THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. ETC.versusSRI SIDAPPA OMANNA TUMARI AND ORS. ETC.

        THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. ETC.                     A
                                v.
               SRI SIDAPPA OMANNA TUMARI AND ORS. ETC.

                               OCTOBER 27, 1994

      [K. RAMASWAMY, S.C. AGRAWALANDN. VENKATACHALA,JJ.]                       B

            Land Acquisition Act 1894, Ss. 11 (2), (3) and 12-Evidentiary value
       of award covering lands under same notification-Collector making award
      for 240 acres @ Rs. 4,000 per acre by agreement with owners-Later
    · making award for remaining 60 acres on basis of market value@ Rs. 4,000 C
      and 4,500 per acre for agricultural and non-agricuitural land
       respectively-Civil Court on reference enhancing compensation to Rs.
       60, 000 per acre on basis of sale deed of small bit of land and valuation
      report of retired engineer-Held, Civil Court wrong in ignoring altogether
      award earlier made by Collector; cannot grant enhanced compensation
      without first recording finding of inadequacy of award amount-Karnataka D
      Industrial Area Development Act 1966, S. 29 (2).

          Land Acquisition Act 1894, Ss.11 (2) and II (3) -Determination of
     market value-Acquisition of 300 acres of land for industries-Civil Court
     on reference enhancing compensation to Rs. 60,000 per acre on basis of
     market value ofsmall bit of land and valuation report of retired engineer- E
     Hi!ld; Court was wrong in determining compensation on basis of sale deed
     of small extent of land and on expert report based on such sale deed

         300 acres of land in Belgaum were sought to be acquired under
     S.28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (the F
     'KIAD Act') for the purpose of industries. Pursuant to an agreement
     with the State Government, owners of240 acres accepted compensation
     determined at Rs. 4,000 per acre under an award made by the
f
     Collector in that behalf. The owners of the remaining 60 acres did not
     agree to receive the above compensation and it became necessary to
     take recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 G
     ('Act') for determining the compensation payable to them. The Land
     Acquisition Officer (LAO) awarded Rs. 4,000 per acre for agricultural
     land and Rs. 4,500 per acre for non-agricultural land on the basis of
     market value. The LAO referred to the earlier award in respect of 240
     acres and to the price fetched for large extent of similar lands.      H
                                       207
    208                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS         [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A        The Civil Court on a reference sought by tht: owners of the 60
    acres, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 60,000 per acre relying upon a
    solitary sale deed for a small extent of land and the valuation report of
    a retired engineer based on the said sale deed. Not satisfied with the
    reduction by the High Court of the compensation to Rs. 52,000 and Rs.
    36,000 per acre for non-agricultural and agricultural lands
B   respectively, the State Government appealed to the Supreme Court.

          Allowing the appeal, this Court

         HELD : 1.1. The Civil Court had wholly ignored the settlement
    reached by the owners of about 240 acres of land which was similar to
c   the (pO acres of acquired lands and formed four-fifth of 300 acres of the
    acquired lands. When 240 acres of lands acquired, for which Rs. 4,000
    per acre ~as received as compensation by agreement and 60 acres of
    lands acquired for which Court had to determine compensation were
    similar, no merit could be found in the argument that these lands
D   should be granted higher compensation. (221-E-Ff

         1.2. The evidentiary value of the award made under S.11 (2) of the
    Act ought to increase depending on the proportion which the area of
    the lands covered by the award may be are to the total area of the land
    covered by the notification for acquisition. Such being the evidentiary
E   value of an award made under S.11 (2) of the Act, the Court
    determining the compensation payable for other acquired lands
    covered by the same notification cannot ignore altogether from its
    consideration such award. (216-G-H)

       Bangaru Narasingha Rao NaidJ v. R.D.O., Vizianagaram, (1980) 1
F   SCC 75 and Krishna Yachandra Bachadurvaru v. Special Land
    Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, (1979) 4
    sec 356, referred to.
         1.3. The Court which is required to decide the reference under S.18
    of the Act, cannot determine the amount of compensation payable to           L
G   the claimant exceeding the amount determined in the award of the.
