learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar for respondents claimants submitted that reference court has not committed any error in considering previous award which has been relied upon by claimants Exh. 30 and that award was challenged before this Court Exh. 78 where compensation of Rs. 200.00 awarded by reference court was reduced to Rs. 150.00. He further submitted that yield method has been proved by claimants by leading evidence and no comparable sale instances were produced and proved by appellants before reference court. He further submitted that no oral and/or documentary evidence was produced by appellant before reference court to justify award made by special land acquisition officer and claimant has led oral evidence of Anitbhai Bhailalbhai Patel Exh. 73 and reference court has rightly appreciated evidence of Anitbhai Exh. 73 and has rightly considered previous award and Section 4 notification in respect of previous award and also in respect of present case wherein difference of 6 years and 6 months was found and, therefore, reference court ought to have given 10 per cent rise per year while considering previous award but that aspect has been ignored by reference court and, therefore, appellants have filed cross objections in these appeals. He submitted that there is clear finding given by reference court while deciding issue No. 1 that claimants have clearly admitted in present land reference case in para 1 that their lands were acquired to built canal for Narmada Yojna and location of all the lands are equal and common. He submitted that therefore reference court must consider previous award when specific finding is given by reference court while deciding issue No. 1. He submitted that while deciding issue No. 2, contradictory finding is given by reference court while coming to conclusion that location of land of previous award which land was situated 1/2 km to eastern side, hence, location of land of previous award and the location of land of present cases are quite different to each other, therefore, reference court has committed gross error in not appreciating properly previous award as well a judgment of this Court Exh. 78 wherein award of reference court was modified by this Court by reducing it to Rs. 150.00 from Rs. 200.00. He also submitted that decision relied upon by claimant in para 27 is also not properly appreciated by reference court and, therefore, first appeals filed by State are required to be dismissed while allowing cross objections filed by claimants with costs. Learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar has relied upon (1) 2005 LAC 326 in case of Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) by LRs v. Collector, Land Acquisition, Tehsil & District Dooda; (2) Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana 2006 LAC 482 ; (3) Om Prakash (Dead) by LRs and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. reported in 2004 LAC 493 which have been considered by this Court.

I have considered submissions made by both learned Advocates. I have also perused award made by reference court, Bharuch. Before reference court, affidavit of one of claimants Anitbhai Bhailalbhai Patel was filed at Exh. 73 and closing purshis was filed at Exh, 74 on behalf of claimants. Copy of award of land acquisition case No. 120 of 1994 dt. 20.10.97 was produced at Exh.2, copy of judgment in LAR No. 1031/93 dt. 31.3.04 was produced at Exh. 30. Copy of judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 305/2005 dt. 31.3.2005 was produced at Exh. 78. No oral or documentary evidence was produced by opponents but closing purshis was filed by opponents present appellants. Thereafter, reference court has considered written statement filed by appellant at Exh. 6. Sale deed of surrounding lands for last five years has not been produced by claimants. That objection was raised by appellant before reference court. According to appellant, there was no irrigation facility available and no evidence is produced to that effect by claimants before reference court. Thereafter, reference court has considered evidence of Anitbhai B. Patel at Exh. 73 on behalf of claimants and considered that so far as fertility and potentiality of land is concerned, Anit Bhailalbhai Patel has deposed at Exh. 73 that his land and lands of other claimants were situated adjoining to each other, all lands were having high potentiality and fertility, they had done irrigation facility by well and they had obtained crops like cotton of Shankar-4, wheat, tomatoes, chilies and other vegetables. It was also deposed by him before reference court that he had received production of 20 to 25 quintal from each one acre of Shankar-4, cotton seeds and had received income of Rs. 50,000.00 per vigha and deducting 30 to 35 per cent cost, he had received net income of Rs. 30000.00 per vigha. It was also deposed by him that he had received income from other crops of vegetable of about Rs. 9600.00 and ultimately he had received annual income of Rs. 48000.00. Reference Court has also considered that claimants have to prove three versions before court namely (1) 5 years'' sale instances; (2) Annual Produce and (3) Previous award. After considering evidence of claimant as well as previous award along with order of this Court at Exh. 78 on record before reference court, reference court has come to conclusion while relying on previous award, location of land of present case and location of land of previous award and has come to conclusion that location of land in question and land covered by previous award are quite different. Reference court considered location of land of previous award situated at village Jhadeshwar acquired to built tax plaza service road and present land situated at distance of half km to eastern side and hence location of land of previous award and location of present case are quite different and hence reference court was of view that in present case, it become little less as per location of land and considering all aspects, reference court came to conclusion that value of present land should be evaluated at Rs. 125.00.

