{"id":159069,"date":"1995-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995"},"modified":"2018-11-18T01:55:41","modified_gmt":"2018-11-17T20:25:41","slug":"p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995","title":{"rendered":"P.Ram Reddy Etc vs Land Acquisition Officer … on 27 January, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
P.Ram Reddy Etc vs Land Acquisition Officer … on 27 January, 1995<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (2) 305, \t JT 1995 (1)\t593<\/div>\n
Author: V N.<\/div>\n
Bench: Venkatachala N. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nP.RAM REDDY ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nLAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HYDERABAD\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/01\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATACHALA N. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATACHALA N. (J)\nRAMASWAMY, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 SCC  (2) 305\t  JT 1995 (1)\t593\n 1995 SCALE  (1)332\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
VENKATACHALA, J.:\n<\/p>\n
1.    Having granted leave to appeal sought for in the above
\nSpecial Leave Petitions directed against the common judgment
\nand decree dated 19.4.1993 rendered in Appeal Nos. 1565\t and
\n2087\/91 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and
\nheard  arguments  of  learned  counsel\tappearing  for\t the
\ncontesting parties in the appeals, we propose to dispose  of
\nall these appeals by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Sri P. Ram Reddy, the appellant in appeals arising\t out
\nof S.L.P’s. Nos. 1336263\/93 and respondent in appeal arising
\nout of S.L.P. No. 18202\/93, to be referred to hereinafter as
\n‘the claimant’, was the owner in possession of dry land\t of,
\nas  large  an  extent as, IO acres 17  guntas  comprised  in
\nSurvey Nos. 48\/24 and 48\/26 of Katedhan Village lying in the
\noutskirts of Hyderabad.\t One acre 25 guntas of land out of 5
\nacres  22 guntas of land in Survey No. 48\/24 and 2 acres  15
\nguntas\tof land out of 4 acres 35 guntas of land  in  Survey
\nNo. 48\/26 were the lands included in the total extent of  14
\nacres  and  35\tguntas of land proposed to  be\tacquired  by
\nHyderabad Urban Development Authority -“HUDA” for  formation
\nof inner ring road required to connect Old Karnool Road with
\nHyderabad-Bangalore   National\tHighway\t No.7,\tunder\tLand
\nAcquisition  Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1994 —\t‘the
\nL.A.  Act’,  by a Notification under Section  4(1)  thereof,
\npublished in the modes prescribed thereunder, by issuance of
\npublic\tnotice in the locality on 2.9.1985. The\t acquisition
\nof the said lands having been completed
\n597<\/span>
\nby  a declaration made and published under Section 6 of\t the
\nLA  Act, notice under section 9 was issued to  the  claimant
\ncalling\t upon him to make his claim for compensation of\t the
\nacquired  land\tbefore the Land Acquisition Officer  of\t the
\nHUDA  -hereinafter  to\tbe referred to\tas  “the  LAO”.\t  In
\nresponse  to the said notice, the claimant claimed award  of
\ncompensation  by the LAO for his acquired lands at the\trate
\nof  Rs.\t 1  50\/- per square yard apart\tfrom  the  statutory
\nbenefits which he was entitled to get under the LA Act.\t The
\nLAO,  by  his  award made under Section II of  the  LA\tAct,
\ndetermined the market value of the claimant’s acquired\tland
\nat  Rs. 12 per square yard and awarded to him the amount  of
\ncompensation  together with statutory benefits.\t Since\tthat
\naward  of the LAO was unacceptable to the claimant, he\tmade
\nan application to the LAO under Section 18 of the LA Act and
\ngot the application referred to the Court of the Subordinate
\nJudge,\t Ranga\t Reddy\tDistrict  —  “Civil   Court”,\t for
\ndetermination  of the just compensation payable to him.\t  On
\nthat  reference registered as A.S. 129\/88, the\tCivil  Court
\nheld the inquiry as required by the LA Act and on the  basis
\nof  the inquiry so held, determined the market value of\t the
\nclaimant’s  lands at Rs.80 per square yard  and\t accordingly
\nmade  an award and decree dated 18.4.1991 together with\t the
\nstatutory  benefits.  That award and decree  being  appealed
\nagainst\t in  the  High Court by the  claimant  and  the\t LAO
\nrespectively  in A.S. No. 1565\/91 and A.S. No.2087\/ 91,\t the
\nformer\tseeking grant of further enhanced  compensation\t and
\nthe  latter seeking reduction in the  granted  compensation.
\nBoth  the  appeals being clubbed together and heard  by\t the
\nDivision  Bench of the High Court, the market value  of\t the
\nclaimant’s  land was reduced to Rs. 32 per square yard\twith
\nproportionate  reduction in the statutory benefits,  by\t its
\ncommon judgment and decree rendered on 19.4.1993. While\t the
\nclaimant questioned the correctness of the said judgment and
\ndecree\tof the High Court by filing appeals arising  out  of
\nS.L.P’s.  Nos.\t13362-13363\/  93,  the\tLAO  challenged\t the
\ncorrectness of the same judgment and decree by filing appeal
\narising out of S.L.P. No. 18202\/93, as stated at the outset.
\nThe  above stated facts make it clear that the LAO,  by\t his
\naward (Ex.B-1) fixed the value of the acquired land at Rs.20
\nper square yard on the basis of the value fetched by sale of
\nresidential  building plots at Rs. 20 per square yard  under
\nSale  Deed  dated 14.10.1982whereunder 200 square  yards  of
\nplot in Survey No.48\/13 of Katedhan Village was sold at\t Rs.
\n20  per square yard (Ex.  B-3); sale deed  dated  16.10.1982
\nwhereunder  200\t square yards plot in Survey No.  48\/14\t was
\nsold at Rs. 20 per square yard (Ex.B-4), and Sale Deed dated
\n1.2.1983  whereunder  200 square yards plot  in\t Survey\t No.
\n48\/12  had  been  sold at Rs.20\t per  square  yard,  Ex.B-5.
\nHowever,  he fixed the market value of the acquired land  at
\nRs. 12 per square yard by deducting 40% area towards lay-out
\nlosses.\t He granted statutory benefits also payable for\t the
\nacquired  land.\t It also becomes clear from that award\tthat
\nthe  sale deeds were seen and the local inspection had\tbeen
\nheld by the LAO before making that award.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The  Civil Court by its judgment and decree,  which  is
\nreferred to by us earlier, enhanced the market value of\t the
\nacquired  land\tto Rs. 80 per square yard relying  upon\t the
\namounts of consideration mentioned under sale deeds and gift
\ndeeds  (Exs.   A-1 to A-5) and also the\t probable  value  of
\nbuilding plots in the locality of the
\n598<\/span>
\nacquired  lands mentioned in Ex.  A6 – the extract of  Basic
\nValuation  Register,  after  making  certain  percentage  of
\ndeduction out of such amount or value towards what is called
\nas “lay-out losses”.\n<\/p>\n
4.   When that award and decree of the Civil Court\t was
\nchallenged in the High Court,it was found by the High  Court
\nthat  Exs.  A-1 to A-5, the Sale Deeds and Gift\t Deeds\twere
\nunreliable and could not be acted upon by it for the reasons
\nit  gave  in  that regard.  It also  refused  to  place\t any
\nreliance on Ex.A-6, the Basic Valuation Register extract, on
\nits view that it was not safe to determine the market  value
\nof  lands  acquired under the LA Act on the value  found  in
\nBasic Valuation Register.  However, it found that the  value
\nof  Rs.20 per square yard, on which the LAO  had  determined
\nthe  market  value of the acquired lands, was on  the  lower
\nside  for  determining\tthe  market  value  of\tthat   land.
