Holding

The market value of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act must include the value attributable to its building potentiality, determined on the basis of reliable documentary evidence, and the appropriate compensation comprises that market value (fixed at Rs 27 per sq yd), a 30% solatium, and a 12% per‑annum addition under Section 23(1‑A).

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the compensation payable to P. Ram Reddy for land acquired by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that the market value of acquired land must include the value attributable to its building potentiality, which must be proved by reliable documentary evidence rather than by the Basic Valuation Register. It clarified that the Basic Valuation Register cannot be used to determine market value, and that oral evidence not effectively cross‑examined cannot be accepted without corroboration. The Court also explained how to calculate the wholesale price of land with building potentiality, requiring a deduction of at least one‑third of the retail price for layout costs. Accordingly, the market value was fixed at Rs 27 per square yard, with a 30% solatium and a 12% per‑annum additional amount under Section 23(1‑A). The appeal seeking a higher award was allowed in part, while the other appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the building potentiality of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act must be considered in determining its market value and, if so, how it should be assessed.
Whether the value of building plots recorded in the Basic Valuation Register under the Stamp Act can be used to determine market value of land acquired under the Act.
Whether the court must accept the value of land shown in sale or gift deeds when the witnesses for those documents were not cross‑examined.
Whether the price fetched for a small extent of land can be used as the basis for valuing a large extent of acquired land.
Whether a court may rely on the Land Acquisition Officer’s award, based on registration documents, to enhance compensation despite rejecting the claimant’s evidence.
What amount is payable under Section 23(1‑A) of the Land Acquisition Act in addition to market value.
Whether the solatium under Section 23(2) includes the amount payable under Section 23(1‑A).
What is the just and reasonable amount of compensation for the claimant’s acquired lands.

Legislation cited

Indian Stamp Act
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 18, s. 23(1-A), s. 23(2), s. 4(1), s. 51-A, s. 6, s. 9
Registration Act, 1908s. 57

Subjects

building potentialitymarket valueland acquisitioncompensationbasic valuation registersolatiumsection 23section 51-Alayout lossesenhanced compensation

Judgment

A P. RAM REDDY ETC.
v.
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HYDERABAD
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD ETC.

JANUARY 27, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), 6, 9, 11, 18i. 23 23(1-A),
23(2) and 51-A.
-
c Land. Acquisition-Compensation-Principles for determination
of-Building potentiality-Relevance for determination ·of compensa-
. tion-Releiant factors for detennining potentiality-Held potentiality should
be decided on the basis of material on record-Such material should be
supp01ted by documentary evidence.
D
Basic valuation Register maintained under Stamp Act-Cannot form
basis for detennination of compensation.

Value of land mentioned in sale or gi.ft deed-Basis for determination
of compensation-Failure to cross-examine witness-Effect of.
E
Value fetched by sale of small extent of lan<i-Basis for calculation of
compensation for large extent land acquired-Relevant factors to be taken
into account.
I
I

Claim for enhanced compensation-Reliance by Court on the contents
F of award made by Land Acquisition Officer- Pennissibility of. ....
Compen~ation-Amount of award under Section 23(1-A )-Permissible
limit of-Market v~lue in respect of which solatium is awardable under
section 23(2)-Inc/usion of amount payable under section 23(1-A)-Pennis-
G sibility of
Land belonging to the appellants were acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value of the
. acquired land @ Rs.20 pe.t ~q. yard on the basis of the value fetched under
sale deeds of r~sidential ·pf~ts. The compensation was paid @ Rs. U per
H sq. yard i.e. by deducting 40% towards lay out losses. Besides statutory
584
P. RAMREDDYv. URBANnEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 585
benefits were also given. Th~ Civil Court enhanced the market value of the A
claimant's land @ Rs. 80 per sq. yard. In determining the enhanced
compensation the Civil Court relied on (1) the amounts of consideration
mentioned under sale deeds and gift deed; (ii) probable value of building
plots in the locality of the acquired land; and (iii) the value of building
plots as found in the basic valuation register maintained under the Stamp
Act. The High Court reduced the market value of the land holding that it
B
was not safe to determine the value on the basis of the basis valuation
1' register. It fixed the valuation of land @ Rs. 40 per sq. yard and after
... deducting 20% towards layout losses awarded compensation @ Rs. 32 per
sq. yards.
c
In appeals to this Court on the questions :·

1. Whether the building potentiality of a land acquired under the
Land Acquisition Act requires to be taken into consideration in deter-
minating its market value, and if so, how has that to be done?
D
' 2. Whether the value of building plots as found in the Basic Valua-
tion Register maintained under the Stamp Act or its Rules, could form the
basis for determination of the market value of lands?

3. Whether the value of land mentioned in an instance of sale or an
instance of gift claimed to compare with the acquired land warrants
E
acceptance as the correct value. of such land merely because the witnesses
who would have given evidence as regards them, on behalf of the claimants
had not been cross-examined or effectivdy cross-examined on behalf of the
> Land Ac<1uisition Officer?
F
4. Whether the valuation fetched by sale of a small extent of land can
be made the basis for determination of the market value of a large extent
of the acquired land?

5. Will it not be open to a Court which rejects the evide~ce adduced
by the claimant in support of his claim for enhanced compensation for his G
acquired land made in a reference under Section 18, to rely upon the
contents of the award of the Land Acquisition Officer made under section
11 thereof to enhance the compt:nsation awardable for such land? If the
LAO's award is based on value fetched under sale deeds on their perusal
as contained in the register maintained under the Registration Act, bas he H 1
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A to prove those sale deeds in court for sustaining h~s award?
6. What is the amount which could be awarded under section 23 (1 ·A)
in addition to the market value of the acquired land?

7. Does the market value in respect of which solatium is awardable
B u~der section 23(2) of the LA Act include the amount payable under
section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act?

8. What is the amount of compensation awardable for the lands of ~
the claimant acquired under the LA Act which could be regarded as just
C and reasonable?
Disposing of the appeals, this Court

HELD: 1. Whether the acquired land has building potentiality or not,
has to be decided upon reference to the material to be placed on record or
D made available by the parties concerned, the market value of the acquired
.land with building potentiality, is also required to be determined with
reference to the material to be placed on record or made available in that
regard by the parties concerned and not solely on surmises, conjectures
or pure guess. (604-E-F]

E 2. Market value of the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act
is the main component of the amount of compensation awardable for such
land under section 23(1). The market value of such land must relate to the
last of the dates of publication of Notification or giving of public notice of
substance of such Notification according to section 4(1). Such market value
p of acquired land cannot only be its value with reference to the actual use to ·
wliich it 'was put on the r~levant date envisaged under section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, but ought to be its value with reference to the better
use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or near
future. Possibility of the· acquired land put to certain use on the date
en:visaged under section 4(1) of the LA Act, of becoming available for better
G use in the immediate or near future, is regarded as its potentiality. It is for
this reason that the market value of the acquired land when has. to be
determined with r~ference to the date envisaged under section 4(1), the
same has to be done not merely with reference.to the use to which it was put
on such-date, but also on the possibility of it becoming available in the
H immediate or near future for better use, i.e., on its potentiality. [S98·D-F]
P. RAMREDDYv. URBANDEVELOPMENf AUTHORITY 587

