JUDGMENT
B.C. Patel, C.J.
1. The present appeal is preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’) against the order made by the reference court in LAC 20/1991. The Union of India issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 25.02.1983 followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 05.05.1983.
2. After following the procedure laid down in the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector (in short `LAC’) made an award being Award No. 119/86 in the year 1986. The land and the structure were acquired for the purpose of running a primary school by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The LAC awarded Rs.4000/- per sq. yard. On a reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the reference court on 15.10.2001 determined the market value @ Rs.500/- per sq. yard.
3. The appellant being aggrieved by the fixation of price by the reference court preferred this appeal.
4. It is submitted by the appellant that the reference court has committed grave error in considering the market value as mentioned in the sale instance Ex. A-1 as if that was the value for the entire property. Reading of the document makes it clear that the sale deed which was executed on 08.06.1983 for sale of property was for 1/4th share of the property between seller and buyer and the price was determined at Rs.1,50,000/- for a property admeasuring 264 sq yard with structure. If 1/4th share is considered then the price for 66 sq. yard would be Rs.1,50,000/- and not for 264 sq. yard. This would translate into Rs.2273/- per sq. yard and considering the stamp duty the amount would come to Rs.2455/- per sq. yard. It may be noted that as mentioned in the document the area falls in slum area, is a tenanted property in possession of two different tenants and the property is an old one. For the purpose of determining the price of land we may not concentrate on the nature of the property but in view of he fact that the property was a tenanted property, the market value would be less. Considering the shortage of premises, value would be roughly in the vicinity, 50% less than what is determined. Of course it depends on facts and circumstances of each case. It also depends on the nature of the building, when it was constructed, facilities provided etc. In the instant case, it is admitted that premises was required for running a school and there is nothing to show that after the premises was taken, he premises was re-constructed and the school is being run in the same premises. Therefore, even if we consider the sale instance of old property, it would not make any difference in so far as the nature of the property is concerned.
5. It may be noted that reliance is placed on other instance of transfer of property vide Ex.A-3, wherein Income Tax Department itself valued the property admeasuring 192.31 sq. meter at Rs.11,27,500/- which would translate into Rs.3900/- per sq. meter an d Rs.3263/- per sq. yard.
6. No doubt the property was in good condition and considering the fact that one property is tenanted, the other property is vacant and considering the price difference of both the properties, situation of the properties and the property in question, when the appellant himself has claimed not more than Rs.3000/- per sq. yard, at least, he would be entitled to get that price.
7. It is in view of this, we allow this appeal and modify the order of the reference court and it is held that the appellant would be entitled to get compensation @ Rs.3000/- per sq. yard with all consequential benefits including the benefit extended by t he decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India 93 (2001) DLT 569.
8. So far as structure is concerned, the appellant was satisfied with the determination of the value and therefore we are not required to entertain this aspect.
9. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.