    Collector made under S.11 for the same land,. unless it gets over the
    finality and conclusive evidentiary value attributed to it under S.12, by
    recording a finding on consideration of relevant material therein that
    the amount of compensation determined under the award was
H   inadequate for the reasons that weighed with it. (214-G-H)
          SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. S. 0. TUMARI            209

     2.1. The Civil Court was wholly wrong in making the registration A
copy of that sale deed the basis for determination of the market value
of the acquired lands. Moreover, when the extent of the land covered in
the sale deed wa~ hardly 3 guntas, the price alleged to have fetched for
it could not have formed the basis for determination of the market
value of about 60 acres of the acquired land, particularly, when as seen
from the award there were sale transactions pertaining to large extents B
of lands which had come into existence in respect of lands in the
vicinity, around the time of acquisition and before, were available but
had not been made available to Court. (221-D)

    2.2. Determination of the value of large extent of acquired lands on
the basis of the prices fetched by smaller plots must be a matter of last C
resort and should be adopted when there is no possibility of
determining the market value of acquired lands on the. basis of
comparable transactions of larger extents. (217-F)

    The Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, (1972) 4 SCC
~~~~                                                                      D
    2.3. The report of the expert based on the sale deed itself was of no
help in determining the value of acquired land. When a report of an
expert is got produced by a claimant before the court giving market
value of the acquired lands, the court may, choose to act upon such
report for determination of the amount of compensation .payable for E
the acquired lands, if the data or the material on the basis of which
such report is based is produced before the Court and the authenticity
of same is made good and the method of valuation adopted therein is
correct. (219-A)

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos . .2587-88 of          F
1994 etc. etc.

   From the Judgment and Order dated 293.93 of the Kamataka High
Court in M.F.A. No. 954-55of1989.

                                WITH                                      G

    Civil Appeal Nos. 2589-97 of 1994.

    S.S. Javali, Mrs. Kiran Suri, M. Veerappa, Naveen R. Nath, for S.R.
Bhat, Girish Nanthamurthy, for P. Mahale and E.C. Vidya Sagar for Gopal
Singh for the appearing parties.                                          H
    210                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       , VENKAT ACHALA, J. These appeals by special leave preferred by
   .the Land Acquisition Officer of · the Kamataka Industrial Areas
    Development Board and the Kamataka Industrial Areas Development
    Board are directed against judgments and decrees of the High Court of
B Kamataka rendered in their appeals filed under section 54 of the Land
  · Acquisition Act, 1894 - "the LA Act". Since the appeals· filed in the High
    Court were directed against the judgments and decrees of the Court of Civil
    Judge. Belgaum rendered on references made to it under section 18 of the
    LA Act based on common evidence adduced in them, these appeals could
    conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment.
c
         Lands comprised in various survey numbers of Yamunapur, Kakati,
     Kangrali, B.K., Kanbargi:villages of Belgaum Taluka were proposed to be
     acquird for the purpose of industries under section 28 ( 1) of the Kamataka
     Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 - "the KIAD Act" by a notification
     published.in the Kamataka Gazette dated 4.9.1969. The lands proposed to
D    be so acquired were 300 acres and formed a large block. The· State
     Government negotiated with the owners of th~ said lands for settling the
     compensation payable to. them for their acquired lands. As a result, the
     owners of 240 · acres of lands entered into an agreement with the State
     Government .to receive compensation for their lands at the rate of Rs. 4,000 /
     an acre, as· provided for under section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act. Those
E    owners of the lands also ~eceived compensation payable for their acquired
     lands accordingly. Since the owners of remaining 60 acres of lands did not
     agree with the State Government in the matter of amount of compensation
     to be received for their lands, the Land Acquisition Officer - "the LAO"
     had to have recourse to provisions of the LA Act for determining the
     amount of compensation payable to them for their lands as the KIAD Act
F
     required the application of the provisions of the LA Act for the purpose.
     The LAO who, therefore, issued notices under sections 9 and l 0 of the LA
     Act to such owners, and held an inquiry as to the amount of compensation
     payable to them for their lands, made an award under section 11 of the LA
     Act determining compensation payable for such lands. The compensation
G    granted under that award to the owners of 60 acres of lands was based on
     the market value determined at the rate of Rs. 4,000 an acre for agricultural
     lands and at the rate of Rs. 4,500 an acre for non-agricultural lands. But, the
     owners of the said 60 acres of lands, who did not accept the said award,
     made applications to the LAO under section 18 of the LA Act, and sought
     the making of references to the Civil Court for determination of the
H    compensation payable for their lands. The Civil Court which received those
    SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. S. 0. TUMARI [VENKATACHALA, J.J 211

 references, registered them as land acquisition cases and held an enquiry A
 thereon. However, since the parties adduced common evidence in that
 enquiry as regards the market value of the lands of the owners - claimants
in those cases, the Civil Court on consideration of such common evidence
rendered judgments and decrees in those cases detennining. the market
value of about 60 acres of lands concerned at the rate of Rs. l,500 per
gunta, i.e., Rs. 60,000 an acre. But those judgments and decrees made by· B
the Civil Court in the said land acquisition cases were appealed against by
the LAO and the Kamataka Industrial Areas Development Board - "the
Board" by the preferring appeals under section 54 of the LA Act.