3. When the acquired land has the potentiality of being used for A
building purposes in the immediate or near future it is such potentiality
which is regarded as building potentiality of the acquired land. Therefore,
if the acquired land has the building potentiality, its value, like the value
of any other potentiality of the land should necessarily be taken into
account for determining the market value of such land. Therefore, when a
land with building potentiality is acquired, the price which its willing seller
B
could reasonably expect to obtain from its willing purchaser with reference
to the date envisaged under section 4(1), ought to necessarily include that
portion of the price of the land attributable to its building potentiality.
Such price of the acquired land then becomes its markets value envisaged
under section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. (598-G-H, 599-A] c
4. An acquired land could be regarded as that which has a building
potentiality, if such land although was used on the relevant date envisaged
under section 4(1) for agricultural or horticultural or other like purposes
or was on that date even barren or waste, had the possibility of being used D
immediately or in the near future as land for putting up residential,
commercial, industrial or other buildings. However, the fact that the
acquired land had been acquired for building purposes, cannot be suffi-
cient circumstance to regard it as land with building potentiality. Such
possibility of user of the acquired land for building purposes can never be
wholly a matter of conjecture or surmise or guess. On the other hand, it E
should be a matter of inference to be drawn based on appreciation of
material placed on record to establish such possibility; Material so placed
on record or made available must necessarily relate to the matters such
as (599-C-F]

(i) The situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town F
or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial,
industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or
because of its explosive population; (599-G]

(ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, G
be they residentiaf, commercial or industrial, as the case may be; (599-H]

(iii) Possibility of obtaining, water and electric supply for occupants
of buildings to be put up on that land; (600-A]

(iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the H
)88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

A acquired land for building purp~se; [60~·A]
· (v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or
developed residential extensions in the· vicinity or close proximity of the y
I
acquired land; [600·B]

B (vi) benefits of advantages of educational institutions, health care
centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which
may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired
land; and [600-C]

C (vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being
in demand for building purpose, to specify a few. [600·D]

5. The material to the placed on record or made available in respect
of the said matters and the like, cannot have the needed evidentiary value
for concluding that the acquired land being used for building purposes In
D the immediate or near future unless the same is supported by reliable
documentary evidence, as far as the circumstances permit. [600~E]

6. The market value of the acquired land with building potentiality
comprises of the market value of the land having regard to the use to which
it was put on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) plus the
E increase in that market value because of the possibility of the acquired
land being used for putting up buildings, in the immediate or near future. ·
If there is any other land with building potentiality similar to the acquired
land which had been sold for a price obtained by a willing seller from a .(

willing purchaser, such price could be taken to be the market value of the
p acquired land, in that, it would have comprised of the market value of the
la!ld as was being actually used plus increase in price attributable to its
building potentiality. If the prices fetched by sale of similar land with
building potentiality in the neighbourhood or vicinity of the acquired 'lands
with building potentiality, as on the relevant date envisaged under Section
4(1) are unavoidable, it becomes necessary to find out whether any build·
G ing p_lots laid out in a land similar to the acquired land had been sold by
a .~lling seller tc. a willing buyer on or near about the relevant date under
Section 4(1) when the acquired land had been proposed for acquisition
and then to find out what would be the price which the acquired land would
'have fetched if had been sold by making it into ~uilding plots similar to
H those sold. (600-G·H, 601·A·B]
P. RAM REDDYv. URBAN DEVELOPMENT' AUTHORITY 589

Bombay Improvement Tmst v. Manvanji Manekp Mistly, AIR (1926) A
Born. 420, approved.

7. The value of building plots as found in the Basic Valuation
Register maintained under the Stamp Act cannot form the basis for
deterw_in}ng the market value of the lands acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act. [604-G] B

Jawajee Nagnatham v.Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and
Ors., [1994] 4 SCC 595, relied on.

8. It is no doubt true, that whenever oral evidence is adduced by
parties on certain matters in controversy, it may become difficult for Court
c
to overlook such evidence, if it is not shown by effective cross-examination
of such witnesses who have given such evidence or by adducing contra-
evidence, that the oral evidence was unreliable or the witnesses themselves
are not creditworthy. But, in land acquisition references before Civil
Courts, when witnesses given oral evidence in support of the claims of D
claimants· for higher compensation the ineffective cross-examination of
such witnesses, is not an uncommon feature if regard is had to the manner
in which claims for enhanced compensation in land acquisition cases are
defended in Courts on behalf of the State. [605-G-H, 606-A]
E
Chaturbhuj Pande and Ors. v. Collector, Raigarh, AIR (1969) SC 255,
referred to.

9. It cannot be said that whenever the statements made by claimants'
witnesses in courts are not got ~ver on behalf of the Collector or the Land
Acquisition Officer by subjecting the witnesses to effective cross-examina- F
tion or by not adducing evidence in rebuttal, the courts are obligated to
accept such statements of witnesses as true, if tested on the basis of
probabilities, become unreliable. If the courts were to accept such state-
ments of witnesses as true merely because they are not subjected to
cross-examination or effective cross-examination or because evidence in
" ~ rebuttal thereof has not been adduced, it would amount to doling out G
public money to the claimants far in excess of their legitimate entitlement
for just compensation payable for their lands. If such situation is
prevented by courts dealing with claims for compensation by testing the
statements of witnesses for claimants on the basis of probabilities, the
Courts wiJI have performed the duty justly expected. of them. Hence, no H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A Court which tests the oral evidence of the claimants on the touch-stone of -4-

probabilities calling into aid, its experience of life, men and matters and
liad such evidence to be untrustworthy, the same cannot be found fault
with. [606-D-F]

10. How far the price fetched by sale of small extents can be made
B the basis for determining the market value of large extents must necessari-
ly depend on the fact situation including that as to why the purchase was
made, in each case, which has come on its record. However, when the value
fetched by small extents, are of building plots, in a building lay-out formed
of large plot, it has to be seen whether the large acquired land if is laid
C out into small building plots and sold, whether they could fetch the price
fetched by sale of small building plots in the already formed building
lay-out. Then, the market value of the acquired land has to be determined
with reference to the value fetched by sale of small plots by making
allowanc~s for various factors, such as: loss of land required out of the
.>r
acquired land to be used for roads, drains, parks, the expenditure in·
D volved in forming the layout, waiting involved in sale of plots and several
other factors which will necessarily reduce the wholesale price of the
acquired land. Thus, how far the value fetched by sale of small extents of
lands could form the basts for determining the market value of the
acquired land has to inevitably depend upon the allowances to be made
E for factors whir.h distinguish the acquired land from the plots of land sold
and the sale value of which is relied upon as the basis for determining the
market value of the acquired land. (607-C·F]

11. The certified copies of registered documents, though accepted as
p evidence of transactions, the court is not bound to act upon the contents
of those documents unless persons cortnected with such documents give
evidence In court as regards them and such evidence is accepted by the
Court as true. But, when.the Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector has
made his award, based on the contents of documents, as found in the
register kept under the Registration Act and produces registration copies
G of such documents in support of his award in Court, they could be "!'" "

regarded acceptable as evidence by Court given in support of the award
unless it is shown by contra-evidence on bebaJf of the claimant that such
documents could not have been relied upon by the Collector or Land
Acquisition Officer in making the award. It would be so for the reason that
H when the LAO produces in court certified copies of those documents which
P. RAM REDDYv. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 591

he had made the basis for determ~ning the market value, that would be A
only to support his award and not to establish something independent of
the award. If that be so, when such documents are produced on behalf ot'
the Land Acc1uisition Officer in Court, they cannot be rejected on the
ground that the witnesses associated with those documents cannot be
examined by the Land Acquisition Officer, inasmuch as, even without
produci~g such documents he can rely upon the award by him to show that B
t~ had looked into those documents and he had determined the market
value on that basis. [608·E·H]