\nConsequently,  it  increased the value of Rs.20\t per  square
\nyard  relied  upon by the LAO by another  Rs.20\t per  square
\nyard.  Thereafter, the High Court deducted 20% towards\tlay-
\nout  losses out of Rs.40 per square yard and determined\t the
\nmarket value of the acquired lands at Rs.32 per square yard.
\nTherefore,  it\trendered  its judgment\tand  decree  in\t the
\nappeals\t by reducing the market value of the acquired  lands
\nfrom  Rs.80  per square yard awarded by the Civil  Court  to
\nRs.32  per square yard of the claimant’s acquired land of  4
\nacres  and 3 guntas and granted in addition 30% solatium  on
\nthe market value, 12% additional amount on such market value
\nfrom  the date of the notification i.e. 24.7.1985  till\t the
\ndate  of  the  award  i.e. 14.7.1988  and  interest  on\t the
\nenhanced  amount of compensation under Section 28 of the  LA
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Shri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel,  who    appeared
\nbefore us for the claimant,   raised   several\t contentions
\nagainst\t the correctness of the judgment and decree  of\t the
\nHigh Court.  He contended, firstly, that the High Court\t had
\nfailed to take into consideration the very statement of\t the
\nLAO  made  in  his award that the  acquired  land  had\thigh
\npotentiality  for  developing  into  a\tHousing\t Colony,  in
\ndetermining  its market value of the acquired land and\tthat
\nnon-consideration had resulted in reducing the market  value
\nof  the\t acquired lands instead of  enhancing  their  market
\nvalue;\tsecondly,  when the Civil Court had  determined\t the
\nmarket\tvalue of the acquired land of the claimant at  Rs.80
\nper square yard on the basis of amounts of consideration  of
\nbuilding plots mentioned under Exs.  A-1 to A-3 (Sale Deeds)
\nand  Exs.  A2, A-4 and A-5 (Gift Deeds) and Ex.\t A-6,  Basic
\nValuation Register extract, it should not have rejected Exs.
\nA-1 to A-6 themselves as unreliable documentary evidence for
\nfixing the market value of the acquired land; thirdly,\twhen
\nthe  Civil  Court  had determined the market  value  of\t the
\nacquired  land of the claimant at Rs.80 per square  yard  on
\nthe basis of the amounts of consideration mentioned in\tExs.
\nA-1  and A-3 (Sale Deeds) and Exs.  A-2, A-4 and  A-5  (Gift
\nDeeds), and Ex.\t A-6 (Basic Valuation Register extract), the
\nHigh  Court  should  not  have rejected\t Exs.\tA-1  to\t A-6
\nthemselves as unreliable documentary evidence for fixing the
\nmarket\tvalue  of  the\tacquired  land,\t particularly,\twhen
\nnothing\t damaging was elicited in the  cross-examination  of
\nthe   witnesses\t who  had  spoken  about  those\t  documents;
\nfourthly, when the High Court had held that the Sale  Deeds,
\nExs.   B-3  to B-5, the Certified copies of the\t Sale  Deeds
\nproduced  in  evidence\ton behalf of the LAO  had  not\tbeen
\nproved
\n599<\/span>
\nby  examination\t of the witnesses connected  with  them,  it
\ncould  not have determined the market value of the  acquired
\nland  on the basis of the value of land fixed by the LAO  at
\nthe  rate  of Rs.20 per square yard particularly  when\tthat
\nrate was referable to value of the plots of land sold  under
\nEx.  B-3 to B-5, marked in evidence under section 51 of\t the
\nLA  Act; fifthly, when the High Court had doubled the  value
\nof  plots fetched under Ex.  B-3 to B-5 for arriving at\t the
\ncorrect market value of the acquired land, it could not have
\ndetermined  the market value of the acquired land  at  Rs.32
\nper square yard, by deducting 20% out of it towards  lay-out
\nlosses;\t and  lastly, that the High Court had  committed  an
\nerror  in not granting the amount calculated at the rate  of
\n12% per annum payable under section 23(1A) of the LA Act  on
\nthe  market value of the acquired land from the date of\t the
\npreliminary Notification till the date of taking  possession
\nof the lands.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Shri  G. Prabhakar, the learned counsel,  who  appeared
\nbefore us for the LAO, while refuting the contentions raised
\nfor the claimant, submitted that although the High Court had
\nheld  that  the\t Sale Deeds, Ex.  B-3 to B-5  had  not\tbeen
\nproved by examination of witnesses connected with them,\t the
\nHigh  Court  could not be found fault with, for\t fixing\t the
\nmarket value of the acquired land on the basis of the  award
\nof  the\t LAO based on Exs.  B-3 to B-5 when  the  claimant’s
\nevidence  adduced  in disproof of that award  had  not\tbeen
\naccepted  by it (the High Court).  It was further  submitted
\nby  him that the High Court could not have doubled the\trate
\nof Rs. 20 per square yard fixed as the value of the acquired
\nland  by  the LAO when it had not adverted to the  basis  on
\nwhich the value was so doubled.\t The High Court, it was also
\nsubmitted  by him, was not right in granting the  amount  in
\naddition to the market value under Section 23 (IA) of the LA
\nAct,  in  the manner in which it had done.   It\t was  lastly
\nsubmitted by him that the market value of the acquired\tland
\ndetermined  by\tthe High Court calls to be  reduced  to\t the
\nlevel of the market value of such land determined by the LAO
\nand  such  market value should form the basis for  grant  of
\nstatutory benefits under the L.A. Act.\n<\/p>\n
7.   In view of the aforesaid contentions and submissions of
\nlearned\t counsel for the contesting parties,  the  questions
\nwhich require to be considered and answered in deciding\t the
\nappeals, could be formulated thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)   Whether  the building potentiality of  a
\n\t      land acquired under the LA Act requires to  be
\n\t      taken   into  consideration   in\t determining
\n\t      its  market value, and if so, how has that  to
\n\t      be done ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   Whether  the value of building plots  as
\n\t      found   in   the\tBasic\tValuation   Register
\n\t      maintained  under the Stamp Act or its  Rules,
\n\t      could form the basis for determination of\t the
\n\t      market  value of lands acquired under  the  LA
\n\t      Act ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   Whether  the value of land mentioned  in
\n\t      an  instance  of sale or an instance  of\tgift
\n\t      claimed  to  compare with\t the  acquired\tland
\n\t      warrants\tacceptance as the correct  value  of
\n\t      such  land  merely because the  witnesses\t who
\n\t      will  have given evidence as regards them,  on
\n\t      behalf  of the claimants had not\tbeen  cross-
\n\t      examined\t or  effectively  crossexamined\t  on
\n\t      behalf of the L.A.O.?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (4)   Whether  the value fetched by sale of  a
\n\t      small extent of land can be made the basis for
\n\t      determination of the
\n600<\/span>
\n\t      market value of a large extent of the acquired
\n\t      land ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (5)   Will  it  not be open to a\tCourt  which
\n\t      rejects  the evidence adduced by the  claimant
\n\t      in   support   of\t his  claim   for   enhanced
\n\t      compensation  for his acquired land made in  a
\n\t      reference\t under section 18 of the LA Act,  to
\n\t      rely upon the contents of the award of the LAO
\n\t      made  under section 11 thereof to enhance\t the
\n\t      compensation awardable for such land ?  If the
\n\t      LAO’s  award is based on value  fetched  under
\n\t      sale  deeds on their perusal as  contained  in
\n\t      the    registers\t  maintained\tunder\t the
\n\t      Registration  Act, has he to prove those\tsale
\n\t      deeds in Court for sustaining his award ?