Thereupon, the High Court by its judgments and decrees made in those
appeals reduced the market value of the acquired lands to Rs. 1;300 per
gunta, i.e., Rs. 52,000 an acre and Rs. 900 per gunta, i.e., Rs. 36,000 an C
acre. The LAO and the Board, who were not satisfied with the reduction in
the market value of 60 acres of lands made by the High Court by its
judgments and decrees rendered in those appeals, have filed the. present
appeals by special leave seeking the setting aside of the judgments and
decrees of the Civil Court as well as of the High Court and dismissal of the
land acquisition cases by rejecting the reference made to the Civil Court.   D
      Shri S.S. Javali, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that
the compensation received by the owners of four-fifth the area of acquired
lands (240 acres) pursuant to an agreement entered into with the State
Government, as provided for under section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act, when
had made the LAO to determine the market value payable to the remaining E
owners of one-fifth area of the acquired lands by his award made under
section l l of the LA Act, the Civil Court and the High Court had acted
illegally in overlooking such award and detennining the market value of
one-fifth the area of the acquired lands (60 acres) on the basis of the price
supposed to have fetched by the sale deed dated 13.3.1969 (Ex. P-3),
relating to sale of small bit of about 3 guntas of land situated away from the F
acquired lands and on Ex. P-7, the report of the valuation of acquired lands
made by a retired engineer, PW-2 based on the price supposed to have been
fetched under Ex. P-3. On the other hand, Shri E.C. Vidya Sagar, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 2589-91 of
1994 contended that the acquired lands of the respondent concerned in each G
of those appeals had since been situated next to the National Highway, they
had a very high potential value for building purposes and hence it cannot be
said that the High Court was unjustified in determining the compensation of
those lands at a rate higher than that determined by the LAO of other lands.
He further contended that in the absence of non-availability of sale deeds ·
relating to larger extents of lands on the basis of which determination of the H
    212                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   market value of the respondents, acquired lands could have been made, the
    High Court was justified in placing reliance on the value supposed to have
    been fetched by sale of3 guntas of land under Ex. P-3 and the r.::port of the
    valuer (Ex.P-7) based on such sale and hence the judgments and decrees of
    the High C6urt appealed against do not call for interference by this Court.

B        Since the decision in these appeals require our consideration of four
    important points affecting valuation of land to be made by a court on a
    reference made to it under Section 18 of the LA Act, those points which
    need such consideration in the light of the aforesaid contentions urged f~r
    the contesting parties in these appeals, would be the following :

c                  (i) Where a Court is required to determine compensation for
                   a land on a reference made to it under Section 18 of the LA
                   Act at the instance of a claimant who has not accepted the
                   award made under Section 11 of the LA Act, can it
                   determine the amount of compensation payable for the land
                   exceeding the amount of compensation determined as
D                  payable for the same land in the award under section l l of
                   the LA Act, without recording its finding on the inadequacy
                   of the amount of compensation determined in such award
                   on consideration of relevant material therein?

                   (ii) Where for certain lands covered by a notification
E                  published under section 4 (l) of the LA Act or a
                   corresponding provision in any other Act providing for
                   acquisition, an award is made under Section l l of that Act
                   as to the amount of compensation, payable for such lands to
                   the claimants on the basis of agreement reached between
                   them are the Collector (LAO) under sub-section (2) thereof
F                  or a corresponding provision in any other Act providing for
                   payment of the amount of compensation by agreement
                   between the claimants and the Collector or Government,
                   can the amount of compensation payable under the award of
                   the Collector made according to such agreement, be ignored
G                  by the Court in determining the amount of compensation
                   payable for other lands covered by the same notification.