12. The mere fact that witnesses associated with certified copies of
documents produced as evidence in court were not examined on behalf of C
the Land Acquisition Officer will not in any way affect the award of the Land
Acquisition Officer, if he has determined the market value of the acquired
land having perused those documents as found in the Registers kept under
the Registration Act or their certified copies, before determining the market"
value of those lands on the basis of such documents. [609·A]
D
13. The amount awardable under sub-section (l·A) of section 23 of
the Land Acquisition Act, would be amount of 12 per centum per annum
on the market value of the land determined under first clause of sub-sec·
lion (1) of section 23 for the period between the date of publication of
Notification under section 4(1) (i.e. the last of the date of such publication E
and the giving of such public notice) and to the date of the award of the
Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
Since the amount payable under sub-section (l·A) of section 23 as well as
the solatium payable under sub-section (2) are in addition to the market
value of the land, they necessarily refer to the market value of the land F
awardable in the first clause of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Land
Acquisition Act. [609-H, 610·A·C]

14. In the instant case what the High Court has done in determining
the market value of the acquired land is to double the amount of !he market G
value disclosed in the sale deeds referred to in the award and accordingly
~ .;. fixed the market value of the acquired land after giving deduction of 20 per
cent out of it towards allowance of lay-out. However, the High Court could
not have fixed the wholesale price of acquired lands of the claimant at Rs.
32 per square yard by deducting only 20% of Rs. 40 per sq. yard fixed as the
retail value of building plots in the undeveloped layout of building plots H
_J
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A formed in the land adjacent to the acquired lands as on the. date when they
were notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act. Earlier whenever
the wholesale price of the acquired land with building potentiality is re-
c1uired to be determined on the basis of price of retail sales of building plots
in an undeveloped lay.out of building plots in the vicinity of the acquired
B lands, at least one-third of the retail pric.e to be got by sale of plots in an
undeveloped layout of building plots had to deducted to arrive at the
wholesale price of the acquired lands with building potentiality since the
entire acquired land cannot be sold as building plots, and some expense
wil~ have been incurred by the owners of lands in laying it into building
plots and selling them even though they might not have spent any amount
C on development of the layout. [611-G, 612-G-H, 613-A]

15. The wholesale price of the entire acquired lands of the claimant
could be fixed at 27 per square yard, that is Rs. 40 per square yard retail
price to be got by sale of plOts in the undeveloped layout minus one-third .
of it to be deducted for making of layout. The claimants would also be
D entitled to get solatium at the rate of 30 per cent on that market value of
the land. In addition to the market value of the land the claimant would be
entitled to get an amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum thereon from
the date of publication of Notification under section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, i.e. 2.9.1985 till the date of the award, i.e. 14.7.1988. Again
E the claimant would be entitled to get interest on the enhanced compensa-
tion at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date on which he gave the
pos~ession of the land to the date of payment of such excess amount.
However, if such amount has not been paid by the expiry of the period of
one year from the date when possession was taken, enhanced compensation
would be payable at the rate of 15 per cent annum from the date of your
F expiry of the period of one year till the excess amount was paid to the
claimant or paid into Court. [613-C-F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1037-.38
and 1039 of 1995 .

.G From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.93 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in A. Nos. 1565 .& 2087 of 1991.

P.P. Rao, Mr. A.O. N. Rao, Prakash Reddy, Nageshand Reddy and
A.T. Rao for the Appellants. \

H AS. Nambiar and Guntur Prabhakar for the Respondents.
P. RAM REDDYv. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [VENKATACHALA, J.] 593

The Judgment of the Court w~s delivered by A
..j..
VENKATACHALA, J. Having granted leave· to appeal sought for in
the above Special Leave Petitions directed against the common judgment
and decree dated 19.4.1993 rendered in Appeal Nos. 1565 and 2087/91 by
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad· and heard arguments of
B
learned counsel appearing ·for the contesting parties in the appeals, we
propose to dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment.

Sri P. Ram Reddy, the appellant in appeals arising out of S.L.P.'s
Nos. 13362-63/93 and respondent in appeal arising out of S.L.P. No ..
18202/93, to be referred to hereinafter as the 'claimant', was the owner in c
possession of dry land of, as large an extent as, 10 acres 17 guntas
comprised in survey Nos. 48/24 and 48/26 of Katedhan village lying in the
outskirts of Hyderabad. One acre 25 guntas of land out of 5 acres 22 guntas
of land in Survey No. 48/24 and 2 acres 15 guntas of land out of 4 acres 35
guntas of land in survey no. 48/26 were the lands included in the total extent D
,,f ,. of 14 acres and 35 guntas of land proposed to be acquired by Hyderabad
Urban Development Authority - "HUDA" for formation of inner ring road
required to connect Old Karnool Road with Hyderabad-Bangalore Nation-
al Highway No.7, under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act
68 of 1994 - 'the L.A. Act', by a Notification under Section 4(1) thereof,
published in the modes prescribed thereunder, by issuance of public notice E
in the locality o~ 2.9.1985. The acquisition of the said lands having been
completed by a declaration made· and published under Section 6 of the LA
Act, notice under section 9 was issued to the claimant calling upon him to
make his claim for compensation of the acquired land before the Land
Acquisition Officer of the HUDA - hereinafter to be referred to as "the F
LAO". In response to the said notice, the claimant claimed award of
compensation by the LAO for his acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 150 per
square yard apart from the statutory benefits which he was entitled to get
under the LA Act. The LAO, by his award made under Section 11 of the
LA Act, determined the market value of the claimant's acquired land at
Rs. 12 per square yard and awarded to him the amount of compensation G
..., I'
together with statutory benefits. Since that award of the LAO was unac-
ceptable to the claimant, he made an application to the LAO under Section
18 of the LA Act and got the application referred to the Court of the
Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District - "Civil Court", for determination
of the just compensation payable to him. On that reference registered as H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (t995] lS.C.R.

A AS. 129/88, the civil court held the inquiry as required by the LA Act and
on the basis of the inquiry so held, determined the market value of the
.Claimant's lands at Rs. 80 per square yard and accordingly made an award
and decree dated 18.4.1991 together with the statutory benefits. That award
and decree being appealed against the High Court by the claimant and the
B LAO respectively in A.S. No. 1565/91 and AS. No.2087/91, the former
seeking grant of further enhanced compensation and the latter seeking
reduction in the granted compensation. Both the appeals being clubbed
together and heard by the Division Bench of the High Court, the market
value of the claimant's land was reduced to Rs. 32 per square yard with
proportionate reduction in the statutory benefits, by its common judgment
C and decree rendered on 19.4.1993. While the Claimant questioned the
correctness of the said judgment and decree of the High Court by filing
appeals arising out of S.L.P.'s. Nos. 13362-13363/93, the LAO challenged
the correctness of the same judgment and decree by filing appeal arising
out of S.L.P. No. 18202/93, as stated at the outset. The above stated facts
make it clear that the LA, by his award (Ex. B-1) fixed 'the value of the
D acquired land at Rs. 20 per square yard on the basis of the value fetched
by sale of residential building plots at Rs. 20 per square yard under Sale
Deed dated 14.10.1982 whereunder 200 square yards of plot in Survey No.
48/13 of Katedhan Village were sold at Rs. 20 per square yard (Ex.B~3);
sale deed dated 16.10.1982 whereunder 200 square yards plot in Survey No.
E 48/14 was sold at Rs. 20 per square yard (Ex.B-4); and Sale Deed dated
1.2.1983 whereunder 200 square yards plot in Survey No. 48/12 had been
sold at Rs. 20 per square yard, Ex.B-5. However, he fixed the market value
of the acquired land at Rs. 12 per square yard by deducting 40% area
towards lay-out losses. He granted statutory benefits also payable for the
F acquired land. It also becomes clear from that award that the sale deeds
were seen and the local inspection had been hfild by the LAO before
making that award.