After considering aforesaid reasoning given by reference court and also considering important fact which has not been properly dealt with by reference court, it is clear from record that in respect of previous award, Section 4 notification is dated 25.5.89 and in present case, Section 4 notification is dated 30.11.95 and, therefore, there was difference of six years and six months and therefore, 10 per cent rise for each year ought to have been given by reference court. Reference Court has discussed and calculated difference of increase of market value, according to Exh. 78, at Rs. 100.00, therefore increase value come to Rs. 65.00 and so on Rs. 150.00, increase in market price come to Rs. 97.50 and adding Rs. 97.50 to Rs. 150.00, figure of Rs. 247.50 would come. Reference Court has considered village form No. 7/12, deposition of claimant Ex. 73. Reference Court has considered total 17316 square meter land has been acquired and thereafter, reference court has considered difference of 6 years 6 months between two notification, one of previous award and another of present case but no benefit has been extended in favour of claimants but merely reduced Rs. 25.00 from amount determined as per order of this Court Exh. 78 only on ground that claimants have not produced any evidence to show rise of market value or increase in value of land but while coming to such conclusion, reference court has not properly applied mind in respect of previous award Exh.78 wherein Section 4 notification was published on 25th May, 1989 where market price has been increased upto Rs. 226.50 whereas as per award passed by reference court Exh. 30, it has been reduced to Rs. 150.00 by this Court as per Exh. 78 and so, it proves that market value has been increased in respect of surrounding land also which has been acquired by State Authority.

In view of this back ground, after considering arguments made by both learned advocates and also considering cross objection, filed by claimants, according to my opinion, at least claimants are entitled for 10 per cent increase in light of facts that in previous award market price is fixed by this Court at Rs. 150.00 per square meter and therefore, not to grant that much amount to claimants and reduce it only on ground that both lands are having different location cannot be considered to be proper finding or proper determination of market value in respect land in question acquired by State. Therefore, as per calculation arrived at by reference court, if difference of 6 years and 6 months is considered between Exh. 30 and present case for giving 10 per cent increase, then, it would come to Rs. 247.50 but according to my opinion, considering distance of 1/2 km between lands acquired in this case and lands acquired in previous case, and decision of this Court Exh. 78 where Rs. 150.00 has been given being market price, claimants are entitled to increase in market price fixed by reference court as per apex court decision in case of Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum-L.A.O. Vs. Shaik Azam Saheb etc. etc., Apex court has considered determination of compensation. Acquired lands were situated about 4 kms away from town abutting National Highway. Relevant discussion made by apex court in para 11 to 20 of said judgment is quoted as under:

Determination of market value of a land acquired in terms of the provisions of the said Act depends upon a large number of factors; the first being the nature and quality of the land, i.e., whether agricultural land or homestead land. Apart from nature and quality of land in the event the agricultural lands are acquired the other factors relevant therefore are also required to be considered, namely, as to whether they are irrigated or non- irrigated, extent of facilities available for irrigation, location of the land, closeness thereof from any road or highway, the evenness of land, its position in different seasons particularly in rainy season, existence of any building or structure as also the development in and around the area. A host of other factors will also have a bearing on determining the valuation of land.