\n\t      (6)   What  is  the  amount  which  could\t  be
\n\t      awarded under section 23 (1-A) of the LA\tAct,
\n\t      in  addition  to\tthe  market  value  of\t the
\n\t      acquired land ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (7)   Does  the  market value  in\t respect  of
\n\t      which  solatium  is  awardable  under  section
\n\t      23(2) of the LA Act include the amount payable
\n\t      under section 23 (1-A) of the LA Act ?
\n\t      (8)   What  is  the  amount  of\tcompensation
\n\t      awardable\t for  the  lands  of  the   claimant
\n\t      acquired\tunder  the  LA Act  which  could  be
\n\t      regarded as just and reasonable?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.   We\t shall now proceed to consider and answer  the\tsaid
\nquestions seriatum.\n<\/p>\n
Re:  Question (1)\n<\/p>\n
9.   Building Potentiality of acquired land  Market value of
\nland acquired under the LA Act is the main component of\t the
\namount of compensation awardable for such land under section
\n23(1)  of  the LA Act.\tThe market value of such  land\tmust
\nrelate\t to  the  last\tof  the\t dates\tof  publication\t  of
\nNotification or giving of public notice of substance of such
\nNotification according to section 4(1) of the LA Act.\tSuch
\nmarket\tvalue of the acquired land cannot only be its  value
\nwith reference to the actual use to which it was put on\t the
\nrelevant  date envisaged under section 4(1) of the  LA\tAct,
\nbut  ought to be its value with reference to the better\t use
\nto  which  it  is reasonably capable of\t being\tput  in\t the
\nimmediate or near future.  Possibility of the acquired\tland
\nput to certain use on the date envisaged under section\t4(1)
\nof  the LA Act, of becoming available for better use in\t the
\nimmediate  or near future, is regarded as its  potentiality.
\nIt is for this reason that the market value of the  acquired
\nland  when has to be determined with reference to  the\tdate
\nenvisaged under section 4(1) of the LA Act, the same has  to
\nbe done not merely with reference to the use to which it was
\nput on such date, but also on the possibility of it becoming
\navailable  in the immediate or near future for\tbetter\tuse,
\ni.e.,  on its potentiality.  When the acquired land has\t the
\npotentiality  of  being used for building  purposes  in\t the
\nimmediate  or near future it is such potentiality  which  is
\nregarded  as  building potentiality of\tthe  acquired  land.
\nTherefore,  if\tthe  acquired  land  has  the  building\t po-
\ntentiality,   its  value,  like\t the  value  of\t any   other
\npotentiality  of the land should necessarily be\t taken\tinto
\naccount\t for  determining  the market value  of\t such  land.
\nTherefore,  when  a  land  with\t building  potentiality\t  is
\nacquired,   the\t price\twhich  its  willing   seller   could
\nreasonably expect to obtain from its willing purchaser\twith
\nreference to the date envisaged under section 4(1) of the LA
\nAct, ought to necessarily include, that portion of the price
\nof the land attributable to its building potentiality.\tSuch
\nprice of the acquired land then
\n601<\/span>
\nbecomes\t its market value envisaged under section  23(1)  of
\nthe  LA\t Act.  If that be the market value of  the  acquired
\nland  with building potentiality, which acquired land  could
\nbe  regarded  to have a building potentiality  and  how\t the
\nmarket\tvalue  of  such acquired  land\twith  such  building
\npotentiality  requires\tto  be measured\t or  determined\t are
\nmatters which remain for our consideration now.\n<\/p>\n
10.  An acquired land could be regarded as that which has  a
\nbuilding potentiality, if such land although was used on the
\nrelevant date envisaged under section 4(1) of the LA Act for
\nagricultural or horticultural or other like purposes or\t was
\non  that date even barren or waste, had the  possibility  of
\nbeing  used  immediately or in the near future as  land\t for
\nputting\t up  residential, commercial,  industrial  or  other
\nbuildings.   However,  the fact that the acquired  land\t had
\nbeen  acquired for building purposes, cannot  be  sufficient
\ncircumstance  to  regard it as a land with  building  poten-
\ntiality,  in that, under clause (4) of section 24 of the  LA
\nAct that any increase to the value of land likely to  accrue
\nfrom  the  use\tto which it will be put\t when  acquired,  is
\nrequired  to be excluded.  Therefore, wherever, there  is  a
\npossibility  of\t the  acquired land not\t used  for  building
\npurposes  on the relevant date envisaged under Section\t4(1)
\nof the LA Act, of being used for putting up buildings either
\nimmediately  or\t in the near future but not in\tthe  distant
\nfuture,\t then such acquired land would be regarded  as\tthat
\nwhich has a building potentiality.  Even so, when can it  be
\nsaid  that  there is the possibility of\t the  acquired\tland
\nbeing  used in the immediate or near future for\t putting  up
\nbuildings, would be the real question.\tSuch possibility  of
\nuser of the acquired land for building purposes can never be
\nwholly\ta matter of conjecture or surmise or guess.  On\t the
\nother  hand, it should be a matter of inference to be  drawn
\nbased  on  appreciation\t of material  placed  on  record  to
\nestablish such possibility.  Material so placed on record or
\nmade  available must necessarily relate to the matters\tsuch
\nas :\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i)   the\t situation  of\tthe  acquired\tland
\n\t      vis-a-vis,  the  city of the town\t or  village
\n\t      which had been growing in size because of\t its
\n\t      commercial, industrial, educational, religious
\n\t      or any other kind of importance or because  of
\n\t      its explosive population;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  the suitability of the acquired land for
\n\t      putting up the buildings, be they residential,
\n\t      commercial or industrial, as the case may be;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) possibility of obtaining water and elec-
\n\t      tric  supply for occupants of buildings to  be
\n\t      put up on that land;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iv)  absence of statutory impediments or\t the
\n\t      like for using the acquired land for  building
\n\t      purposes;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (v)   existence  of  highways,  public  roads,
\n\t      layouts  of building plots or developed  resi-
\n\t      dential  extensions in the vicinity  or  close
\n\t      proximity of the acquired land;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (vi)  benefits  or advantages  of\t educational
\n\t      institutions, health care centres, or the like
\n\t      in the surrounding areas of the acquired\tland
\n\t      which may become available to the occupiers of
\n\t      buildings, if built on the acquired land; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (vii) lands  around the acquired land  or\t the
\n\t      acquired\tland  itself  being  in\t demand\t for
\n\t      building purposes, to specify a few.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11.  The  material  to\tbe  so\tplaced\ton  record  or\tmade
\navailable in respect of the
\n602<\/span>
\nsaid   matters\tand  the  like,\t cannot\t have\tthe   needed
\nevidentiary  value  for concluding that\t the  acquired\tland
\nbeing  used for building purposes in the immediate  or\tnear
\nfuture unless the same is supported by reliable\t documentary
\nevidence,  as far as the circumstances permit.\tWhen once  a
\nconclusion is reached that there was the possibility of\t the
\nacquired  land\tbeing used for putting up buildings  in\t the
\nimmediate  or  near future, such conclusion  would  be\tsuf-
\nficient\t to  hold  that the acquired  land  had\t a  building
\npotentiality  and  proceed  to determine  its  market  value