The Civil Court by its judgment and decree, which is referred to by
us earlier, enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs. 80 per
G square yard relying upon the amounts of consideration mentioned under
sale deeds and gift deeds (Bxs. A-1 to A-5) and also the probable value of >i >-
building plots in the locality of the acquired land& mentioned in Ex. A6 -
the extract of Basic Valuation Register, after making certain percentage of
deduction out of such amount or value towards what is called as "lay-out
H losses". /
P. RAM REDDYv. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [VENKATACH'\LA, J.) 595

When that award and decree of the Civil Court was ch~llenged in A
the High Court, it was found by the High Court that Exs. A-1 tb A-5, the
Sale Deeds and Gift Deeds were unreliable and could not be acted upon
by ·it· fo~ the reasons it gave in that regard. It also refused to place any
reliance cin· Ex. A-6, the Basic Valuation Register extract, on its view that
it was not safe to determine the market value of lands acquired under the B
LA Act ori the value found in Basic Valuation Register. However, it found
that the value of Rs. 20 per square Yard, on which the LAO had deter-
mined the market value of the acquired lands, was on the lower side for
determining the market value of that land. Consequently, it increased the
value of Rs. 20 per square yard relied upon by the LAO by another Rs. 20
per square yard. Thereafter, the High Court deducted 20% towards lay-out C
losses out of Rs. 40 per square yard and determined the market value of
the acquired lands at Rs. 32 per square yard. Therefore, it rendered its
judgment and decree in the appeals by reducing the market value of the
acquired lands from Rs. 80 per square yard awarded by the Civil Court to
Rs. 32 per square yard of the claimant's acquired land of 4 acres and 3 D
guntas and granted in addition 30% solatium on the market value 12%
additional amount on such market value from the date of the notification
i.e. 24.7.1985 till the date of the award i.e. 14.7.1988 and interest on the
enhanced amount of compensation under Section 28 of the LA Act.

Shri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel, who appeared before us for E
the claimant, raised several contentions against the correctness of the
judgment and decree of the High Court. He contended, firstly, that the
High Court had failed to take into consideration the very statement of the
LAO made in his award that the acquired land had high potentiality for

- developing into a Housing Colony, in determining its market value of the p
acquired land and that non-consideration had resulted in reducing the
market value of the acquired lands instead of enhancing their market value;
secondly, when the Civil Court had determined the market value of the
acquired land of the claimant at Rs. 80 per square yard on the basis of
amounts of consideration of building plots mentioned under Exs. A-1 to
A-3 (Sale Deeds) and Exs, A-2, A-4 and A-5 (Gift Deeds) and Ex., A-6, G
Basic Valuation Register extract, it should not have rejected Exs. A-1 to
A-6 themselves as unreliable documentary evidence for fixing the market
value of the acquired land; thirdly, when the Civil Court had determined
the iµarket value of the acquired land of the claimant at Rs. 80 per square
yard on the basis of the amounts of consideration mentioned in EXs. A-1 H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A and A-3 (Sale Deeds) a.nd Ex. A-2, A-4 and A-5 (Gift Deeds), and Ex. A-6
(Basic Valuation Register extract), the High Court should not have
rejected Exs.,A-1 to A-6 themselves as unreliable documentary evidence
for fixing the market value of the acquired land, particularly, when nothing
damaging was elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses who had
spoken about those documents; fourthly, when the High Court had held
B that the sale Deeds, Exs. B-3 to B-5, the Certified copies of the Sale Deeds
produced in evidence on behalf of the LAO had not been proved by
·examination ·of the witnesses connected with them, it could not have
determined the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the value
of land fixed by the LAO at the rate of Rs. 20 per square yard particularly
C when that rate was referable to value of the plots of land sold under Ex.
B-3 to B-5, marked in evidence under section 51 of the LA Act; fifthly,
when the High Court had doubled the value that value of plots fetched
under Ex. B-3 to B-5 for arriving at the correct market value of the
acquired land, it could not have determined the market value of the
D acquired land at Rs. 32 per square yard, by deducting 20% out of it towards
lay-out losses; and lastly, that the High Court had committed an error in
not granting the amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum payable
under section 23(1A) of the LA Act on the market value of the acquired
land from the date of the preliminary Notification till the date of taking
possession of the lands.
E
Shri G. Prabhakar, the learned counsel, who appeared before us for
the LAO, while refuting the contentions raised for the claimant, submitted
that although the High Court had held that the Sale Deeds, Ex. B-3 to B-5
had not been proved by examination of witnesses connected with them, the
p High Court could not be found fault 'with, for fixing the market value of
the acquired land on the basis of the award of the LAO based on Exs, B-3
to B- 5 when the claimant's evidence adduced in disproof of that award
-
had not \Jeen accepted by it (the High Court). It was further submitted by
him that the High Court could not have doubled the rate of Rs. 20 per
square yard fixed as the value of the acquired land by the LAO when it
G had not adverted to the basis on which. the value was so doubled. The High
Court, it was also submitted by him, was not right in granting the amount
in addition to the market value under section 23 (lA) of the LA Act, in
the manner in which it had done. It was lastly submitted by him that the
market value of the acquired land determined by the High Court· calls to
H be reduced to the level of the market value of such land determined by the
P. RAM REDDYv. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [VENKATACHALA, J.) 597

LAO and such market value should form the basis for grant of statutory A
benefits urrder the L.A. Act.
....
fo view of the aforesaid contentions and submissions of learned
counsel for the contesting parties, the question which require to be con-
sidered and answered in deciding the appeals, could be formulated thus:
B
•
(1) Whether the building potentiality of a land acquired under the
LA Act requires to be taken into consideration in determining its
market value, and if so, how has that to be done?

(2) Whether the value of building plots as found in the Basic C
Valuation Register maintained under the Stamp Act or its Rules,
could form the basis for determination of the market value of lands
acquired under the LA Act?

(3) Whether the value of land mentioned in an instance of sale or
an instance of gift claimed to compare with the acquired land D
warrants acceptance as the correct value of such land merely
because the witnesses who will have given evidence as regards
them, on behalf of the claimants had not been cross- examined or
effectively cross-examined on behalf of the L.A.O.?

(4) Whether the value fetched by sale of a small extent of land can
E
be made the basis for determination of the market value of a large
extent of the acquired land ?

(5) Will it not be open to a Court which rejects the evidence
adduced by the claimant in support of his claim for enhanced F
compensation for his acquired land made in a reference under
section 18 of the LA Act, to rely upon the contents of the award
of the LAO made under section 11 thereof, to enhance compen-
sation awardable for such land ? If the LAO's award is based on
value fetched under sale deeds on their perusal as contained in G
the registers maintained under the Registration Act, has he to
prove those sale deeds in Court for sustaining his award?

(6) What is the amount which could be awarded under section 23
(1-A) of the LA Act, in addition to the market value of the
acquired land? H
I

J
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A (7) Does the market value in respect of which solatium is. awar-
dable under section 23(2) of the IA Act include fhe amount
payable under section 23. (1-A) of the LA Act?

(8) What is the amount of compensation awardable for the lands
of the claimant acquired under the LA Act which could~ be
B regarded as just and reasonable?

We shall now proceed to consider and answer the ·said questions
seriatwn.

