Smt. Nagamma (Since Deceased by Lrs. S. Narayana Reddy S/O Dodda Muniswamy Reddy and Ramaswamy Reddy S/O Dodda Muniswamy Reddy) Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Defense Research Development Organization Rep. by Its Estate Officer - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- land acquisition act, 1894.[c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 23 (as amended by karnataka act, 1961): [v. gopala gowda & l.narayana swamy, jj] determination of market value held, there is statutory requirement on the part of either deputy commissioner, assistant commissioner of the revenue division or reference court to determine the correct market value of acquired lands on the basis of the value of the lands situated in the locality. if, the owners are entitled for more compensation amount than the claim made by them in their claim petition in respect of their acquired lands cannot be put against the at the time of determination of market value. in other words, even if the claim of the owner is far less amount than the real and true market value, the owners of the acquired lands are entitled to the true and real market value of the acquired lands as their legitimate entitlement of compensation cannot be denied either by the authorities or court. if, the argument that the owners are not entitled for more compensation than what they have claimed before the reference court is accepted it would be only to defeat the concept of just and fair compensation required to be awarded. -- section 23: re-determination of market value - land acquired for development purpose, situated within suburban area of city -industrial establishments established in and around acquired lands long back - held, lands covered under previous judgments and awards passed by reference court can be compared to acquired lands as they have also got similar advantages and potentiality. fact that the acquired lands were put to immediate use for construction of buildings of centre would itself amount to acquiring lands for non-agricultural purpose as they had acquired potentiality, though they are all agricultural lands. market value was enhanced from rs.3 lakhs to 7 lakhs per acre. v. gopala gowda, j.1. these appeals are directed against the common judgment and awards dated 30/11/2002 passed in lac nos. 263/1996, 264/1996, 265/1996, 266/1996, 267/1996, 171/1999, 257/1999 by the ii addl. city civil judge, bangalore city, (hereinafter referred to as 'the reference court') fixing the market value at rs. 3/- lakhs per acre. the owners-claimants in m.f.a nos. 2237/03, 2244/03, 2246/03, 2266/03, 2269/03 are tucking for entrancement of market value at rs. 4,00,000/- per acre whereas the owners-claimants in m.f.a. no. 2343/03 and in m.f.a. no. 2245/03 are seeking enhancement of rs. 4,70,000/- and rs. 6,22,000/- per acre respectively over and above awarded by the reference court by re-determining the correct market value of their acquired land.2. the spl.lao also filed appeals questioning the market value fixed by the reference court in all the above lac references contending that the same is on the higher aide and seeks to set aside the same. both the parties having aggrieved of the judgment and awards have challenged the same urging various grounds in support of the claim and counter claim and prayed to grant the reliefs as prayed in their respective appeals.3. the lands in question were acquired in favour of the 2nd respondent-defense research and development organization (for short 'drdo') for the purpose of establishment of electronic warfare range (for short 'the ewr'). the claimants are the absolute owners of the lands, which were acquired by the state government in exercise of its eminent domain power in favour of d.r.d.o. by publishing throe notifications. insofar as the lands of the owners in mfa. nos. 2237, 2244, 2246, 2266, 2269/2003 and the lands of the owner in mfa. no. 2243/2003 is concerned the preliminary notification under section 4(1) of the mysore land acquisition (extension and amendment) act (hereinafter called as the l.a. act) dated 2/4/1992, in reaped of the land of the owner in mfa. no. 2245/03 the preliminary notification dated 25/5/1993 was published in the gazette on 13/6/1995. the above preliminary notifications were followed by final notifications under section 6(1) of the l.a. act on various dates by declaring the acquisition of lands for the above public purpose. the spl. l.a.o. has passed the common award under section 11 of the l.a act feting the market value at rs. 60,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits as provided under the l.a act. the offer of compensation, awarded in favour of the owners in the common award was not acceptable to the owners as the same was inadequate and does not reflect true market, value of their acquired lands. therefore, references were sought by the owners by filing applications under section 18(1) of the l.a act before the first respondent, he has made the references to the reference court in exercise of his powers under section 18(3)(a) of the l.a act for re-determination of the true market value of the acquired lands. the owner claimed rs. 4 lakhs per acre, now they have sought to enhance the market value as referred to supra by filing amendment application. in all the reference cases the owners have stated that the acquired lands had acquired non-agricultural potentiality and therefore, they are entitled to the market value as claimed by them in their claim petitions, all the land, acquisition claim cases of the owners, were clubbed together at the instance of the parties and common enquiry under section 21 of the l.a act was conducted by the teamed reference judge. on behalf of jibe owners, four of them were examined as pw-.1 to pw-4 in justification of their claim. on behalf at the sflao and drdo two witnesses were examined