\ntaking\tinto account the increase in price  attributable  to
\nsuch building potentiality.\n<\/p>\n
12. Then, comes the question of determining the market value
\nof  the acquired land with building potentiality.   Undoubt-
\nedly  such market value of the acquired land  with  building
\npotentiality  comprises\t of  the market value  of  the\tland
\nhaving regard to the use to which it was put on the relevant
\ndate  envisaged\t under Section 4(1) of the LA Act  plus\t the
\nincrease in that market value because of the possibility  of
\nthe  acquired land being used for putting up  buildings,  in
\nthe  immediate or near future.\tIf there is any\t other\tland
\nwith  building\tpotentiality similar to\t the  acquired\tland
\nwhich had been sold for a price obtained by a willing seller
\nfrom  a willing purchaser, such price could be taken  to  be
\nthe  market  value of the acquired land, in that,  it  would
\nhave comprised of the market value of the land as was  being
\nactually  used\tplus increase in price attributable  to\t its
\nbuilding  potentiality.\t  If the prices fetched by  sale  of
\nsimilar land with building potentiality in the neighbourhood
\nor   vicinity\tof   the  acquired   lands   with   building
\npotentiality,  as  on  the  relevant  date  envisaged  under
\nSection\t 4(1)  of the LA Act, are  unavailable,\t it  becomes
\nnecessary to find out whether any building plots laid out in
\na  land\t similar  to the acquired land had been\t sold  by  a
\nwilling\t seller\t to  a willing buyer on or  near  about\t the
\nrelevant date under Section 4(1) when the acquired land\t had
\nbeen  proposed\tfor acquisition and then to  find  out\twhat
\nwould  be  the\tprice which the\t acquired  land\t would\thave
\nfetched\t if had been sold by making it into  building  plots
\nsimilar to those sold.\tIn other words, an hypothetical lay-
\nout  of building plots in the acquired land similar to\tthat
\nof  the layout of building plots actually made in the  other
\nsimilar\t land, has to be prepared, and the price fetched  by
\nsale  of building plots in the lay-out actually made  should
\nform  the basis for fixing the total price of  the  acquired
\nland with building potentiality, to be got if plots  similar
\nto other plots had been made in the latter land and sold  by
\ntaking into account plus factors and minus factors  involved
\nin the process.\n<\/p>\n
13.Prices  fetched  by\tsales of building  plots  which\t may
\nbecome\tavailable  could be of building plots  in  either  a
\nfully  developed  layout  of building plots  or\t in  an\t un-
\ndeveloped layout of building plots, situated in the vicinity
\nof  the\t acquired land with building potentiality.   If\t the
\nmarket value of the acquired land with building potentiality
\nhas  to be fixed on. the basis of the evidence of  the\tsaid
\nprices, the first thing required to be done is to prepare  a
\nhypothetical  layout of building plots of the acquired\tland
\nitself\tThen,  how  much of land out of\t the  acquired\tland
\nbecomes available to be made into plots similar to those  in
\nthe developed layout of building plots or in the undeveloped
\nlayout\tof  building  plots has to be  found  out.   If\t the
\nbuilding plots which so become available were to be sold  at
\nthe prices at which the
\n603<\/span>
\nbuilding plots in the developed layout of building plots  or
\nundeveloped layout of building plots could have been sold on
\nthe date envisaged in section 4(1) of the Act, what would be
\nthe  total amount of such prices which could have  been\t ob-
\ntained\thas  to\t be seen.  Then, what could  have  been\t the
\nlosses suffered or expenses incurred for getting such  total
\namount\thas  to\t be  found out.\t The  market  value  of\t the
\nacquired  land\twith  building\tpotentiality,  can  then  be
\nregarded  as the total amount of the prices of sales of\t all
\nthe  building plots envisaged in the hypothetical layout  of
\nbuilding  plots in the acquired land minus the losses  which
\ncould  have been suffered or expenses which could have\tbeen
\nincurred in making the hypothetical layout of building plots
\nin  the\t acquired land on par with the developed  layout  of
\nbuilding plots or the undeveloped layout of building  plots,
\nas the case may be.  If losses to be suffered or expenses to
\nbe  incurred  for making a layout of building plots  in\t the
\nacquired  land\twith building potentiality for\tpurposes  of
\nselling\t such building plots at the prices to be fetched  by
\nsimilar\t building plots in the developed layout of  building
\nplots or in the undeveloped layout of building plots are  to
\nbe  found out, the losses which might have been suffered  or
\nexpenses which might have been incurred by the owners of the
\nlands  of either of a developed layout of building plots  or
\nof  an undeveloped layout of building plots, in making\tsuch
\nlay outs, could prove to be the best evidence.\tThe evidence
\nof  losses  suffered or expenses incurred in having  made  a
\nlayout of building plots may relate to lands lost for laying
\nroads, drains, sewerages, parks etc., costs incurred in\t the
\nmaking of roads, drains, sewerages, providing water  supply,
\nelectric  supply,  losses  on  investments  and\t paying\t  of
\nconversion charges, development charges etc. in a  developed
\nlayout or an undeveloped layout in which building plots\t had
\nbeen  laid  and\t sold and which sales  form  the  basis\t for
\ndetermining  the  market  value of the\tacquired  land.\t  If
\nevidence  to  be  adduced in the said regard  is  of  public
\nauthorities  or local boards or private developers who\twill
\nhave  formed such layouts of building plots in the lands  in
\nthe  neighbourhood  of the acquired land and sold  them,  it
\ncould be of great value.  No difficulty arises when all\t the
\nmaterials  needed  to  determine the  market  value  of\t the
\nacquired  land with building potentiality on the basis of  a
\nhypothetical  layout  of  building plots  to  be  formed  in
\nrespect\t of  it\t is made available to the Court,  so  as  to
\nenable\tit  to\tfind out the possible market  value  of\t the
\nacquired  land with reference to the price to be fetched  by
\nsale of building plots to be made in such land.\t But, owners
\nof  the\t acquired land with  building  potentiality,  rarely
\nproduce all the material or evidence needed for the Court to
\ndetermine  the\tmarket\tvalue  of  the\tacquired  land\twith
\nbuilding potentiality on the basis of a hypothetical  layout
\nof  building plots to be thought of by the Court in  respect
\nof  such  land, although they rely on the price\t fetched  by
\nsale of plots in a developed layout or an undeveloped layout
\nfor  determining  the  market  value  of  their\t lands\twith
\nbuilding potentiality in the vicinity of such layout.  It is
\nwhere, the Court may have to inevitably fix the market value
\nof the acquired land with building potentiality on the basis
\nof  the prices got in the sale transactions relating to\t the
\nbuilding  plots\t in a developed or  an\tundeveloped  layout,
\nrelied upon by the owners of the land, if such\ttransactions
\nare  found  to be genuine.  A simple method,  therefore,  is
\nevolved by courts in determining the market
\n604<\/span>
\nvalue  of the acquired land with building potentiality\twith
\nreference to the retail price to be fetched by sale of plots
\nin a fully developed layout as on the date of publication of
\nNotification  under  section  4(1)  of\tthe  Act  In  Bombay
\nImprovement Trust v. Marwanji Manekji Mistry reported in AIR
\n1926 Bombay 420, the said method is referred to by  Macleod,
\nC.J. as that where the wholesale price of the acquired\tland
\nwith  building potentiality could be fixed at  one-third  to
\none-half  of  the retail price fetched by sale\tof  building
\nplots  in  a developed layout of building  plots,  depending
\nupon  the nature of development taken place in such  layout.