C Re: Question (1):

Building Potentiality of acquired land • Market value of land ac-
quired under the LA Act is the main component of the amount of com-
pensation awardable for such land under section 23(1) of the LA Act. The
market value of such land must relate to the last of the dates of publication
D of Notification or giving of public notice of substance of such Notification
according to section 4(1) of the LA Act. Such market value of the acquired
land cannot only be its value with reference to the actual use to which it
was put on the relevant date envisaged under section 4(1) of the LA Act,
but ought to be its value with reference to the better use to which it is
reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or near future. Possibility
E of the acquired land put to certain use on the date envisaged w;ider section
4(1) of the LA Act, of becoming available for better use ill the immediate
or near· future, is regarded as its potentiality. It is for this reason that the
market value of the acquired land when has to be determined with refer-
ence to the date ~nvisaged under section 4(1) of the LA Act, the same has
F to be done not merely with reference to the use to which it was put on such
date, but also on the possibility of it becoming available in the immediate
or near future for better use, i.e., on its potentiality. When the acquired
land has the potentiality of being used for building purposes in the imme-
diate or near future it is such potentiality which is regarded as building
potentiality of the acquired land. Therefore, if the acquired land has the
...
G building potentiality, its, value like the value of any other potentiality of the
land should necessarily be taken into account for determining the market
value of such land. Therefore, when a land with building potentiality is
acquired, the price which its willing seller could reasonably expect to obtain
from its willing purchaser with reference to the date envisaged under
H section: 4(1) of the LA Act, ought to necessarily include that portion of the
P. RAM REDDYv. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [VENKATACHALA, J.) 599

price of the land attributable to its building potentiality. Such price of the A
acquired land then becomes its market value .envisaged under section 23(1)
of the LA Act. If that be the market value of the acquired land with
building potentiality, which acquired land could be regarded to have a
building potentiality and how the market value of such acquired land with
such building potentiality requires to be measured or determined are B
matters which remain for our consideration now.

An acquired land could be regarded as that which has a building
potentiality, if such land although was used on the relevant date envisaged
under section 4(1) of the LA Act for agricultural or horticultural or other
like purposes or was on that date even barren or waste, had the possibility C
of being used immediately or in the near future as land for putting up
residential, commercial, industrial or other buildings. However, the fact
that the acquired land had been acquired for building purposes, cannot be
sufficient circumstance to regard it as a land with building potentially, in
that, under clause (4) of Section 24 of the LA Act that any increase to the D
value of land likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when
acquired, is required to be excluded. Therefore, wherever, there is a
possibility of the acquired land not used for building purposes on the
relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, of being used
for putting up buildings either immediately or in the near future but not in
the distant future, then such acquired land would be regarded as that which E
has a building potentiality. Even so, when can it be said that there is the
possibility of the acquired land being used in the immediate or near future
for putting up buildings, would be the real question. Such possibility of user
of the acquired land for building purposes can never be wholly a matter of
conjecture or surmise or guess. On the other hand, it should be a matter
F
of inference to be drawn based on appreciation of material placed on
record to establish such possibility. Material so placed on record or made
available must necessarily relate to the matters· such as :

(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town
or village which had been growing in size because of its commer- G
cial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of impor-
tance or because of its explosive population;

(ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings,
be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be; H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 s.c.1i'.

A (iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants ·
of buildings to be put up on that land; ·
'
(iv) absence of statutory impediments or. the like for using the
acquired land for building purpose;

B (v) existence .of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots
or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close
proximity of the acquired land;

(vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care
centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired lan_d
c whiCh niay become· available to the occupiers of buildings,· if built
on the acqUired land; and

(vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself'
being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few.
D
Th~ material to be so placed on record or made available in respect
of the said matters and the like, cannot have the needed evidentiary value
for concluding that the acquired land being used for building purposes in
the immediate or near future unless the same is supported by reliable
documentary evidence, as far as the circumstances permit. When once a
E conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land
being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such
conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building
potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account
the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality.
F
Then, comes the question of dete~g the market value of th~
acquired land with building potentiality. Undoubtedly such market value
of the acquired land with building potentiality comprise\ of the market
value of the land having regard to the use to ~hich it was put on the
relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act plus the increase
G in that market value because of the possibility of the acquired land being
.. used for putting up buildings, in the immediate or near. future. If there is
· any other land with building potentiality similar to the acquired land which
had been sold for a price obtained by a willing seller from a willing
purchaser, such price could be taken to be the market value of the acquired
H land, in that, it would have comprised of the market value of the land as
P. RAM REDDYv. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [VENKATACHALA, J.] 601

was b.eing actually used plus increase in price attributable to its bui,Iding A
potentiality. If the prices fetched by sale of similar land with building
potentiality in the neighbourhood or vicinity of the acquired lands with
building potentiality, as on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1)
of the LA Act, are unavailable, it becomes necessary to find out whether
any building plots laid out in a land similar to the acquired land had been B
sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer on or near about the relevant date
under Section 4(1) when the acquired land had been proposed for acquisi-
tion and then to find out what would be the price which the acquired land
would have fetched if had been sold by making it into building plots similar
to those sold. In other words, an hypothetical lay-out of building plots in
the acquired land similar to that of the lay-out of building plots actually C
made in the other similar land, has to be prepared, and the price fetched
by sale of building plots in the lay-out actually made should form the basis
for fixing the total price of the acquired land with building potentiality, to
be got if plots similar to other plots had been made in the latter land and
• sold by taking into account plus factors and minus factors involved in the D
process.

Prices fetched by sales of building plots which may become available
could be of building plots in either a fully developed layout of building
plots or in an undeveloped layout of building plots, situated in the vicinity E
of the acquired land with building potentiality. If the market value of the
acquired land with building potentiality has to be fixed on the basis of the
evidence of the said prices, the first thing required to be done is to prepare
a hypothetical layout of building plots of the acquired land itself. Then,
how much of land out of the acquired land becomes available to be made
into plots similar to those in the developed layout of building plots or in F
the undeveloped layout of building plots has to be found out. If the building
plots which so become available were to be sold at the prices at which the
building plots in the developed by out of building plots or undeveloped
layout of building plots could have been sold ~n the date envisaged in
section 4(1) of the Act, what would be the total amount of such prices G
which could have been obtained has to be seen. Then what could have been
the losses suffered or expenses incurred for getting such total amount has· ·
to be found out. The market value of the acquired land. with building
potentiality, can then be regarded as the total amount of the prices of sales
of all the building plots envisaged in the hypothetical layout of building H
plots in the acquired
... ,,,,.. land minus the losses which could have been suffered
-- ---
602 SUPREME ~OURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.
'
A or expenses which could h~ve been incurr..ed:-in ¢aking the hypothetical
l~yout of building plots in the acquired land. on p~ -with. the developed
layout of building plots or the undeveloped laymiorbuilding. plots as the
case may be. If losses to be suffered OT e~!l:S~§_JQ.Qe inc~(r~:for nfaking ,
a layout of building plots in the µcquired fand Wi'thouildiii'g potentiality for
.B pyrposes of selling such building plots-at the prices to be fetched by similar.
building plots in the developed layout of building plots or in the un-
developed layout of building plots are to be. f9und out, the losses which
might have been suffered or expenses which might have been incurred by
the owners of the lands of eith.er of a develop.ed layout of building pl0ts or
of an undeveloped Jayout of building plots,, in making such lay outs, could.
C prove to be the best evidence. The evidence of losses suffered or expenses
incurred in having made a layout of building plots may relate to lands lost
for laying roans, drain, sewerages, parks etc, costs incurred in the making
of roads, drains, sewerages, providing water supply, electric supply, losses
on investments and paying of conversion charges, development charges etc.
D ·in a developed layout or an undeveloped layout in which building plots had
been laid and sold and which sales form the basis for determining the
market value .of the acquired land. If evidence to be adduced in the said
regard is of public authorities or local boards or private developers who
will have formed such layouts of building plots in the land in the neigh-
E · bourhood of the acquired land and sold them, it could be of great value.
No difficulty arises when all the materials needed to determine the market
value of the acquired land with building potentiality on the basis af a
hypothetical layout of building plots to be formed in respect of it is made
available to the Court, so as to enable it to find out the possible market
F value of the acquired land with reference to the price to be fetched by sale
of building plots to be made in such land. But, owners, of the acquired land
with building potentiality, rarely produce all the material or evidence
needed for the Court to determine the market value of the acquired land
with building potentiality on the basis of a hypothetical layout of building
plots to be thought of by the Court in respect of such land, although they
G rely on the price fetched by sale of plots in the developed layout or an
undeveloped layout for determining the market value of their lands with
building potentiality in the vicinity of such layout. It is where the Court may
· have to inevitably fix the market value of the acquired land with building
potentiality on the basis of the prices got in the sale transactions relating
H to the building plots in a developed or an undeveloped layout, relied upon
P. RAM REDDYv. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [VENKATACHALA, J.) 603