The mode and manner in which determination of such valuation are to be carried out would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, namely, whether any deed of sale executed in respect of similarly situated land near about the date of issuance of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act is available, or in absence of any such exemplars whether the claim can be determined on yield basis or in case of an orchard on the basis of the number of fruit bearing trees and the yield there from.

One other important factor which also should be borne in mind is that it may not be safe to rely only on an award involving a neighboring area irrespective of the nature and quality of the land. For determination of market value again, the positive and negative factors germane therefore should be taken into consideration, as laid down by this Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by LRs. Vs. State of Gujarat, namely: Positive factors Negative factors

(i) Smallness of size (i)Largeness of area

(ii) proximity to a road (ii)situation in the interior at a distance

from the road

(iii) frontage on a road (iii)narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth

(iv) Nearness to developed (iv) lower level requiring area the depressed portion to be filled up

(v) regular shape (v) Remoteness from developed locality

(vi) Level vis-�-vis (vi)Some special disadvantageous land under acquisition. factors which would deter a purchaser

(vii) Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.

Before determination of the market value of the land, we may notice that the town of Kurnool is the District Headquarter of Kurnool district. The acquired lands are situated about 4 kilometers away from the said town abutting National Highway No. 18. The lands in question have been held to have the requisite potential value as building site as also for constructing industrial complexes. The learned Reference Judge noticed that there are educational institutions like Pulla Reddy Engineering College, Don Bosco School, St. Mary''s Residential School etc. surrounding the acquired lands. G. Pulla Reddy Engineering College is said to be situated just on the other side of the road of the lands acquired. As on the date of acquisition, it was found that the vicinity surrounding the land was well developed.

Indisputably, a big chunk of lands, namely, 87 Acres 96 cents were acquired for the purpose of establishing an institution known as Sri Krishna Devaraya University. The award of the Land Acquisition Collector was accepted by most of the persons. Only the respondents before us objected thereto.

The lands are situated in two different villages. The plan showing the location of the land vis-�-vis the National Highway No. 18 had not been placed before us. From the award of the learned Reference Judge, it appears that the lands situated in Pasupula village are better placed than the lands situated in B. Thandrapadu village. Such a distinction had also been kept in mind not only by the Land Acquisition Collector but also by the Reference Court.

We agree with the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5206-5228 of 1997 (A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited v. G. Mohan Reddy and Ors.) that the market value of the land would also depend upon the situation thereof.

Applying the said formula, if we rely on Exhibit B-3, the market value of the land in question would come to about Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre. It is, however, not possible to agree with the submissions of Mrs. Amareswari that we should determine the market value only on that basis upon addition of 10 per cent enhancement of the market value each year. It must be bear in mind that the lands in question were agricultural lands whereas the lands which were the subject matter of the said deed of sale was a homestead land, thus, some amount, therefore, will have to deducted towards the development cost.

Indisputably while comparing the market value of developed lands with that of undeveloped lands, the court has to make suitable deductions towards the cost of development. We, however, may notice that this Court, at different times, hasspoken in different voices. In P.S. Krishna and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Land Acquisition Officer, (Deputy Collector) Hyderabad, , this Court refused to interfere with the judgment of the High Court which had given a deduction of 20% towards development charges. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in Mummidi Apparao (D) through LRs. Vs. Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. and Another, did not interfere with the decision of the High Court which had given a direction for deduction of 50% as development charges. However, we are not oblivious of the fact that this Court had observed in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by LRs. Vs. State of Gujarat,

In Hasanali Khanbhai and Sons and Others Vs. State of Gujarat, and The Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, Nizamabad District, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Nookala Rajamallu and Others, it has been noticed that where lands are acquired for specific purposes deduction by way of development charges is permissible.