as dw-1 and dw-2 in justification of the common award passed by the spl. l.a.o. documents produced by the claimants were marked as ex.p-1 to p-43 crawling of sole deeds, certified copies of rtca in respect of the lands in question and judgments and awards passed by the jurisdictional reference court in respect of various similar lands. on behalf of the spl.lao and drdo, ex.d-1 to d-4 were marked viz., the letter written to the owners, inspection report and common award passed by the splao in respect of the lands in question.4 on the basis of the claim and counter claim of the parties, the learned. reference judge has formulated two points for his consideration and determination, which are as follows:(a) whether the claim petitions filed by the owners under section 18 seeking an order to the reference court are within the period prescribed under the provisions of section 18(1) of the l.a. act?(b) whether the compensation awarded by the spl.lao by fixing the market value of the land is justified?(c) if in all the cases whether the owners are entitled for enhanced compensation ?(d) whether the owners are entitled to get interest on the addl. market value claimed by them under section 23(1-a) and further they are entitled to get solatium at the rate of 30% as per section 23(2) and whether they are entitled to get interest on the enhanced compensation amount.(e) what order?5. upon appreciation of the legal evidence brought on record 1by the owners, the above contentious points (a) to (d) are answered by the reference court in the affirmative in favour of the owners by recording its reasons in the impugned common judgment. white answering point no. (c) in the affirmative, the market value of the acquired lands is fixed at rs. 3/- lakhs per acre with, all other consequential statutory benefits under 'the provisions of the l.a act.6. the grounds of the appeals urged in the appeals of the owners are concerned it is contended that tins learned judge of the reference court while recording a finding on the contentious points (b) and (c) together in the impugned judgment at paragraphs 16 to 33 ham ramrod the points in the affirmative, in favour of the owners, but, failed to take into consideration the important sale deed ex.p11 - dated 29/12/1992 executed by m/s. mahalakshmi real estate and investments limited in favour of indo japan software engineering corporation pvt. ltd. in respect of the 3 acres of land bearing sy. no. 147 of bommanahalli village which is comparable to the acquired lands. in that sale deed the sale consideration paid by the purchaser to at rs. 9,00,000.00. further the learned counsel on behalf of the owners placed reliance upon ex. p25 which is the judgment dated 13/8/1998 passed by the reference court in lac. no. 71/92 and connected cases 'by recording the finding of fact in favour of the owners on the aforesaid contentions points, the lands in that case warn acquired for the drdo under prl.notification dt.28/7/1988 and the reference court has determined the market value at rs. 2,48,000/- per acre. by taking into consideration the appreciation value of tine lands at the rate of 10% after 28/7/1988 to 2/4/1092 to 1993 and 1995 the dates of preliminary notification, the market value of the acquired lands works out to rs. 3,41,000/- per acre, which will be more than rs. 3/- lakhs as awarded by the reference court. that has not been done by the reference court.7. further, they have placed reliance upon ex.p4 the certified copy of the sale deed dated 8/4/1993 which in annexed to the judgment passed by the reference court in l.a.c. no. 71/1992 and connected oases marked as ex.p25 covered in these appeals, winch was executed by the chief commissioner of income tax department, bangalore in favour of m/s. hariram hotels pvt. ltd. for a sum of rs. 27,10,000/- for 2 acres 02 guntas of land, which value per acre would be rs. 13,54,000. the learned counsel sri. p. krishnappa, on behalf of some of the appellants contends that no doubt, the said property wan mid in line public auction by the income tax department and the said land is comparable to the acquired lauds on account of their location and also horn the view point of utility. but, both the lands have acquired non-agricultural potentiality. he submits that the lamia covered in ex.p4 m situated in the near proximity to the lands cowered in preliminary notification of the year 1993. if the developmental and conversion charges of the land covered in the above said sale deed is deducted out of the sale consideration amount of rs. 13,54,000/- per acre by applying law of the apex court, this court and the market value of the lands covered in these appeals on the basis of the sale consideration in the sale deed ex.r4, even then the value of the acquired lands would be not less than rs. 9 lakhs or rte.7.70 lakhs per acre. further, he submits that placing strong reliance upon ex.p26 dt.31/3/2000, the judgment in lac.55/95 and connected cases wherein the reference court has awarded a sum of rs. 3,80,200/- per acre in respect of the land acquired under the preliminary notification dated 28/11/1993 if 10% appreciation value for three years, 30% should have been added to rs. 3,80,200 then the market value of the acquired lands will be at rs. 4,94,260/- per acre.8. further, the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon ex.f28, the endorsement dated 14/11/1997 issued by kiadb wherein it is stated that it hum granted compensation at the rate of rs. 12/- lakhs p.a. to the acquired lands situated at hoodi and patttanaduru agrahara which lands were acquired against section 28(4) notification of k.i.a.d.b act dt.26/8/1993 gazetted on 30/8/1993. the said lands are acquired for the purpose of industrial estate and the lands in question are also acquired for public purpose in favour of drdo which is a defence organization. it is contended