by the owners of the land, if such transactions are. found to be genuine. A A
simple method, therefore, is evolved by courts in determining the market
value of the acquired land with building potentiality with reference to tli'e
retail price to be fetched by sale of plots in a fully developed layout as on
the date of publication of Notification under section 4(1) of the Act. In
Bombay Improvement Tmst v. Ma1wanji Manekji Mistry, ~eported in AIR
(1926) Bombay 42G, the said method is referred to by Macleod, C.J. as that
B
where the wholesale price of the acquired land with building potentiality
could be fixed at one-third to one half of the. retail price fetched by sale
of building plots in a developed layout of building plots, depending upon
the nature of development taken place in such layout. Thus, whe11. it
becomes inevitable for the Court to fix the market value of the acquired C
land with building potentiality on the basis of the price fetched by sale of
a building plot in a developed layout of building plots ·in the vicinity, it
must, in our view, fix the wholesale market value of the acquired land with
building potentiality at one-third to one half of the retail price got by
genuine sales of plots in a developed layout in the vicinity, by deducting D
two- thirds, to one-half out of the retail prices of plots, as losses or expenses
involved in havipg made the land where the plots are formed as developed,
according to the degree of development. For instance, if the retail price of
plot is Rs. 12 per square yard, the wholesale price of the acquired land
with building potentiality could be fixed at rupees varying between Rs. 4
and Rs. 6 depending upon the nature of development found in the layout E
of the plot sold in retail. Coming to fixation of the wholesale price of the
acquired land with building potentiality on the basis of retail price· of a
building plot sold out of an undeveloped layout of building plots, such
wholesale price ought to be fixed by deducting at least one-third of the
retail price of the building plot in such layout, because such would be the F
least loss to be suffered in forming a layout of building plots in the acquired
land wit)l building potentiality, after leaving out land for roads, drains etc.
by obtaining the needed permissions from public authorities for making
such layout. Therefore, the wholesale price of the acquired land could be
fixed at Rs. 8 per square yard if the price fetched or to be fetched by sale
of building plot in an undeveloped layout is Rs. 12. However, in either of G
the said cases whether it be the determination of the market value of the
acquired land with building potentiality with reference to the price fetched
by sale of plots in a well developed layout in the neighbourhood or whether
it be the determination of the market value of the acquir'!d land with
H
604 , SUPRBMECOURTREPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

A ·building p~tentiality_with reference to the price fetched by sale of building
plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the neighbourhood,· it
becomes inevitable for the Court to find out what will be the price fetched
or to be fetched by the sales of plots in the layouts, relied upon by any of
the parties, with reference to the price which the plots could have fetcned
B if sold on the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, where no evidence of price fetched by the
sales of the plots fn layouts of building plots in the neighbourhood of the
acquired lands becomes available, then what could be done is .to find out
the market value of the acquired land with reference to the relevant date
of publication under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, according to the actual
C use to which it was put !iJld increase its value by a small percentage having
regard to the degree of its building potentiality ascertained on the basis of
evidence to be made available in that regard. A small percentage increase
to be given shall not exceed 1/5th of the market value of the land found
out according to its actual user since resort to the method of giving
D increased value for such building potentiality arises only when there is no
evidence of sales of building plots in the neighbourhood of the acquired
land indicating that there was no immediate demand, as such, for building
plots even if formed in the acquired land.

Hence, whether the acquired land has building potentiality or not,
E has to be decided upon reference to the material to be placed on record
or made available by the parties concerned, the market value of the
acquired land with building potentiality, is also required to be determined
with reference to the material to be placed on record or made available in
that regard by the parties concerned and not solely·on surmises, .conjec-
F tures or pure guess.

Re: Question (2): l.

,Yalue of building plots found in the Basic Valuation Register - The
value. of building plots mentioned in the Basic Valuation Register can be
G of no assistance in determining the market value of the land acquired under
the LA Act is no longer r~s infegra. In Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue
Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and Others, [1994] 4 SCC 595, it is ruled
:by this Court that the value. of lands ~entioned in the Basic Valuation
Register prepared and maintained for the.purpose of collecting stamp duty
H since lacks statutory base, the same cannot form the., foundation to deter·

)
P. RAM REDDY v. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [VENKATACHALA, J.] '605

mine the market value of the lan~s acquired under the LA Act by observing A
thus:

"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 B
registration. Equally it would not be a basis to determine tht
market value under section 23 of the Act, of the lands acquired in
that area or town or the locality or the taluk etc."

Therefore, the value of building plots as found in the Basic Valuation C
Register maintained under the Stamp Act cannot form the basis for deter-
mining the market value of the lands acquired URder the LA Act.

Re : Question (3) :
D
Non cross-examination or ineffective cross-examination of witness for
the claimant oral evidence is generally adduced in the enquiry held by court
for deterinination of the compensation payable for lands acquired under
the LA Act. Such oral evidence, generally, comprises of either of the
claimants or their witness examined in support of the claims of claimants
for grant of enhanced compensation, which in this very nature, would be E
referable to matters of situation of the acquired lands, their surroundings,
their value or the like. Several statements would be made by such claimants
or their witnesses when they are examined-in-chief in Court, on matters
that may bear on the market value of acquired lands. If the witnesses who
make such statements, are not subjected to cross-examination or effective F
cross-examination or no contrary evidence is adduced, is the Court obliged
to accept such statement to be true in determining the market value of the
acquired lands ? It is, no doubt true, that whenever oral evidence is
adduced by parties on certain matters in controversy, it may become
difficult for Court to overlook such evidence, if it is not shown by effective G
cross-examination of such witnesses who have given such evidence or by
· adducing contra-evidence that the oral evidence was unreliable or the
witnesses themselves are not credit worthy. But, in land acquisition refer-
ences before Civil Courts, when witnesses give oral evidence in support of
the claims of claimants for higher compensation the in-effective cross~ex
amination of such witness, is not an uncommon feature if regard is had to H
I

J

606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

A the manner in which clain1s for enhanced compensation. in land acquisition ·
cases are · defended in courts on behalf of the State. Indeed, wh~n a
question arose before this Court whether the Court is bound to accept the
statement of witnesses only because they have not been effectively cross-
it
examined or evidence in rebuttal has not been·adduce; was observed by
B this Court in Chaturbhuj Pande and Others v. Collect01; Raigarh, AIR (1969)
S.C. 255, thus :

"It is true that the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants
have not been effectively cr9ss-examined. It is also true that the
Collector had not addu.ced any evidence in rebuttal; but that does
c not mean that the court is bound to accept their evidence. The
Judges are not computers ...... they are bound to call into aid their
experience of life and test the evidence on the basis of prob-
abilities."