We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that normally one-third deduction of further amount of compensation has been directed in some cases. (See Kasturi and Others Vs. State of Haryana, Tejumal Bhojwani (Dead) through Lrs. and Others Vs. State of U.P., V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. The Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal R. Officer, , H.P. Housing Board Vs. Bharat S. Negi and Others, and Kiran Tandon Vs. Allahabad Development Authority and Another,

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, one-third deduction, in our opinion, should be made towards development costs for the lands situated both in Pasupala village as also B. Thandrapadu village. Keeping in view the fact that the lands are abutting National Highway and near the district town, where a large number of educational institutions have come up, 10 per cent escalation per year has to be added. Thus, Rs. 1,41,666.66 per acre may be fixed for the lands in Pasupala village. The lands in another village B. Thandrapadu Village being situated away from the NH 18, another 10 per cent from the amount fixed for the lands in Pasupala village must be deducted. Thus, Rs. 1,27,499.99 per acre may be fixed for the lands in B. Thandrapadu village. We have adopted the same method which had been adopted by the Reference Judge inasmuch as the Reference Judge had fixed market value for the lands situated in Pasupala village at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre and Rs. 90, 000/- per acre in respect of B. Thandrapadu village.

The lands in another village B. Thandrapadu Village being situated away from the NH 18 another 10 per cent from the amount fixed for the lands in Pasupala village must be deducted Thus, Rs. 1,27,499.99 per acre may be fixed for the lands in B. Thandrapadu village.

We have adopted the same method which had been adopted by the Reference Judge inasmuch the Reference Judge had fixed market value for the lands situated in Pasupala village at Rs. 1,00,000.00 per acre and Rs. 90,000.00 pare ace in respect of B. Thandrapadu village.

In Special Land Acquisition officer, U.K. Project Vs. Mahaboob and Another, apex court observed as under:

Plight of land losers

We may now advert to the facts of this case. The acquisition is of the year 1990. The extent of land acquired is 1 acre 13 guntas. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per acre which is about nine paise per sq.ft. Not much argument is needed to show that the compensation was very low. The total compensation as per the award of the LAO made in 1991, was Rs. 5,300/- (excluding statutory additions). Having lost his land, and consequently, the means of livelihood, the land loser had to engage a lawyer and fight for a reasonable compensation by seeking reference to the court. The reference court determined the compensation as Rs. 30,420/- per acre on 10.3.2005. This means an increase of about Rs. 35,000 in compensation (plus statutory additions) for the acquired land. But the land loser was not given this amount. The State Government files a first appeal, then a second appeal and then a SLP. The result is except the paltry amount which he must have received when the LAO made the award, the land loser has not received any compensation for nearly 17 years and had to fight the litigation before three courts for a total compensation of Rs. 40000/- (excluding statutory benefits). Apart from the fact that the land loser would have spent virtually the entire amount for litigation, whatever amount he may ultimately receive will not get him even one-fourth or one-fifth of the extent of land which he lost by acquisition. Unless the process of acquisition gives him a reasonable compensation either at the time of or immediately after the dispossession, the compensation will be a mirage for most land losers.

Statistics show that most of the acquisitions relate to lands held by small farmers, whose livelihood depends upon the acquired land. The land is taken purportedly in accordance with law by resorting to acquisition proceedings. The Collector (LAO) is supposed to offer a fair compensation by taking all relevant circumstances relating to market value into account. To safeguard the interests of the land loser, the Act requires the Collector to make the award before the land owner is dispossessed. The intention is that the land loser will immediately be able to draw compensation and purchase some other suitable land or make appropriate arrangements for his livelihood. But in practice the Collectors (LAOs) seldom make reasonable offers. They tend to err on the `safer'' side and invariably assess very low compensation. Such meager awards force the land loser to seek reference to civil court for increase in compensation in regard to almost every award made by the LAO. In fact, many a time, even the reference courts are conservative in estimating the market value and it requires further appeals by the land loser to the High Court and Supreme Court to get just compensation for the land. We can take judicial notice of the fact that in several States the awards of the reference court or the judgments of the High Court and this Court increasing the compensation, are not complied with and the land losers are again driven to courts to initiate time consuming execution process (which also involves considerable expense by way of lawyers fee) to recover what is justly due. Resultantly the land losers seldom get a substantial portion of proper compensation for their land in one lump sum immediately after the acquisition. The effect may be highlighted by the following illustration:

