JUDGMENT
Santosh Duggal, J.
(1) The only question of fact which is involved in this writ petition is as to what is the value of the land in question, namely, E-365 Greater Kailash Ii, New Delhi in the year 1972 when the respondent. No. 1 started constructing the house.
(2) In the assessment order, the Deputy Assessor & Collector took the value of land at Rs. 300.00 per sq. yard. This value was challenged by respondent No. 1 in appeal. The Addl. District Judge, by the impugned order dated 12th October, 1987, tool into consideration the fact that the property was purchased by respondent No. 1 in 1971 at the rate of Rs. 80.00 per sq. yard. After looking into consideration that the construction commenced in the year 1972 and that the plot in question was undeveloped he fixed the rate at Rs. 120 per sq. yard. It is this finding which is challenged before us.
(3) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Dda has fixed the rate of defense Colony for the year 1972 at Rs. 300 per sq. yard. We find that, time and again, what is referred to and relied upon cither by the Mcd or by the owners, before the Appellate Authority is not the instances of actual sale but rates prescribed by either the Land & Development Office or the DDA. It is represented that these rates arc on the basis of the actual sales which have taken place.
(4) According to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Balbir Singh’s case, (what has to be seen is the market price of the land at or about the time when the construction commenced. Market price has to be arrived at by taking into consideration the actual sale transactions of similarly situated land nearest to the point of time when the construction commenced. Statements or charts prepared by the L & Do and Dda are only secondary evidence and the primary evidence will only be the actual sale transactions. When the point is under consideration before the appellate authority, it is the duty of both the parties to draw the attention of the appellate authority to the actual sale transactions in order to enable him to come to a correct finding. Indeed it is, in the first instance, for the Assessor & Collector to base his findings on legally admissible evidence. It is at that stage that evidence should be produced or relied upon by the Assessor & Collector. If the Dda can make a statement of average prices of land, there is no reason why sale transactions of similarly situated land cannot be referred to in arriving at the figure of the market value of the land in question.
(5) In the present case, the only evidence which was available with the Additional District Judge was the sale transaction of the land in question. The purchase price of Rs. 80 per sq. yard paid in 1971 by respondent No. 1 was a material piece of evidence The Corporation does not appear to have produced any such evidence before the appellate authority and nor has our attention been drawn to any evidence in possession of the Corporation. As we have already indicated, the rates of the Dda cannot be conclusive and the statement containing the rates is only secondary piece of evidence which is not wholly reliable. The unreliability of such rates is evident from the fact that the Addl district Judge, in the present case, has noticed that in the year 1974 the L& Do has fixed the rates in respect of defense Colony at Rs.200.00 per sq. yard. For the same year. namely, 1974. the Dda rates in respect of defense Colony are Rs. 350.00 per sq. yard. It is obvious that one,if not both, of the rates so indicated are incorrect. This also proves that such statements even by the Governmental authorities are not necessarily wholly correct and the evidence which should be relied upon both by the Assessing as well as the appellate authority has to be the actual sale transactions Of course, if no such evidence is produced then, possibly, the authorities concerned may have to tall back on such rates issued or indicated by Dda and/or L & DO. In the present case, as we have already noticed the Addl. District Judge has nut only taken the purchase price of Rs. 800.00 in the year 1971 into consideration but has in fact escalated the same by 50% and has determined the rate at Rs 120.00 per sq. yard for the year 1972 It is true that the fixation of this rate has involved a certain amount of guess work but, in our opinion, the same was unavoidable because there was no other sale transaction before the appellate authority who had to determine the price of the land.
(6) In our opinion, the decision of the Additional District Judge calls For No interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