Hence, we are unable to think that whenever the statements made
D by claimants' witnesses in. courts are not got over· on behalf of the Collector
or the LAO by subjecting the witnesses to effective cross~examination or
by not adducing evidence in rebutta~ the courts are obligated to accept
such statement of witnesses as true, if tested .on the basis of probabilities,
become unreliable. If the courts were to accept such statements of wit-
E .nesses as true merely because they are not subjected to cross-examinatio.u
or effective cross-examination or because evidence in rebuttal thereof has
not been adduced; it would amount to doling out public money to the ·
claimants far in excess of their legitimate entitlement for just compensation
payable for their lands. If such situation is pr~vented by courts dealing with
claims for compensation by 'testing· the statements of witnesses for
F claimants on the basis of probabilities, the Courts will have performed the
duty justly expected of them. Hence, no Court which tests the oral evidence
of the claimants on the touch-stone of probabilities calling into aid, its
experience of life, men and matters and find such evidence to be un-
trustworthy, the same cannot be found fault wi~h.
G
Re : Question ·(4) :

Market value of large exents of acquired lands vis-a-vis value fetched
by small extents - It is a matter of common knowledge that the large extents
of lands if are to be sold, they c:·annot fetch the value which may be fetched
H by sale of small extents of land. It is for the reason the courts do not
P. RAM REDDYv. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [VENKATACHALA, J.) 607

ordinarily accept the value fetched by small extents as the basis for deter- A
l
mination of the value· of large extents of acquired lands. In fact, where the
small extent of land sold is insignificant when compared with large extent
of land acquired, the market value of large extent of acquired lands shall
not b~ determined on the basis of value fetched by sale of infinitesimally
small extent of land. But, in exceptional cases when small extent of land B
sold for a price as compared with the. acquired large extent of land, the
market value of which is required to be determined is not so insignificant,
the Court dependin~ upon the possibility of the large extent of land of the
claimant being sold"as a small extent of land as that already sold for a price
the market value of the large extent could be fixed on the basis of the price
fetched by sale of small extent. Even then, how far the price fetched by C
sale of small extents can be made the basis for determining the market
value of large extents must necessarily depend on the fact situation includ-
ing that as to why the purchase was made, in each case, which has come
on its record. However, when the value fetched by small extents, are of
building plots, in a building lay-out formed of a large plot, it has to be seen D
whether the large acquired land if is laid out into small building plots and
sold, whether they could fetch the price fetched by sale of small building
plots in the already formed building lay out. Then, the market value of the
acquired land has to be determined with reference to the value fetched by
sale of small plots plots by making allowances for various factors, such as;
loss of land required out of the acquired land to be used for roads, drains, E
parts, the expenditure involved in forming the layout, waiting involved in
sale of plots and several other factors which will necessarily reduce the
wholesale price of the acquired land. Thus, how far the value fetched by
sale of small extents of lands could form the basis for determining the
market value of the acquired land has to inevitaoly depend upon the F
allowances to be made for factors which distinguish the acquired land from
the plots of land sold and the sale value of which is relied upon as the basis
for determining the market value of the acquired land.

Re : Question (5) :
G
Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act - Section 51-A of the LA
Act reads thus :

"51-A. Acceptance of certified copy as evidence. - In any proceed-
ing under this Act, a certified copy of a document register$!d under H
608 . SUPREME COURT Rl~PORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A the Registration Act, 1908 U6 of 1908), including a copy given
under Section 57 of that Act, may be accepted as evidence bf the
transaction recorded in such document"

Certified copy of a document registered uiiqer the Registration Act,
B 1908, but for the above provision could have been 'only secondary evidence
which could have accepted by the court when primary evidence relating to
the original documents were shown to be unavailable. Section 51-A of the
LA Act, as seen therefrom, is enacted to enable the parties in land
acquisition cases, to produce certified copies of documents, to get over 1the
difficulty of parties, in that, persons in possession ~f the original documents
C would not be ready to put them in courts, for when once they are put in
Court, they cannot be sure, when they could take thell: return from Court.
However, the mere fact that a certified c()py of the document is accepted ·
as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document does not dis-
pense with the need for a party relying 1upon the certified copies of such
D documents produced in court in examining \witnesses connected with docu-
ments to establish their genuineness and th~ truth of their contents. There-
fore, the certified copies of .registered dcicuments, though accepted as
evidence of transaction. recorded in such documents,
I
the court is not bound
to act upon the contents of those document ·unless persons connected with
such documents given evidence in court\. as regards them and such evidence
E is accep~ed by the Court as true. But, when the LAO 8r'the Collect?r ,has
made his award, based on the contents of docum~nts, as found m the
registers kept under the Registration Act and prod~pef ~~gistration copies
of such documents in support of his award in Court, they ~i::mld be regarded
acceptable as evidence by Court given in support of the ~ward unless it is
\ '
p shown by contra-evidence on behalf of the claim.ants .th31t such documents
could not have been relied upon by the Collectbr or LAd 1 in making the
award. It would be so for the re~son 'that when the LAO produces in comt
Registration (certified) copies of those documents which he had made the
basis for determining the market value, that would be only to support his
O a\Vard and not to establish something independent of the awar~.· If that be
\ so, when such documents are produced on behalf of the LAO in court,
the)! cannot be rejeckd on the grourui that the witnesses assoqia~e<;l with
lhose doc;uments cannot be examined by the LAO, inasmuch as,\ even
without producing such documents he can rely upon the award made by
hill\ to show that he had looked into those documents and he had 'deter-
H min'hd, the market value on their basis. Hence, the mere fact that witnesses
'
'
\
P. RAM REDDY v. URBAN DEVa~,.OPMENT AUTHORITY [VENKATACHALA, J.) 609

associated with such certified ~opies of documents produc~d as evidence A
in court were not examined on behalf oflhe LAO will not in any way affect
the award of the LAO, if he has determined the market value of the
acquired land having perused those dqcuments as found in the Registers
kept under the Registration Act or their certified copies, before determin-
ing the market value of those lands on the basis of such documents.
B
Re: Question (6) and (7) :

Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act-Section 23 (1-A) of the
LA Act reads thus :

"23 (1-A). In addition to the market-value of the land, as above
c
provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated
at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market-value.
for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication
of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of
such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of D
taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.

Explanation - In computing the period referred to in this sub-sec-
tion, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the
acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or E
injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded."

It is clear from a reading of the above section that in addition to the
market value of the land awardable for the acquired land under first clause
of sub-section (1) of section 23, the Court shall in every case award an
amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such p
market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the
publication of the Notification under section 4(1) of the LA Act, in respect
of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking
possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation, merely disentitles
the claimant for the amount during the period referred to in the sub-sec-
tion, that ·is, the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up G
by any stay or injunction by the order of any court. The amount awardable
under sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the LA Act, therefore, would be
an amount of 12 per centum per annum on the market value of the land
determined under first clause of sub-section (1) of section 23 for the period
. between the date of publication of Notification under section 4(1) (i.e., the H
610 SUPKEME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A last of the dates of .such publication and the giving of such public notice)
and to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking
possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
...
In this context is has to be noted that the amount payable is 12 per
centum 'per annum on the market value in the first clause of sub-section
B (1) of-section 23 of the LA Act. It has also to be noted that solatium under .
sub-section (2) is not payable in respect of the amount awardable under
sub-section (1-A), in that, sub-section (2) says that in addition to the
market-vahle of the land, as above provided,.the Court shall in every case
award a sum of thirty per centum on such market-value, in consi!leration
C of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.