\nThus,  when it becomes inevitable for the Court to  fix\t the
\nmarket value of the acquired land with building potentiality
\non the basis of the price fetched by sale of a building plot
\nin a developed layout of building plots in the vicinity,  it
\nmust,  in  our view, fix the wholesale market value  of\t the
\nacquired  land\twith building potentiality at  one-third  to
\none-half  of the retail price got by genuine sales of  plots
\nin  a  developed layout in the vicinity, by  deducting\ttwo-
\nthirds\tto  onehalf out of the retail prices  of  plots,  as
\nlosses\tor expenses involved in having made the\t land  where
\nthe  plots are formed as developed, according to the  degree
\nof  development.  For instance, if the retail price of\tplot
\nis  Rs.\t 12\/- per square yard, the wholesale  price  of\t the
\nacquired  land with building potentiality could be fixed  at
\nrupees varying between Rs.4\/- and Rs.6\/- depending upon\t the
\nnature\tof development found in the layout of the plot\tsold
\nin retail.  Coming to fixation of the wholesale price of the
\nacquired  land\twith building potentiality on the  basis  of
\nretail\tprice of a building plot sold out of an\t undeveloped
\nlayout\tof building plots, such wholesale price ought to  be
\nfixed by deducting at least one-third of the retail price of
\nthe building plot in such layout, because such would be\t the
\nleast  loss to be suffered in forming a layout\tof  building
\nplots in the acquired land with building potentiality, after
\nleaving\t out  land for roads, drains etc. by  obtaining\t the
\nneeded\tpermissions from public authorities for making\tsuch
\nlayout.\t Therefore, the wholesale price of the acquired land
\ncould  be  fixed  at Rs.8\/- per square\tyard  if  the  price
\nfetched or to be fetched by sale of building plot in an\t un-
\ndeveloped  layout  is Rs. 12\/-.\t However, in either  of\t the
\nsaid  cases  whether it be the determination of\t the  market
\nvalue  of the acquired land with building potentiality\twith
\nreference  to the price fetched by sale of plots in  a\twell
\ndeveloped  layout in the neighbourhood or whether it be\t the
\ndetermination of the market value of the acquired land\twith
\nbuilding potentiality with reference to the price fetched by
\nsale of building plots in an undeveloped layout of  building
\nplots  in the neighbourhood, it becomes inevitable  for\t the
\nCourt  to find out what will be the price fetched or  to  be
\nfetched by the sales of plots in the layouts, relied upon by
\nany  of\t the parties with reference to the price  which\t the
\nplots  could  have  fetched  if sold  on  the  date  of\t the
\npublication  of the preliminary notification  under  Section
\n4(1)  of  the  Act.  Further, where  no\t evidence  of  price
\nfetched\t by  the sales of the plots in layouts\tof  building
\nplots  in  the neighbourhood of the acquired  lands  becomes
\navailable, then what could be done is to find out the market
\nvalue  of the acquired land with reference to  the  relevant
\ndate  of  publication  under Section 4(1)  of  the  LA\tAct,
\naccording to the actual use to which it was put and increase
\nits value by a small percentage having regard to the  degree
\nof  its\t building potentiality ascertained on the  basis  of
\nevidence
\n605<\/span>
\nto  be\tmade available in that regard.\tA  small  percentage
\nincrease  to be given shall not exceed 1\/5th of\t the  market
\nvalue  of  the land found out according to its\tactual\tuser
\nsince  resort  to the method of giving increased  value\t for
\nsuch  building\tpotentiality arises only when  there  is  no
\nevidence of sales of building plots in the neighbourhood  of
\nthe acquired land indicating that there was no immediate de-
\nmand,  as  such, for building plots even if  formed  in\t the
\nacquired land.\n<\/p>\n
14.  Hence,   whether\tthe  acquired  land   has   building
\npotentiality or not, while has to be decided upon  reference
\nto the material to be placed on record or made available  by
\nthe parties concerned, the market value of the acquired land
\nwith  building potentiality, is also required to  be  deter-
\nmined with reference to the material to be placed on  record
\nor  made available in that regard by the  parties  concerned
\nand not solely on surmises, conjectures or pure guess.
\nRe:  Question (2)\n<\/p>\n
15.  Value  of building plots found in the  Basic  Valuation
\nRegister  The value of building plots mentioned in the Basic
\nValuation  Register can be of no assistance  in\t determining
\nthe market value of the land acquired under the LA Act is no
\nlonger\tres  Integra.  In  Jawajee  Nagnatham  Vs.   Revenue
\nDivisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and Others [(1 994) 4 SCC
\n595], it is ruled by this Court that the value of lands men-
\ntioned\t in  the  Basic\t Valuation  Register  prepared\t and
\nmaintained  for the purpose of collecting stamp\t duty  since
\nlacks statutory base, the same cannot form the foundation to
\ndetermine  the market value of the lands acquired under\t the
\nLA Act by observing thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It is, therefore, clear that the Basic  Valu-
\n\t      ation Register prepared and maintained for the
\n\t      purpose  of  collecting  stamp  duty  has\t  no
\n\t      statutory\t base  or force.  It cannot  form  a
\n\t      foundation  to  determine\t the  market   value
\n\t      mentioned thereunder in instrument brought for
\n\t      registration.  Equally it would not be a basis
\n\t      to determine the market value under Section 23
\n\t      of the Act, of the lands acquired in that area
\n\t      or town or the locality or the taluk etc.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16.  Therefore, the value of building plots  as found in the
\nBasic Valuation Register maintained  under  the\t Stamp\t Act
\ncannot\tform the basis for determining the market  value  of
\nthe lands acquired under the LA Act.\n<\/p>\n
Re:  Question (3):\n<\/p>\n
17.  Non cross-examination or ineffective  cross-examination
\nof  witnesses for the claimant\tOral evidence  is  generally
\nadduced\t in the enquiry held by Court for  determination  of
\nthe  compensation  payable for lands acquired under  the  LA
\nAct.  Such oral evidence, generally, comprises of either  of
\nthe claimants or their witnesses examined in support of\t the
\nclaims\tof  claimants for grant\t of  enhanced  compensation,
\nwhich  in its very nature, would be referable to matters  of
\nsituation  of the acquired lands, their surroundings,  their
\nvalue or the like.  Several statements would be made by such
\nclaimants or their witnesses when they are examined-in-chief
\nin  Court, on matters that may bear on the market  value  of
\nacquired  lands.  If the witnesses who make such  statements
\narc  not subjected to cross-examination or effective  cross-
\nexamination or no contrary evidence is adduced, is the Court
\nobliged to accept such state-\n<\/p>\n
606<\/span><\/p>\n
ments  to  be true in determining the market  value  of\t the
\nacquired  lands ? It is, no doubt true, that  whenever\toral
\nevidence  is  adduced  by  parties  on\tcertain\t matters  in
\ncontroversy,  it may become difficult for Court to  overlook
\nsuch  evidence,\t if  it is not\tshown  by  effective  cross-
\nexamination  of such witnesses who have given such  evidence
\nor  by adducing contra-evidence, that the oral evidence\t was
\nunreliable  or\tthe  witnesses\tthemselves  are\t not  credit
\nworthy.\t  But, in land acquisition references  before  Civil
\nCourts, when witnesses give oral evidence in support of\t the
\nclaims of claimants for higher compensation the\t ineffective
\ncross-examination  of  such witnesses, is  not\tan  uncommon
\nfeature\t if regard is had to the manner in which claims\t for
\nenhanced compensation in land acquisition cases are defended
\nin  courts on behalf of the State.  Indeed, when a  question
\narose before this Court whether the Court is bound to accept
\nthe statements of witnesses only because they have not\tbeen
\neffectively  cross-examined or evidence in rebuttal has\t not
\nbeen  adduced, it was observed by this Court  in  Chaturbhuj
\nPande and Others v. Collector, Raigarh,<\/a> [AIR 1969 S.C. 255],
\nthus :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  is  true that the witnesses\texamined  on
\n\t      behalf   of  the\tappellants  have  not\tbeen
\n\t      effectively  cross-examined.  It is also\ttrue
\n\t      that   the  Collector  had  not  adduced\t any
\n\t      evidence\tin rebuttal; but that does not\tmean
\n\t      that  the\t court\tis  bound  to  accept  their
\n\t      evidence.\t  The Judges are not  computers…..
