JUDGMENT
P.P. Naolekar, C.J.
1. Land acquisition proceeding was started by issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of 14 Bighas, 2 Kathas and 3 Lechas of land of Dag No. 1009 (Kha), KP Patta No. 41 of Village-Japoarigog, Mouza-Beltola in the district of Kamrup for the purpose of construction of Power House and staff quarter of Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB). The original owner of the land Jethus Mikir expired and his name was substituted by the legal representatives who are respondents before us. The Land Acquisition Officer in LA Case No. 8/89 gave award of Rs. 30,08,830.80 for the land. The award in terms of Bigha comes to Rs. 1,30,000.00 per Bigha and in terms of Katha it comes to Rs. 32,000.00 per katha. The respondents being aggrieved by the award made an application for reference to the Court below under Section 18 of the Act. The Court below after appreciation of the evidence placed on record, namely, the oral evidence and three sale deeds dated 27.10.1989, 16.8.1989 and 20.4.1989 (Exts-2, 3 and 4) increased the amount of award to Rs. 72,15,000.00 with solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value as per Section 23(2) of the Act and the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the excess amount for the first year from the date of notification for acquisition of the land and 15% per annum afterwards till the date of payment of such excess amount. The awarded amount comes to Rs. 5,00,000.00 per Bigha and Rs. 1,00,000.00 per Katha.
2. Being aggrieved by the award the ASEB, the beneficiary, has preferred the appeal challenging the award made by the Reference Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the court below has committed an error in relying on Ext-2, the sale deed for assessment of the price of the land acquired and thereby committed a mistake in giving compensation at the rate it has been given.
3. The court below has relied upon the Ext-2 dated 27.10.1989 which is a sale deed of 1 Bigha of land for the consideration of Rs. 15,19,045.00. Ext-3 is a sale deed dated 16.6,1989 for 2 Kathas 7 Lechas of land for a consideration of Rs. 1,48,000.00. On this the price per Bigha would be Rs. 3,14,893.60. Ext-4 is another sale deed dated 20.4.1989 for 2 Kathas 1 Lechas of land for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000.00 and the price per Bigha would be Rs. 2,00,000.00. The seller of the Ext-2 land Ciman Ram Prasad has been examined as PW 5 who has stated that he sold 1 Bigha of land to Canara Bank on 27.10.1989. Ext-2 is the certified copy of the deed of sale and the sale was made for Rs. 15,19,045.00. His land was located in village Japorigog, Mauza-Beltola and in the same village from where the land has been acquired. On cross-examination he states that he did not know the distance between his land and the land where the staff quarters for ASEB have been built. His land is situated at Saktigarh Path in Bhangagarh area. From GS road his land is about 400 yards away. PW 1 Sri Latish Ch Tumung, the son of the owner of the acquired land, has deposed that he grew two crops annually on the acquired land and used to get an yield of 28 to 30 mounds of paddy a Bigha. He had raised wire fence on all four sides of the land which cost him 22 to 23 thousand rupees. A fence like that will now cost Rs. 50,000.00 the acquired land is a kilometer away from RG Barua road that runs across the front of the State Zoo. Alongside the land, a road leads from RG Baruah road to Ganeshguri which is a public road. The name of this road is Chiriakhana Japorigog road. In the vicinity of the acquired land high school, bank and industries etc. have been established. On this acquired land Government has built Power House and staff quarters. In cross-examination this witness stated that the land is within the greater Guwahati area and one can reach this land if one walks a kilometer alongside the zoo. The land is situated in an area covered under Urban Areas Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The land in Ext-2 is half a furlong south of the acquired land. If one walks from the zoo to the acquired land, one reaches the land of Ext-2 first. The land falling under Ext-3 is about half a furlong away from the land of Ext-2. and is about half a furlong away from the acquired land. PW 2 Sri Prasanna Deka was an official surveyor of land of Land Acquisition Department. He has stated that the land acquired, which adjoins the Zoo wall, is about three furlong away from RG Barua road. Along side this land a pitched road leads to Ganeshguri. There is a boundary fence on all four sides of the land. There are schools, high schools and shops etc. near the acquired land. Having taken possession of the land the ASEB has built Power House and quarters etc. over the land. This land belongs to developing area. PW 3 Sri Jatiram Mikir states that at the time of acquisition of the land it had barbed wire fence on all four sides. The ASEB built Power House and some houses on the acquired land and while doing so the ASEB was not required to fill the land a much because the acquired land was high land.
4. From the aforesaid evidence of the witnesses it is apparent that the acquired land is situated in a place where construction activities have already commenced. Although the land is agricultural land there is potentiality of development of the land to be used as building site. The land is situated very near to the lands of Exts-2, 3 and 4. It is also true that the land under the sale deeds are small pieces of land and the price of those sale deeds cannot be relied upon for giving the same compensation for the big area which has been acquired under the land acquisition proceedings.
5. In the process of determination of market value of land the court has often to rely on the conjecture or guess, the estimation of market value in many cases would depend largely on evaluation of many imponderables and hence it must necessarily be to some extent a matter of conjecture or guess. Valuation of immovable property is not an exact science. It is an inquiry relating to a subject abounding in uncertainties, where there is more than ordinary guesswork and where it would be very unfair to require an exact exposition of reasons for the conclusions arrived at. When the court relies upon the sale deeds for ascertainment of the fair market value of a comparable sale deed it is more or less a guesswork. The sale deeds which have been executed within a reasonable time from the date of notification, which are bona fide transactions, of the land which is situated nearby the acquired land and having similar advantages, can be safely relied upon for calculating the fair market value of the acquired land. For arriving at a fair market value the court may take into consideration the potentiality of the land being utilised in a near future as a building site although at the relevant time, i.e., on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the land is utilised for agricultural purposes. When the acquired land has the potentiality of being utilised for building purposes in the immediate or near future, it is such potentiality which is regarded as a 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. When a plot of 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 Section 4(1) of the Act, ought to necessarily include that portion of the price of the land attributable to its building potentiality and such price of the acquired land then becomes its market value as provided under Section 23(1) of the Act.
6. In the present case it is clear from the evidence of the witnesses that the land has potentiality to be utilised as building site. The lands of the sale deeds falls within the proximity of the land acquired. The transactions are bona fide and nothing is brought on record by the State or the ASEB to doubt the execution of the sale deeds. The sale deeds are of the dates prior to the date of notification, i.e., 4.4.1990 and are of the day which are quite proximate of the date of notification. On consideration of all these aspects, we cannot say that the court below has committed any error in ascertaining the price of the acquired land on the basis of the sale deeds. If the gross value of the land of the sale deeds is calculated it comes to Rs. 6,77,979.00 per Bigha. But the court has awarded an amount of Rs. 5,00,000.00 per Bigha. Thus the trial court has taken note of the fact that the sale deeds are of small areas of lands whereas the acquired land is a big area. The court has also taken into consideration another factor that the lands under the sale deeds are not adjacent to the acquired land but are at some distance from the acquired land but are within the same area and thereby reduced the price of the acquired land in comparison to the price of the land reflected in the sale deeds.
7. From the aforesaid reasons we do not find that the court below has committed any error of law or facts in passing the award. The appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.