                   (iii) Where.a sale-deed or an agreement to sell relating to a
                   small extent of land is produced by the claimant in the
                   enquiry held for determination of the amount of
H                  compensation payable for his land, is the Court bound to
    SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. S. 0. TUMARI [VENKATACHALA, J.] 213

               determine the market price of the large extent of acquired   A
               land, based on the price fetched or to be fetched by small
               extent of land covered by such sale-deed or agreement to
               sell?

              (iv) When report of an expert is got produced by a claimant
              before a Court giving the market value of the concerned B
              acquired land, is the Court bound to act upon such report in
              determining the amount of compensation payable for the
              acquired land?

Point-(i):

     The amount of compensation payable for land acquired under the LA
                                                                            c
Act is required to be determined by Court under section 23 at the instance
of a claimant, who does not accept the award of Collector made in that ·
regard under section 11. As becomes clear from sub-section (2) of Section
 11 of the LA Act, an award as to the amount of compensation payable for
the land, could be made by the Collector on the basis of agreement reached D
in that regard between him and the claimant. However, where no such
agreement is reached, the Collector is required to make an award as to the
amount of 9ompensation payable for the land as requiied by sub-section (1)
of section 11, being guided by the provisions contained in sections 23 and
24, as envisaged under section 15. The provision in section 12 makes such
award of the Collector final and conclusive evidence as between him and E
the claimant, subject to later provisions.

     Since later provision in section 18 entitles a claimant who does not
accept the award under section 11 as to the amount of compensation
determined thereunder for his land, to raise an objection thereto and to seek
reference to the Court for determination of the amount of compensation F
payable for his land, undoubtedly the Court deciding such reference could
determine the amount of compensation payable for land exceeding the
amount of compensation determined in the award under section 11. But, the
point is, whether it is open to such Court to determine the amount of
compensation exceeding the amount of compensation detennined in the G
award without recording a finding on consideration of the relevant material
therein, that the amount of compensation determined in the award under
Section 11 was inadequate.

     When the Collector makes the reference to the Court, he is enjoined by
section 19 to state the grqunds on which he had determined the amount of H
     214                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A    compensation if the objection raised as to the acceptance of award of the
     Collector under section 11 by the claimant was as regards the amount of
     compensation awarded for the land thereunder. The Collector has to state
     the grounds on which he had determined the amount of compensation
     where the objection raised by the claimant in his application for reference
     under section 18 was as to inadequacy of compensation allowed by the
B    award under section 1i, as required by sub-section (2) of Section 18 itself.
     Therefore, the legislative scheme contained in Sections 12, 18 and 19 while
     on the one hand entitles the claimant not to accept the award made under
     section 11 as to the amount of compensation determined as payable for his
     acquired land and seek a reference to the court for determination of the
     amount of compensation payable for his land, on the other hand. requires
c    him to make good before the Court the objection raised by him as regards
     the inadequacy of the amount of compensation allowed for his land under
     the award made under section 11, with a view to enable the Court to
     determine .the amount of compensation exceeding the amount of
     compensation allowed by the award under Section 11, be it by reference to
D    the improbabilities inherent in the award itself or on the evidence aliunde
     adduced by him to that effect. That is why, the position of a claimant in a
     reference before the Court, is considered to be that of the plaintiff in a suit
     requiring him to discharge the initial burden of proving that the amount of
     compensation determined in the award under section 11 was inadequate, the
     same having not been determined on the basis of relevant material and by
     application of correct principles of valuation, either with reference to the
     contents of the award itself or with reference to other evidence aliunde
     adduced before the Court. Therefore, if the initial burden of proving the
     amount of compensation allowed in the award of the Collector was
     inadequate, is not discharged, the award of the Collector which is made
     final anq conclusive evidence under section 12, as regards matters
'F   contained therein will stand unaffected. But if the claimant succeeds in
     proving that the amount determined under the award of the Collector was
     inadequate, the burden of proving the correctness of the award shifts on to
     the Collector who has to adduce sufficient evidence in that behalf to sustain
     such award. Hence, the Court which is required to decide the reference
     made to it under section 18 of the Act, cannot determine the amount of
G
     compensation payable to the claimant for his land exceeding the amount
     determined in the award of the Collector made under section 11 for the
     same land'; unless it gets over tbe fitfality and conclusive evidentiary value
     attributed to it under section 12, by recording a finding on consideration of
     relevant material therein that the amount of compensation determined under
H    the award was inadequate for the reasons that weighed with it.
    SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. S. 0. TUMARI [VENKATACHALA, J.] 215

Point-(ii) :                                                                  A
      Sub-section (2) of section l l of the LA Act.empowers the Collector to
 make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the
 claimant for the acquired land, if the latter agrees in writing to receive such
 amount as compensation for such land. Such determination of
 compensation for a land under sub-section (2) of section 11, it is true, B
 cannot in any way affect the determination of compensation for other lands
 in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of
 the LA Act because of the provision contained in sub-section (3) of section ·
· 11 of the LA Act. But, the point which needs consideration here is the
 evidentiary value which the award of the Collector determining the
 comp,;msation for certain land on the basis of the agreement reached C
 between him and the claimant under sub-section (2) of section 11 of the LA
 Act or other corresponding provision in any other Act, should carry in
 determining the amount of compensation payable for other similar lands
 acquired pursuant to the same notification published under sub-section {l)
 of section 4. thereof or other corresponding provision in any Act.
                                                                             D
     The best evidence of the market value of the acquired land is afforded
by a transaction of sale in respect of the very acquired land provided, of
course, there is nothing to doubt the authenticity of such transaction, as is
held by this Court in Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu v. R.D.O.,
Viziangaram, [1980) l sec 75. The best evidence of market value of the
acquired land could equally· be afforded by a transaction of agreement to E
sell relating to the very acquired land, provided, of course, there arises
absolutely no room for doubting the authenticity of such transaction. If such
transaction of agreement to sell relating to the very acquired land or a
portion of it could be the best evidence of the market value of the acquire
land, can such evidence furnished by the award made by the Collector F
under sub-section (2) or similar provisions in any other Act determining the
amount of compensation payable to a claimant for a portion of the acquired
land as agreed to by him with the Collector be ignored by the Court in
determining the market value of the remaining portion of the acquired land,
is the point which arises for consideration.
                                                                              G
     Where the Collector is required to determine the amount of
compensation payable for the acquired land according to the provisions in
the LA Act, he is guided in the matter by the provisions in sections 23 and
24 because of the requirement of section 15. But, where it becomes
necessary for the Court to determine the amount of compensation for the
acquired land according to sections 23 and 24 of the LA Act, it shall take H
    216                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1994) SUPP. S S.C.R.

A   into consideration first, the market value of the land on the date of
    publication of the notification under section 4 (1 ), inasmuch as it is the
    mandate of sub-section (I)'ofsection 23, which takes note of the fact that
    the market value of the land is the main component of compensation
    payable therefor.

B         As held by this Court in Krishna Yachandra Bachadurvaru v. Special
    Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore,
    [I979] 4 SCC 356 the estimation of market value of the acquired land
    depends on evaluation of many imponderables. Play of conjecture and
    guess in the estimation of market value of the acquired land cannot be
    avoided even though such conjecture or guess has to be founded on the
c   facts and circumstances of each case. But, the market value of the acquired
     land must be the near estimate of the price which the claimant by
    voluntarily. selling the awarded land would have got from a willing
    purchaser. What could be regarded as the near estimate of the acquired land
    has to be ascertained, be it the Collector or be it the Court on the basis of
D   authenticated transactions of sales or agreements to sell relating to the same
     land or a portion of it wherever possible because such transactions of sale
    or agreements to sell are always rega::-ded as the best evidence available for
    the purpose. When lands are notified for acquisition, all the persons
     interested in any of those lands who are entitled to obtain compensation
    therefor, taking advantage of the statutory provisions for voluntary
E
    settlement of the amount of compensation payable for their lands enter into
    an agreement with the Collector in that behalf and receive such amount
    from the Collector as per his award made accordingly under the provisions
    of the LA Act. Ordinarily, no room for doubting the authenticity or
    genuineness of the award for compensation made by the Collector on the
F   basis of such agreement can arise. The evidentiary value of such award
    determining the amount of compensation made under section I .I (2) of the
    LA Act by the Collector ought to necessarily increase depending on the
    proportion which the area of the lands covered by the award may bear to
    the total area of the land covered by the notification for acquisition.
G       Such being the evidentiary value of an award made by the Collector
    under sub-section (2) of section I I of the LA Act, as regards the market
    value of the lands covered by Notification under section 4 (I), the Court
    determining the compensation payable for other acquired lands covered by
    the same notification cannot ignore altogether from its consideration such
H   award made under sub-section (2) of section I I.
        SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. S. 0. TUMARI [VENKATACHALA, J.] 217

    Point-(iii) :                                                                       A
         Where the court has to determine the market value of large extents cf
    acquired agricultural lands, it may not be desirable to be guided on the price
    fetched by sale of small extents of agricultural lands as the possibility of
    genuine agriculturists buying such small extents for their cultivation
    purposes is, rather remote and it may not also be desirable to determine the        B
    market value ofthe acquired agricultural lands on the basis of value fetched
    by sales of small extents agricultural land even if they had been purchased
    for building purposes, for that would involve the consideration of too many
    imponderables. However, if sale deed or agreement to sell relating to the
    small extent of land on the basis of which the market value of the large            C
    extent of the agricultural land has to be determined is a portion of the
    acquired agricultural land itself or other land in its close proximity, it may
    be made the basis for determining the market value of the acquired large
    extent of agricultural land out has to be done when there is sat~sfactory
    evidence of the absence of sales or agreements to sell of bigger extents of         D
    land pertaining to the acquired land or other lands in the vicinity of the
    acquired land. Even then, the price fetched or to be fetched by such small
    extents of land has to be made the basis for determining the market value of
    the larger extents of acquired agricultural lands, all material factors which
    would reduce the value of the larger extents of acquired land as on the date
    it was notified for acquisition must necessary be taken into account, for it is     E
    well-known as. is held by this Court in the Collector of Lakhimpur v.
    Bhuban Chandra Dutta, [1972] 4 SCC 236. that when a large area of land
    under acquisition is the subject matter, it cannot fetch the price at the rate at
    which smaller plot or plots are sold. One aspect, which however, should
    weigh is that determination of the value of large extents of acquired lands         F
    on the basis of the prices fetched by smaller plots must be a matter of last


-   resort and should be adopted when there is no possibility of determining the
    market value of acquired lands on the basis of comparable transactions of
    larger extents.

        Therefore, where a sale deed or an agreement to sell relating to a small G
    extent of land is produced by the claimant, in the enquiry held for
    determination of compensation payable for his large extent of land, the
    Court is not always bound to determine the market price of such large
    extent of acquired land on the basis of the price fetched or to be fetched by
    small extent of land covered by such sale deed or agreement to sell.          H
    218                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   Point-(iv) :

         It has become a matter of common occurrence with the claimants who
    seek enhanced compensation for their acquired lands from court to produce
    the reports of valuation of their lands in court purported to have been
    prepared by the experts. No doubt, courts can act on such expert evidence
B   in determining the market value of the acquired lands, but the court having
    regard to the fact that experts will have prepared the valuation reports
    produced in the court and will depose in support of such reports, at the
    instance of the claimants, must with care and caution examine such reports
    and evidence given in support thereof. Whenever valuation report made by
    an expert is produced in court, the opinion on the value of the acquired land
c   given by such expert can be of no assistance in determining the market
    value of such land, unless such opinion is formed on relevant factual data or
    material, which is also produced before the court and proved to be genuine
    and reliable, as any other evidence. Besides, if the method of valuation of
    acquired land adopted by the expert in his report is found to be not in
D   consonance with the recognised methods of valuation of similar lands, then
    also, the opinion expressed in his report and his evidence, can be of no real
    assistance to the court in determining the market value of the acquired land.
    Since the exercise which will have been done by the expert in arriving at
    the market value of the land in his report on the basis of factual data bearing
    on such valuation, will be similar to· that to be undertaken by the court in
E   determining the market value of the acquired land, it can no doubt receive
     assistance from such report, if it is rightly done and the data on which the
     report is based is placed before the court and its authenticity is established.

         Therefore, when the valuation report of an acquired land is made by an
    expert on the basis of prkes fetched or to be fetched by sale deeds or
F   agreements to sell relating to the very acquired lands or the lands in the
    vicinity, need_arises for the court to examine and be satisfied about the
    authenticity of such documents and the truth of their contents and the
    normal circumstances in which they had come into existence and further the
    correct method adopted in preparation of that report, before acting on such
G   report for determining the market value of the acquired land. The opinion
    expressed in the report that the author of the report has made the valuation
    of the acquired lands on the basis of his past experience of valuation of
    such lands should never weigh with the court in the matter of determination
    of market value of the acquired lands, for such assertions by themselves
    cannot be substitutes for evidence on which it ought to be based and the
H   method of valuation adaptable in such report.
    SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. S. 0. TUMARI [VENKATACHAL1, J.] 219

     Therefore, when a report of an expert is got produced by a claimant A
before the court giving market value of the acquired lands, the court may
choose to act upon such report for detennination of the amount of
compensation payable for the acquired lands, if the data or the material on
the basis of which such report is based is produced before the Court and the
authenticity of the same is made good and the method of valuation adopted
therein is correct.                                                          B
    As the points arising for consideration in the facts of the land
acquisition cases under appeals having been answered as above, we propose
to examine the sustainability of the judgments of the Civil Court and the
High Court under challenge before us.
                                                                            c
     In all about 300 acres of agricultural and non-agricultural lands
required for making industrial plots was proposed for acquisition under
section 28 (I) of the KIAD Act by a notification published on 4.9.1969 in
the State Gazette. Section 25 (2) of the KIAD Act which provided for
settlement on compensation payable for the lands acquired thereunder read
~:                                                                          D
               "Where the amount of compensation has been detennined
               by agreement between the State Government and the
               persons to be compensated they shall be paid in accordance
               with such agreement."                        ·
                                                                            E
     The claimants, who were the owners of about 240 acres of the acquired
lands out of total of about 300 acres of the acquired lands, entered into an
agreement with the State Government in the matter of compensation
payable for their lands at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per acre and received the
same under the award made by the LAO in that behalf. The award, Ex. P-l,
of the LAO specifically refers to the fact that the owners of about 240 acres F
of acquired lands received Rs. 4,000 per acre. It also refers to the fact of
some of the owners of remaining about 60 acres of land making a claim for
compensation for their lands at the rates of Rs. 12,000 per acre. The LAO,
when in the said award detennined the market value of the remaining extent
of about 60 acres of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per acre for
agricultural lands and Rs. 4,500 per acre for non-agricultural lands, it was G
in consonance with the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,000 per acre
voluntarily received by the owners of about 240 acres of similar lands
acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose. The award
further refers to prices fetched by sale of even large extents of lands and the
average price fetched in them as Rs. 4,437 per acre. The only evidence
which is produced by the claimants to show that the compensation awarded H
    220                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   to them for their 60 acres of lands was inadequate is Ex. P-3, the
    registration copy of the sale deed dated 13.3.1969 wherein about 3300 sq.
    ft. of land in some survey numbers of Kangrali B.K.Village had been sold
    as plot No. 49 for Rs. 4,500. The extent of land sold under the said sale
    deed being about 3 guntas, the rate works out to Rs. 1458 per gunta, i.e. Rs.
    58,320 per acre. The report of valuation of the acquired land produced is
B   Ex. P-7. That r~port is said to be one made by a retired engineer. P.W.2
    claimed as expert valuer. The whole report of valuation of the acquired
    lands was claimed to have been made on the basis of the registration copy
    of the sale deed Ex.P-3. Therefore, the Civil Court has come to determine
    the market value of the acquired lands solely on the basis of Ex. P-3 and
    Ex.P-7 ignoring every other information furnished in the award, Ex.P-1 of
c   the LAO, such as that for similar lands covered by the same acquisition
    notification, the owners of about 240 acres of land had accepted the
    compensation from the Government at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per acre by
    reaching a settlement with the Government and even the claimants
    themselves who were seeking enhanced compensation for their lands had
    claimed compensation for their acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 12,000 per
D   acre. Although the Civil Court in its judgments said no sale deed produced
    by the claimants should be acted upon unless the vendor and the vendee
    under such sale deed was ·examined to show its authenticity and
    circumstances in which it came into existence, it has accepted Ex. P-3,
    registration copy of a sale deed produced by a claimant as the evidence of
    price of land in the neighbourhood of the acquired land. It has failed to see
E   that for want of evidence of vendor or vendee under that sale deed Ex. P-3,
    it was of no assistance in determining the value of the acquired land. So
    also it has failed to see that Ex. P-7, the report of the expert had since been
    based on the said sale deed itself, it was of no help in determining the value
    of acquired lands. Only thing that has been done by the Civil Court is to
    give deduction of some amount out of Rs. 2, 700 per gun ta, i.e., Rs.