\n\t      they   are  bound\t to  call  into\t aid   their
\n\t      experience  of life and test the\tevidence  on
\n\t      the basis of probabilities.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
18.Hence,   we\tare  unable  to\t think\tthat  whenever\t the
\nstatements  made by claimants’ witnesses in courts  are\t not
\ngot over on behalf of the Collector or the LAO by subjecting
\nthe  witnesses\tto  effective  crossexamination\t or  by\t not
\nadducing  evidence in rebuttal, the courts are obligated  to
\naccept\tsuch statements of witnesses as true, if  tested  on
\nthe  basis  of\tprobabilities, become  unreliable.   If\t the
\ncourts\twere to accept such statements of witnesses as\ttrue
\nmerely\tbecause they are not subjected to  cross-examination
\nor  effective  cross-exam  nation  or  because\tevidence  in
\nrebuttal  thereof has not been adduced, it would  amount  to
\ndoling\tout public money to the claimants far in  excess  of
\ntheir  legitimate entitlement for just compensation  payable
\nfor  their lands.  If such situation is prevented by  courts
\ndealing\t  with\tclaims\tfor  compensation  by  testing\t the
\nstatements  of\twitnesses  for claimants  on  the  basis  of
\nprobabilities, the Court will have performed the duty justly
\nexpected of them.  Hence, no Court which tests the oral evi-
\ndence  of the claimants on the touch-stone of  probabilities
\ncalling\t into aid, its experience of life, men\tand  matters
\nand find such evidence to be untrustworthy, the same  cannot
\nbe found fault with.\n<\/p>\n
Re:  Question (4)\n<\/p>\n
19.  Market Value of large extents of acquired lands  vis-a-
\nvis  value  fetched  by small extents – It is  a  matter  of
\ncommon\tknowledge that the large extents of lands if arc  to
\nbe sold, they cannot fetch the value which may be fetched by
\nsale  of small extents of land.\t It is for that\t reason\t the
\ncourts\tdo not ordinarily accept the value fetched by  small
\nextents as the basis for determination of the value of large
\nextents of acquired lands.  In fact, where the small  extent
\nof  land  sold is in significant when  compared\t with  large
\nextent of land acquired, the market value of large extent of
\nacquired lands shall not be determined
\n607<\/span>
\non  the\t basis of value fetched by sale\t of  infinitesimally
\nsmall extent of land.  But, in exceptional cases when  small
\nextent\tof  land  sold\tfor a price  as\t compared  with\t the
\nacquired large extent of land, the market value of which  is
\nrequired to be determined is not so insignificant, the Court
\ndepending  upon the possibility of the large extent of\tland
\nof the claimant being sold as a small extent of land as that
\nalready\t sold  for  a price the market value  of  the  large
\nextent\tcould be fixed on the basis of the price fetched  by
\nsale of small extent.  Even then, how far the price  fetched
\nby  sale  of  small  extents  can  be  made  the  basis\t for
\ndetermining   the  market  value  of  large   extents\tmust
\nnecessarily  depend on the fact situation including that  as
\nto  why the purchase was made, in each case, which has\tcome
\non  its\t record.  However, when the value fetched  by  small
\nextents, are of building plots, in a building lay-out formed
\nof  a  large  plot,  it has to be  seen\t whether  the  large
\nacquired  land if is laid out into small building plots\t and
\nsold, whether they could fetch the price fetched by sale  of
\nsmall building plots in the already formed building lay-out.
\nThen,  the  market  value of the acquired  land\t has  to  be
\ndetermined  with reference to the value fetched by  sale  of
\nsmall  plots by making allowances for various factors,\tsuch
\nas;  loss  of land required out of the acquired land  to  be
\nused  for roads, drains, parks, the expenditure involved  in
\nforming\t the  layout waiting involved in sale of  plots\t and
\nseveral\t other\tfactors which will  necessarily\t reduce\t the
\nwholesale  price  of the acquired land.\t Thus, how  far\t the
\nvalue  fetched by sale of small extents of lands could\tform
\nthe  basis for determining the market value of the  acquired
\nland has to inevitably depend upon the allowances to be made
\nfor  factors  which distinguish the acquired land  from\t the
\nplots  of  land sold and the sale value of which  is  relied
\nupon  as the basis for determining the market value  of\t the
\nacquired land.\n<\/p>\n
Re:  Question (5) :<\/p>\n
\n20.  Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition    Act  7  Section\n51 -A of the LA Act reads     thus :\n\t      \"51-A.\tAcceptance  of\tcertified  copy\t  as\n<\/pre>\n
\t      evidence.\t In any proceeding under this Act, a
\n\t      certified copy of a document registered  under
\n\t      the  Registration\t Act,  1908  (16  of  1908),
\n\t      including\t a  copy given under Section  57  of
\n\t      that  Act, may be accepted as evidence of\t the
\n\t      transaction recorded in such document.”\n<\/p>\n
21.Certified  copy  of\ta  document  registered\t under\t the
\nRegistration  Act, 1908, but for the above  provision  could
\nhave  been  only secondary evidence which  could  have\tbeen
\naccepted by the court when primary evidence relating to\t the
\noriginal documents were shown to be unavailable.  Section  5
\n1-A  of the LA Act, as seen therefrom, is enacted to  enable
\nthe parties in land acquisition cases, to produce  certified
\ncopies of documents, to get over the difficulty of  parties,
\nin  that,  persons in possession of the\t original  documents
\nwould not be ready to put them in courts, for when once they
\nare put in Court, they cannot be sure, when they could\ttake
\ntheir  return  from Court.  However, the mere  fact  that  a
\ncertified  copy of the document is accepted as\tevidence  of
\nthe transaction recorded in such document does not  dispense
\nwith the need for a party relying upon the certified  copies
\nof  such documents produced in court in examining  witnesses
\nconnected with documents to establish their genuineness\t and
\nthe truth of their contents.\n<\/p>\n
608<\/span><\/p>\n
Therefore,  the\t certified copies of  registered  documents,
\nthough accepted as evidence of transactions recorded in such
\ndocuments,  the court is not bound to act upon the  contents
\nof  those  documents  unless  persons  connected  with\tsuch
\ndocuments  give evidence in court as regards them  and\tsuch
\nevidence  is accepted by the Court as true.  But,  when\t the
\nLAO  or\t the  Collector has made his  award,  based  on\t the
\ncontents of documents, as found in the registers kept  under
\nthe  Registration  Act and produces registration  copies  of
\nsuch documents in support of his award in Court, they  could
\nbe regarded acceptable as evidence by Court given in support
\nof the award unless it is shown by contra-evidence on behalf
\nof  the\t claimants that such documents could not  have\tbeen
\nrelied upon by the Collector or LAO in making the award.  It
\nwould  be  so for the reason that when the LAO\tproduces  in
\ncourt  Registration  (certified) copies of  those  documents
\nwhich  he  had\tmade the basis for  determining\t the  market
\nvalue,\tthat would be only to support his award and  not  to
\nestablish  something independent of the award.\tIf  that  be
\nso, when such documents are produced on behalf of the LAO in
\ncourt,\tthey cannot be rejected on the ground that the\twit-
\nnesses associated with those documents cannot be examined by
\nthe LAO, inasmuch , even without producing such documents he
\ncan  rely  upon the award made by him to show  that  he\t had
\nlooked into those documents and he had determined the market