A farmer owns 3 acres of land in a village, which is his sole means of livelihood. The land is acquired for some project in the year 1990. The true market value of the land was around Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre in 1990. If he got the said price, that is, Rs. 4,50,000/- with solatium, additional amount and interest in the year 1991, he has a reasonable opportunity of purchasing some alternative land, so that he can eke out his livelihood and continue to live with dignity. But this rarely happens in practice. The final notification is made in 1992 and the LAO makes an award in the year 1993 offering Rs. 50,000/- per acre. So the land loser is constrained to seek a reference to the court. The reference court takes three to four years to decide the reference and increases the compensation to Rs. one lakh per acre in the year 1996. The increased amount is deposited in 1997-1998. The land loser is constrained to file a further appeal to the High Court and the High Court takes another three to four years and increases the compensation to Rs. 1.5 lakh per acre in the year 2000 and such increase is deposited in the year 2001-02. That is, the loser is forced to fight at least in two courts to get the compensation commensurate with the market value of Rs. 1.5 lakhs per acre. To add to his woes, when the reference court or the High Court increases the compensation, the government does not pay the increased amount immediately and drives him to execution proceedings also. This means that the land owner gets compensation piecemeal, that is Rs. 50,000/- per acre in 1993, another Rs. 50,000/- per acre in 1997-98, and another Rs. 50,000/- per acre in 2001-02. At every stage he has to incur expenses for litigation. As he does not get the full compensation in one lump sum, he is not in a position to purchase an alternative land. When the land is acquired, he loses his means of livelihood, as he knows no other type of work. The result is, he is forced to spend the compensation received in piecemeal, on sustenance of his family when he fights the legal battles for increasing the compensation and for recovering the increases granted, by levying execution. The result is that whatever compensation is received piecemeal, gets spent for the sustenance of the family, and litigation cost during the course of prolonged litigation. At the end of the legal battle, he is hardly left with any money to purchase alternative land and by then the prices of land would have also increased manifold, making it impossible to purchase even a fraction of the land which he originally possessed. Illiteracy, ignorance, and lack of counselling add to his woes and the piecemeal compensation is dissipated leaving him with neither land, nor money to buy alternative land, nor any means of livelihood. In short, he is stripped of his land and livelihood.

When large areas are acquired, unless some effort is made by all the wings of government to ensure prompt payment of realistic compensation with appropriate rehabilitation measures, land acquisitions lead to great tragedy and ruination of poor families. We may, at the risk of stating the obvious, refer to the following steps if taken within the frame work of existing laws may provide considerable succour to the land loser: (a) Collector/LAO should offer compensation which is reasonable and realistic and very near to value. (b) Whenever courts increase the compensation, instead of mechanically filing appeals in all cases, or delaying payments without apparent reason, an effort should be made to pay the increases awarded by court promptly. (c) The government and/or beneficiaries of acquisition should encourage and resort to negotiations to arrive at a mutually acceptable amount of compensation. (d) Avenues of rehabilitation by way of employment, housing, investment opportunities, identification of alternative lands, may be explored and implemented. When large tracts of lands belonging to several land owners are acquired by development authorities for formation of residential or commercial layouts, schemes may be formulated which contemplate 25% to 30% of the land area being used for roads amenities and open spaces, and utilize the remaining area which is developed into plots, by selling about one-third by auction to recover the development cost, by allotting about one-third to poor or needy at cost price, and by releasing/allotting about one- third area to the land losers whose lands were acquired. Some development authorities have reduced land acquisition litigation considerably either by entering into negotiated consent awards or formulating schemes for sharing the developed area with the land losers. Others may emulate them with appropriate modifications.