F   l ,08,000 per acre, which according to it was the amount needed for making
    roads and drains and for providing amenities in the acquired lands and
                                                                       ' acre.
    determining their value at Rs. l ,500 per gunta, i.e., Rs. 60,000 per

          As seen from the judgments of the Civil Court· we find' no mention that
    t~e claimants who are the owners of about 60 acres of the acquired lands
G
    Had not disputed the fact that the owners of about 240 acres of similar other
    lands acquired under the same notification had accepted Rs. 4,000 per acre
    as amount of compensation payable for their lands under a voluntary
    agreement and as to why such agreement could not have been the basis to
    determine the market value of the acquired lands. In its judgments the Civil
H   Court in finding that the market value determined in the award for about 60
    SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. S. 0. TUMARI [VENKATACHALA, J.] 221

acres of the acquired land at Rs. 4,000 and Rs. 4,500 per acre in any way         A
inadequate has not considered all the relevant material on the basis of which
market value or the acquired lands was determined by the award. As
regards the registration copy of the sale deed, Ex. P-3, dated 13.3.1969, it is
merely said that the claimants had produced the same in court. Nowhere
there is reference to the evidence of vendor or vendee given in respect of
Ex. P-3. How the market price fetched for a smaller extent of 3 guntas of         B
land under Ex. P-3 could have been raliced upon is not at all stated by the
Court. Even though, Ex. P-3, registration copy of the sale deed was the
foundation for the valuation report Ex. P-7, no attempt appears to have been
made by PW-2, the retired engineer, who had prepared the report to find
out the circumstances in which the sale had come into existence and why           C
the price mentioned therein· was paid. If regard is had to all these factors,
the Civil Court was wholly wrong in making the registration copy of that
sale deed the basis for determination of the market value of the acquired
lands. Moreover, when the extent of the land covered in Ex.P-3 was hardly
3 guntas, the price alleged to have fetched for it could not have formed the
basis for determination of the market value of about 60 acres of the              D
acquired land, particularly, when as seen from the award there were sale
transactions pertaining to .large extents of lands which had come into
existence in respect of lands in the vicinity, around the time of acquisition
and before, "were available but had not been made available to court.
However, one thing which becomes obvious from the judgments of the
Civil Court is that the Civil Court had wholly ignored the settlement             E
reached by the owners of about 240 acres of land which was similar to the
60 acres of acquired lands and formed 'four-fifth of 300 acres of the
acquired lands. When 240 acres of lands acquired, for which Rs. 4,000 per
acre was received as compensation by agreement and 60 acres of lands
acquired for which court had to determine compensation were similar, no           F
merit could be found in the argument of learned counsel for some of the
respondents in the appeals that their lands being closer to highway should
be granted higher compensation.

     Thus, there was absolutely no evidence produced by the claimants in
the Civil Court on references got made by them which would show that G
they had produced evidence sufficient to discharge the burden of proof that
the award made by the LAO did not give adequate compensation for their
acquired lands. In the circumstances the judgments and awards of the Civil
Court were wholly unsustainable. However, when the judgments in the
Civil Court have been brought us before the High Court at the instance of
the present appellants, all that has been done by the High Court in its H
     222                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS         [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   judgments is to reduce the rate of compensation given per gunta by stating
    that the market value of the large extent of lan4 when was determined by
    the Civil Court on the basis of the price fetched by smaller extent of land
    deduction given by it for largeness, should have been more. The amount of
    compensation determined by it payable for the acquired lands is therefore
    reduced to Rs. 1,300 per gunta and Rs. 900 per gunta, which works out to
B   Rs. 52,000 per acre and Rs. 36,000 per acre respectively. The High Court
    has also ignored the fact that for similar acquired lands the owners.of more
    than four-fifths of the land had accepted the amount of compensation at the
    rate determined by the LAO in his award. Therefore, there is no reason to
    sustain the judgments and decrees of the High Court under appeals.

C        In the facts and circumstances to which we have adverted to, there is
     no option left to us e~cept to affirm the award of the Land Acquisition
     Officer.

        In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the Judgments of the
    Civil Court, as well as of the High Court, reject the references made to the
D   Civil Court, leaving the parties to bear their own costs of the proceedings
    throughout.

    S.M.                                                      Appeals allowed.

           In view of our judgment pronounced today in Civil Appeal Nos. 2587-
E · 88of1994 etc. - The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another etc. v.
     Sri Sidappa Omanna Tumari and Ors. etc. the Special. Leave Petition is
    .dismissed.

    S.M.                                                     Petition dismissed.