\nvalue  on their basis.\tHence, the mere fact that  witnesses
\nassociated with such certified copies of documents  produced
\nas evidence in court were not examined on behalf of the\t LAO
\nwill  not in any way affect the award of the LAO, if he\t has
\ndetermined  the\t market value of the  acquired\tland  having
\nperused those documents as found in the Registers kept under
\nthe  Registration  Act\tor their  certified  copies,  before
\ndetermining the market value of those lands on the basis  of
\nsuch documents.\n<\/p>\n
Re:  Questions (6) and (7):\n<\/p>\n
22.  Section  23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act   Section
\n23 (1-A) of the LA Act reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “23 (1-A). in addition to the market-value  of
\n\t      the  land, as above provided, the Court  shall
\n\t      in  every case award an amount  calculated  at
\n\t      the  rate\t of twelve per centum per  annum  on
\n\t      such market-value for the period commencing on
\n\t      and  from the date of the publication  of\t the
\n\t      notification under Section 4, sub-section (1),
\n\t      in  respect  of such land to the date  of\t the
\n\t      award  of the Collector or the date of  taking
\n\t      possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
\n\t      Explanation  In computing the period  referred
\n\t      to in this sub-section, any period or  periods
\n\t      during   which   the   proceedings   for\t the
\n\t      acquisition  of  the  land  were\theld  up  on
\n\t      account of any stay or injunction by the order
\n\t      of any court shall be excluded.  ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
23.  -It  is clear from a reading of the above section\tthat
\nin  addition to the market value of the land  awardable\t for
\nthe  acquired land under first clause of sub-section (1)  of
\nsection\t 23, the Court shall in every case award  an  amount
\ncalculated at the tee of twelve per centum per annum on such
\nmarket value for the period commencing on and from the\tdate
\nof the publication of the Notification under section 4(1) of
\nthe LA Act, in respect of such land to the date of the award
\nof  the\t Collector or the date of taking possession  of\t the
\nland, whichever is earlier.  Explanation, merely
\n609<\/span>
\ndisentitles  the claimant for the amount during\t the  period
\nreferred to in the subsection, that is, the proceedings\t for
\nthe  acquisition  of the land were held up by  any  stay  or
\ninjunction by the order of any court.  The amount  awardable
\nunder sub-section (1-A) of section 23 of the LA Act,  there-
\nfore,  would be an amount of 12 per centum per annum on\t the
\nmarket\tvalue of the land determined under first  clause  of
\nsub-section  (1)  of section 23 for the period\tbetween\t the
\ndate  of  publication  of Notification\tunder  section\t4(1)
\n(i.e.,\tthe  last of the dates of such publication  and\t the
\ngiving\tof such public notice) and to the date of the  award
\nof  the\t Collector or the date of taking possession  of\t the
\nland, whichever is earlier.\n<\/p>\n
24.  In\t this  context it has to be noted  that\t the  amount
\npayable\t is 12 per centum per annum on the market  value  in
\nthe first clause of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the  LA
\nAct.   It  has\talso to be noted that  solatium\t under\tsub-
\nsection\t (2)  is  not  payable\tin  respect  of\t the  amount
\nawardable under sub-section (1-A), in that, sub-section\t (2)
\nsays  that in addition to the market-value of the  land,  as
\nabove provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of
\nthirty per centum on such market-value, in consideration  of
\nthe compulsory nature of the acquisition.\n<\/p>\n
25.  Since  the\t amount payable under sub-section  (1-A)  of
\nsection 23 as well as the solatium payable under sub-section
\n(2)  are  in addition to the market value of  the  land,  as
\nabove  provided, they necessarilY refer to the market  value
\nof the land award able in the first clause of sub-section (1
\nof section 23 of the LA Act.\n<\/p>\n
Re:  Question (8) :\n<\/p>\n
26.  Market  value  of the lands of the claimant   The\tHigh
\nCourt  has refused to act upon documents.  Exs.\t A-1 to\t A-6
\nrelied upon on behalf of the claimant for obtaining enhanced
\ncompensation for his acquired land.  Ex.  A-1 is a certified
\ncopy  of  Sale\tDeed dated 16.2.1985. It was  sought  to  be
\nproved\tby  examination\t of PW2\t the  purchaser\t under\tthat
\ndocument.   The\t amount of consideration passed\t under\tthat
\ndocument, though was mentioned as Rs.60,000\/- for 250.80 sq.
\nyards  of land sold thereunder, it had been said  that\tthat
\namount\thad been paid before the witnesses.  The High  Court
\nhas  refused  to  believe  the evidence\t as  to\t passing  of
\nconsideration  of Rs.60,000\/- under that document.   Whether
\nthe  consideration mentioned in a document, like  sale\tdeed
\ndid  pass  from\t the buyer to the seller of  land,  being  a
\nmatter\tof pure appreciation of evidence and when  the\tHigh
\nCourt in appreciation of such evidence has refused to accept
\nthat  evidence\tand  rejected  the  document,  we  find\t  it
\ndifficult to interfere with such finding of fact recorded by
\nthe High Court and take a contrary view in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
27.  Similar is the view taken by the High Court in  respect
\nof  Sale Deed dated 26.7.1985, Ex.  A-3, in proof  of  which
\nthe  vendor has been examined.\tHere again, the\t High  Court
\nhas  rejected the sale deed by refusing to accept  the\toral
\nevidence  adduced.  Here also there is no justification\t for
\nus  to take a view in the matter contrary to the view  taken
\nby the High Court in the matter.  Insofar as documents\tExs.
\nA-2,  A-4  and A-5 are concerned, those are  gift  deeds  of
\ndifferent  dates.   The\t claimant sought to  rely  upon\t the
\namounts mentioned in them as the value of lands for purposes
\nof registration of documents, as those which could be  taken
\nfor purposes of
\n610<\/span>
\ndetermining  the  market value of the acquired land  in\t the
\nvicinity.  The High Court took the view that the parties  to
\nthe  gift  deeds, when were near relatives,  as\t father\t and
\ndaughter  or  husband and wife, consideration  mentioned  in
\nthem as the value of land which is solely for the purpose of
\nregistration  cannot represent the real market value of\t any
\nof  those  lands  and  hence  cannot  form  the\t basis\t for
\ndetermination  of  the market value of\tthe  acquired  land.
\nConsequently,  High  Court  rejected  the  gifts  deeds\t  as
\nunhelpful  for\tdetermination  of the market  value  of\t the
\nacquired land.\tWhen rejection by the High Court of the gift
\ndeeds  is  made\t on the basis of  appreciation\tof  evidence
\navailable before it, there can be no justification for us to
\ninterfere with such rejection.\tThe other document on  which
\nreliance  was placed by the claimant was Ex.  A-6, which  is
\nan extract of the Basic Valuation Register.  As we have\t al-
\nready held following an earlier judgment of this Court\tthat
\nBasic\tValuation  Register  extracts  cannot  be   of\t any
\nassistance  in determination of market value of an  acquired
\nland, the rejection by the High Court of Ex. A-6, the  basic
\nregister extract, on its view, that on its basis the  market
\nvalue  of  the\tacquired land cannot be\t determined,  it  is
\ndifficult for us to hold that the High Court was unjustified
\nin rejecting Ex A-6 as that which cannot form the basis\t for
\ndetermination  of  the market value of\tthe  acquired  land.