We are not unaware of the fact that in some cases, the awards of courts is high. The main reason therefore is the failure on the part of Collectors / LAOs / Beneficiaries of acquisition, to conduct the cases before the reference court properly. They either fail to cross-examine the claimant''s witnesses or fail to lead evidence to rebut the high claims. An attempt is belatedly made to set right the matter by filing appeals.

In case of Second Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another Vs. Chunilal Gangaram and Others, this Court observed as under:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) - Section 23 - Compensation - Reference Court relied on previous judgments for arriving at just, adequate and reasonable compensation - One previous judgment is in respect of them and situated in a village having common Gram Panchayat and common simada - Reference Court has not committed any error in relying on the previous judgments pertainaing to lands of nearby village and acquired for same project.

In Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another Vs. Shantibhai Jivabhai Patel, Division Bench of this Court observed as under in para 30 of judgment:

In view of the aforesaid sale instance produced at Ex.96 dated 18.7.1986, the market value of the land was assessed and paid at Rs. 21.42 ps. This instance is rightly relied on by the claimant. However, that sale transaction is in respect of a small parcel of agricultural land and most of the agricultural lands under acquisition are larger agricultural parcels of land. Therefore, obviously appropriate deduction is required to be made for the purpose of comparing the value of the land. It cannot be gainsaid that the principle of valuation of lands not to value large deduction from the sale price of small plots of land on account of the largeness of the size of plots or area has been settled. This principle is very well explored and established. This Court in the case of Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (1971) 12 GLR 319 has held that it would not be proper to adopt a dogmatic or doctrinaire approach in the matter of determination of the amount of compensation for the lands under acquisition. It is further held in the said decision that while evaluating large plot of land by reference to the sale instance of a small plot of land, several factors must enter into account and no definite rule can be laid down as to the exact extent of deduction to be made. The principle enunciated in that case is also followed by us in the case of State of Gujarat v. Devji Bechar reported in [1991 32 GLR 736. Under these circumstances, the amount of Rs. 21.42 per sq. mtr. Paid in the sale instance at Exh. 96 is required to be deducted appropriately so as to determine the market value in respect of lands under acquisition as on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances emerging from the record, in our opinion 33 per cent of the value of land assessed in sale transaction at Ex. 96 at Rs. 21.42 per sq. mt. Will be reasonable and appropriate for determining the value of land under acquisition. If the sale price of Rs. 21.42 per sq. mt. as per sale instance at Ex. 96 is slicied down by 33 per cent, then, it would be very near to the amount of Rs. 15.00 per sq. mtr. as assessed and fixed by learned trial court Judge. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the amount of compensation assessed and determined at Rs. 15.00 per sq. mt. By the learned trial court Judge cannot be said to be either insufficient or inadequate or excessive or luxurious.

In view of principles laid down by this Court and apex court in aforesaid judgments where principle has been laid down that in case of undeveloped land, for development, some deduction is necessary and considering evidence of witness for claimants namely Anitbhai at Exh. 73 which suggests that land in question which were acquired by State is merely an agricultural land, so, while considering deduction for development and also considering 10 per cent rise because of difference of 6 years and 6 months in issuance of Section 4 notification in previous award as well as in respect of present case, considering entire facts and circumstances of case before hand, according to my opinion, it would be just and proper and reasonable if Rs. 175.00 per square meter is granted as a whole and such direction would met ends of justice between parties.

Accordingly award passed by reference court which is under consideration in these appeals and cross objection is required to be modified by determining market value in respect of lands under acquisition at Rs. 175.00 (Rupees one hundred seventy five only) instead of Rs. 125.00 (Rupees one hundred twenty five only) which was determined by reference court. Accordingly, first appeals filed by State Authority are dismissed. Cross objections filed by appellants which are notified today along with these appeals are allowed to extent indicated herein above. Rest of directions issued by reference court are remained in tact and same shall have to be complied with by appellants. Decree be drawn accordingly. R&P if any be sent back to reference court immediately.