Since the amount payable under sub-section (1-A) of !section 23 as
well as the .solatium payable under sub-section (2) are in addition to the
market value of the land, as above provided, they 'ne~~ssarily refer to the
market value of the .land awardable in the first clause of stib~section (1) of
D section 23 of the LA Act. ·

Re: Question (8) :

Market value of the lands of the claimant - .The High\ Court has
refused to act upon documents. Exs. A-1 to A-6 relied upon ol,1 behalf of
E the claimant for obtaining enhanced compensation for his acquired land,
Ex. A-i' is a certified copy of Sale Deed date 16.2.1985. It was s'qught ·to
be prnvide by examination of fW-2 - the purchaser under the document.
The amount of consideration passed under the document, though was
mentioned as Rs. 60,000 for 250.80. sq. yards of land sold thereunder, lt had
F been said that amount had been paid before the witnesses. The High Court
has refused to believe the evidence as to passing of consider~tion of Rs.
60.000 under that document. Whether the consideration mentioned in a
document, like sale deed did pass from the buyer to the sellor of land,
being a matter of pure appreciation of evic,ience and when the High Court
G in appreciation of such evidence has refused to accept that evidence and
rejected the document, we find it difficult to interfere with such finding of
fact recorded by the High Court and take a contrary view in the matter.

Similar is the view taken by the High Court in respect of Sale Deed
dated 26.7.1985, Ex. A-3, in proof of which the vendor has been examined.
H Here again, the High Court has rejected the sale deed by refusing to accept
P. RAM REDDY v. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY fVENKAfACHALA, J.) 611

the oral evidence adduced. Here also ther(is no justification for us to take A
a ~ew in the matter contrary to the view taken by the High Court in the
mat\er. Insofar as documents Exs. A-2, A-4 and A-5 are concerned, those
are g'i(t deeds of different deeds of different dates. The claimant sought to
rely u~n the amounts mentioned in them as the value of lands · for'.
purposes f registration of documents, as those which could be taken for
purpose~. o determining the market value of the acquired land in the
vicinity. The igh Court took the view that the parties to the gift deeds,
when were ne r relatives, as father and daughter or husband and wife,
consideration mentioned in them as the value Qf land which is solely for
the purpose of registration cannot represent the teal market value of any
of those lands and hence cannot form the basis for determination of the c
market value of the acquired land. Consequently, High Cburt rejected the
gifts deeds as unhelpful for determination of the market value of the
acquired land. When rejection by the High Court of the gift deeds is made
on the basis of appreciation of evidence available before it, there can be
no justification for us to interfere with such rejection. The other document D
on which reliance was placed by the claimant was Ex. A-6, which is an
extract of the Basic Valuation Register. As we have already held following
an earlier judgment of this Court that Basic Valuation Register extracts
cannot be of any assistance in determination of market value of the an
acquired and, the rejection by.the High Court of Ex. A-6, the basic register
extract, on its view, that on its basis the market value of the acq~ired land E
cannot be determined, it is difficult for us to hold that the High Court was
unjustified in rejecting Ex. A-6 as that which cannot form the basis for
determination of the market value of the acquired land. Thus, the. said
.) documents which were made the basis for determination of the market
value of the acquired land by the Civil Court were rejeded by the High
F
Court on reappraisal made by:it of the oral evidence adduced in respect
of those documents by taking into ·consideration the relevant factors to
which we have already referred, s"itch rejection, cannot be found fault with.·
However, what the High Court has done in determining the market value
of the acquired land is to double the amount of the market value disclosed
in the sale deeds referred to in that award and on that basis to fix the G
market value of the acquired land after giving deduction of 20 per cent out
of it towards allowance of lay-out and then fix the market value of the
ac;:quired land at Rs. 32 per sq. yard.

No doubt, as pointed out of behalf of the LAO, no specific reason H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A is given-by the High Court in its judgment as to why it double the .amount
of Rs. 20 per square yard, the v.alue fetched by sale deeds (Exhibits B-2,
B-3 and B-4) for fixing the market value of the acquired land. But, then
whether the award of the LAO himself lends support for such doubling of
the value of plots of land sold under the sale deeds, exhibits B-2, B-3 and
B B 7 ~, for, determining the market '.':alue of acquired Lands which were
notified'under Section 4(1) of the Act a few years therefore, requires to be
seen. The award of the LAO (Ex. B-1) insofar it" concerns the question
reads thus:

"The land under acquisition is located between the NationM
c Highway No. 7 and old Kurnool road and the proposed ring road
connects these two roads. The lands are also located near
Shivarampally railway .station and in close proximity to Katedan
Industrial Estate and fall within the newly formed Rajendranagar
Municipality. The area is fast developing and there is much
demand for residential house plots particularly after developing
D the N.G.Os. Colony at Mylardevally and Madhuban residential
complex of RUDA in the neighbouring area. The area is also
, serv~d.with all modern amenities like power, transport, telephone
1
'etc., \vith high potentiality for developing housmg colonies."

E Therelore, when the LAO himself has stated as above of the fast
development· of the area where the acquired lands and adjoining building
plots sold at Rs. 20 per square yard were situated and the rush of people
for purchase of residential building plots in that area, the High Court
cannot be said to have gone wrong in stating that the building plots sold
p .under Exhibits B-2, B-3 and B-4 if had been sold at the time of acquisition
concerned, could have fetched double the rate of Rs. 20 per square yard.
Even so, the High Court, in our. view, could
\
not have fixed the wholesale .
price of acquired lands of the claimant at Rs. 32 per square yard by ·
deducting only 20% of Rs. 40 per square yard fixed as the retail valuation
of building plots in the undeveloped layout, of building plots formed in the
G land adjacent to the acquired lands as on the date when they were notified
for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act. As we have pointed out·
earlier whenever the wholesale price of the acquired land with building
potentiality is required to -be determined on the basis of prices of retail
sales of building-plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in the
H vicinity of the acquired lands, at least one-third of the retail price to be got
P. RAM REDDYv. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [VENKATACHALA, J.) 613

.by sale of plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots had to b~ A
deduct~~ to arrive .at the wholesale price of the acquired lands with
building potentia'~ty: since the entire acquired land cannot be sold as
building plots, and some expense will have been incurred by the owners of
lands in laying in into building plots and selling them even though ~hey
might not have spent any amount on development of the layout.
B
When considered in the above perspective, the wholesale price of the
entire acquired lands of the claimant could be fixed at Rs. 27 per square
yard, that is, Rs. 40 per square yard retail price to be got by sale of plots
in the undeveloped layout minus one- third of it to be deducted for making
C
-
of layout. Thus, the market value of the entire land of the claimant would
be Rs. 27 per square yard and it has to be determined accordingly.

In the result, we determine the market value of the claimant's ac-
quired land of 4 acres 3 guntas i.e. 19723 square yards at Rs. 27 per square
yard and that would be Rs. 5j32,521. The claimant would be entitled to get D
solatium at the rate of 30 per cent on that· market value of the land. In
addition to the market value of the land of Rs. 5,32,521, the clfilmant would
be entitled to get an amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum thereon
from the date of publication of Notification under section 4(1) of the LA
Act, i.e., 2.9.1985 till the date of the award, i.e., 14.7.1988. Again, the
claimant would be entitled to get interest on the enhanced compensation E
at the rate of 9 per cent annum from the date on which he gave the
possession of the land of the date of payment of such excess amount.
However, if such amount has not been paid by the expiry of the period of
one year from the date when possession was taken, enhanced compensa-
tion would be payable at the rate of 15 per cent annum from the date of p
the expiry of the period of one year till the excess amount was paid to the
claimant or paid into col.trt.

We, accordingly, allow Civil Appeal No. 1039/ 95 arising out of S.L.P.
1
(C) No. 18202 of 1993 partly and dismiss Civil Appeals Nos. 1037-38/95
arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 13362-63 of 1993. However, we make no G
order as to costs.

T.N.A. Appeals. disposed of.