\nThus,  the  said  documents which were\tmade  the  bask\t for
\ndetermination  of the market value of the acquired  land  by
\nthe  civil  court  were\t rejected  by  the  High  Court\t  on
\nreappraisal  made  by  it of the oral  evidence\t adduced  in
\nrespect\t those\tdocuments by taking into  consideration\t the
\nrelevant  factors  to which we have already  referred,\tsuch
\nrejection,  cannot be found fault with.\t However,  what\t the
\nHigh  Court has done in determining the market value of\t the
\nacquired  land is to double the amount of the  market  value
\ndisclosed in the sale deeds referred to in that award and on
\nthat  basis  to fix the market value of\t the  acquired\tland
\nafter  giving  deduction of 20 per cent out  of\t it  towards
\nallowance  of lay-out and then fix the market value  of\t the
\nacquired land at Rs.32\/- per sq. yard.\n<\/p>\n
28.  No\t doubt,\t as  pointed out on behalf of  the  LAO,  no
\nspecific  reason is given by the High Court in its  judgment
\nas to why it doubled the amount of Rs.20\/- per square  yard,
\nthe value fetched by sale deeds (Exhibits B-2, B-3 and\tB-4)
\nfor fixing the market value of the acquired land.  But, then
\nwhether the award of the LAO himself lends support for\tsuch
\ndoubling  of the value of plots of land sold under the\tsale
\ndeeds, Exhibits B-2, B-3 and B-4, for determining the market
\nvalue  of acquired lands which were notified  under  Section
\n4(1) of the Act a few years thereafter, requires to be seen.
\nThe  award  of the LAO (Ex.  B-1) insofar, it  concerns\t the
\nquestion reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The land under acquisition is located between
\n\t      the  National  Highway No. 7 and\tOld  Kurnool
\n\t      road and the proposed ring road connects these
\n\t      two  roads.  The lands are also  located\tnear
\n\t      Shivarampally  railway  station and  in  close
\n\t      proximity\t to  Katedan Industrial\t Estate\t and
\n\t      fall  within  the newly  formed  Rajendranagar
\n\t      Municipality.  The area is fast developing and
\n\t      there  is\t much demand for  residential  house
\n\t      plots particularly after developing the N.G.Os
\n\t      colony\tat   Mylardevally    and    Madhuban
\n\t      residential    complex   of   HUDA   in\t the
\n\t      neighbouring  area.  The area is\talso  served
\n\t\t\t    with all modem amenities like power, transport
\n,
\n\t      telephone\t etc.,\twith high  potentiality\t for
\n\t      developing housing colonies.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
611<\/span><\/p>\n
29.Therefore,  when the LAO himself has stated as  above  of
\nthe  fast development of the area where the  acquired  lands
\nand adjoining building plots sold at Rs. 20 per square\tyard
\nwere  situated\tand  the  rush of  people  for\tpurchase  of
\nresidential  building  plots in that area,  ;he\t High  Court
\ncannot\tbe  said  to have gone wrong  in  stating  that\t the
\nbuilding  plots sold under Exhibits B-2, B-3 and B-4 if\t had
\nbeen  sold at the time of acquisition concerned, could\thave
\nfetched double the rate of Rs.20\/per square yard.  Even\t so,
\nthe  High  Court,  in our view, could  not  have  fixed\t the
\nwholesale price of acquired lands of the claimant at Rs.32\/-
\nper square yard by deducting only 20% of Rs.40\/- per  square
\nyard  fixed  as the retail value of building  plots  in\t the
\nundeveloped  layout  of building plots formed  in  the\tland
\nadjacent to the acquired lands as on the date when they were
\nnotified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act.\t  As
\nwe have pointed out earlier whenever the wholesale price  of
\nthe acquired land with building potentiality is required  to
\nbe  determined\ton the basis of prices of  retail  sales  of
\nbuilding plots in an undeveloped layout of building plots in
\nthe  vicinity of the acquired lands, at least  one-third  of
\nthe  retail  price to be got by sale of plots  in  an  unde-
\nveloped\t layout\t of  building plots had to  be\tdeducted  to
\narrive\tat  the wholesale price of the acquired\t lands\twith
\nbuilding potentiality since the entire acquired land  cannot
\nbe  sold as building plots, and some expense will have\tbeen
\nincurred  by the owners of lands in laying it into  building
\nplots and selling them even though they might not have spent
\nany amount on development of the layout.\n<\/p>\n
30.When\t considered in the above perspective, the  wholesale
\nprice of the entire acquired lands of the claimant could  be
\nfixed  at  Rs.27\/-  per square yard, that  is,\tRs.40\/-\t per
\nsquare\tyard retail price to be got by sale of plots in\t the
\nundeveloped layout minus one-third of it to be deducted\t for
\nmaking of layout.  Thus, the market value of the entire land
\nof the claimant would be Rs. 27\/- per square yard and it has
\nto be determined accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
31.  In\t the result, we determine the market  value  of\t the
\nclaimant’s  acquired  land of 4 acres 3\t guntas\t i.e.  19723
\nsquare\tyards at Rs.27\/- per square yard and that  would  be
\nRs.5,32,521\/-.\tThe  claimant  would  be  entitled  to\t get
\nsolatium at the rate of 30 per cent on that market value  of
\nthe  land.  In addition to the market value of the  land  of
\nRs.5,32,521\/-,\tthe  claimant would be entitled\t to  get  an
\namount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum thereon from the
\ndate  of publication of Notification under section  4(1)  of
\nthe LA Act, i.e., 2.9.1985 till the date of the award, i.e.,
\n14.7.1988.  Again,  the claimant would be  entitled  to\t get
\ninterest  on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 9\t per
\ncent per annum from the date on which he gave the possession
\nof  the land to the date of payment of such  excess  amount.
\nHowever,  if such amount has not been paid by the expiry  of
\nthe  period  of one year from the date when  possession\t was
\ntaken, enhanced compensation would be payable at the rate of
\n15  per\t cent per annum from the date of the expiry  of\t the
\nperiod\tof one year till the excess amount was paid  to\t the
\nclaimant or paid into court.\n<\/p>\n
32.  We, accordingly, allow Civil Appeal     arising out  of
\nS.L.P (C) No. 18202 of 1993   partly   and   dismiss   Civil
\nAppeals\t arising  out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 13362-63  of  1993.
\nHowever, we make no order as to coos.\n<\/p>\n
613<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India P.Ram Reddy Etc vs Land Acquisition Officer … on 27 January, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (2) 305, JT 1995 (1) 593 Author: V N. Bench: Venkatachala N. (J) PETITIONER: P.RAM REDDY ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HYDERABAD DATE OF JUDGMENT27\/01\/1995 BENCH: VENKATACHALA N. (J) BENCH: VENKATACHALA N. (J) RAMASWAMY, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-159069","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nP.Ram Reddy Etc vs Land Acquisition Officer ... on 27 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Ram Reddy Etc vs Land Acquisition Officer ... on 27 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1995-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-17T20:25:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"46 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Ram Reddy Etc vs Land Acquisition Officer … on 27 January, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-17T20:25:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995\"},\"wordCount\":9204,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995\",\"name\":\"P.Ram Reddy Etc vs Land Acquisition Officer ... on 27 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-17T20:25:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Ram Reddy Etc vs Land Acquisition Officer … on 27 January, 1995\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P.Ram Reddy Etc vs Land Acquisition Officer ... on 27 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Ram Reddy Etc vs Land Acquisition Officer ... on 27 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-17T20:25:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"46 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Ram Reddy Etc vs Land Acquisition Officer … on 27 January, 1995","datePublished":"1995-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-17T20:25:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995"},"wordCount":9204,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995","name":"P.Ram Reddy Etc vs Land Acquisition Officer ... on 27 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-17T20:25:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ram-reddy-etc-vs-land-acquisition-officer-on-27-january-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Ram Reddy Etc vs Land Acquisition Officer … on 27 January, 1995"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159069","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=159069"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159069\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159069"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159069"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159069"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}