by the learned counsel that the market value of the acquired lauds in question is fixed by the reference court ignoring the said documentary evidence on record eventhough the lands in question are comparable to those lands covered m the judgments, awards and sate deeds referred to supra. it is further contended that the owners of the acquired lands, at any rate, are entitled for enhanced market value as claimed by them. strong reliance is also placed by them upon the documentary evidence as per exs.p36 and ex.p37 the certified copy of the judgment and award in l.a.c no. 304/1996 dt.20/7/3000 in respect of the lands of pattanadur agrahara village covered against the preliminary notification dated 13/9/1984 wherein the compensation awarded fey the reference court was at rs. 12/- lakhs per acre. if this court takes the said market value fixed by the reference court in the said lac case into consideration the appreciation of value at 10% of the lands in question to fix the market value it would be rs. 31 lakhs per acre. ex.p38 is the judgment in lac. no. 44/1995 dt.19/2/2001 relating to the acquisition proceedings initiated against the preliminary notifies turn dated 13/9/1984, in which rs. 12 lakhs per awe is awarded as the market value by the reference court. therefore learned counsel submits that taking into consideration of the above market value fixed in the said cases the appreciation value to the lands in question at 10% per year the market value of the lands covered in these appeals would be not less than rs. 21/- lakha per acre as those lands are within the proximity of the acquired lands and they possess the same potentiality and advantage, therefore it is submitted that they are also comparable lands to the lands in question.9. the learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance upon the unreported decision division bench of this court in mfa. no. 6781/06 in the case of l.a.o. & the commissioner, bangalore development authority v. h. munireddy and ors. which. appeal was filed against the judgment of the reference court d.d on 28/8/2007 wherein the lands covered in the said case were acquired under the preliminary notification dated 6/4/1992 published in the karnataka gazette for the purpose of formation of outer ring road between varthur road and sarjapur road. the market value fixed in the above case at rs. 3,30,000/- per acre by the lao in. the said case by am award dated. 31/3/1997, which was the subject matter of 18 references before the reference court at the reference of the owners in lac. no. 220/00, the reference court vide its judgment and award dated 30/1/2006, the market value was fixed at rs. 100/- per sq.ft. the same has been modified by this court reducing tie market value at rs. 75/- per sq.ft. in the appeal filed by the b.d.a. the said lands are comparable to the lands covered in these appeals as both the lands are agricultural lands. if the rate fixed by this court in. the above appeal at rs. 75 per sq.ft. is calculated, per acre it works to rs. 35,84,700/- per acre. further, true said lands are situated 21 kms from vidhana soudha whereas the lands covered in these cases are situated between 18 and 20 kms from vidhana soudha both the tends are situated in sub-urban area of bangalore mahanagara palike limits as on the date of publishing the preliminary and final notifications in respect of the lands covered in these appeals and therefore it is contended that they are comparable lands. therefore, he submits that the owners ate justified in seeking enhanced compensation along with all statutory benefits as claimed in the applications filed by the appellants seeking to amend the prayer column of the appeals.10. learned aga mr. umakanthan in the appeals filed by the spl. l.a.o. submits that the market value fixed try the reference court at rs. 3/- lakhs per acre in respect of these lands is on the higher side and contended that the lands in question are banjaru (dry) lands and there were no sale statistics available to the spl. l.a.o either as on the date of publishing the preliminary or the final notifications. therefore, he has contended that the spl. l.r.o is justified in fixing the market value at rs. 60,000/- -per acre in common award passed, by him. in this view of the matter, he has contended that the reference court was not right in comparing the lands covered in the judgments ex.p9 dt.24/7/1996, ex.f25 dt. 13/8/1998 and ex.p26 dt.31/3/2000 for determining; the market value at rs. 3,00,000/- per acre, which amount is on the higher side as the same is not based on legal evidence on record and therefore. spl. l.a.o. filed appeals questioning the correctness of the market value awarded in the common judgment in favour of the owners. further, it is contended by him that the learned reference judge ought to have noticed that the spl.land acquisition officer has classified the lands in question as 'agricultural lands' and accordingly, tie has rightly fixed the market value at rs. 60,000/- per acre. further, he has contended that the finding and reasons recorded by the reference court on the contentious points (b) and (c) in the impugned common judgment that the lands have acquired potentiality for industrial purpose is based on erroneous assumption of facts and evidence on record without there being any material evidence on record an this regard, therefore the findings recorded on the show contentious points are rendered as erroneous. it is not the case of the owners that the lands are either converted or acquired by the state government for the purpose of industrial! estate, hut the same are acquired for the public purpose by the state government in the national interest to establish a research center by the drdo as a measure to provide security to the nation. further, he has contended that the reference judge has placed reliance upon ex.p11 dt.29/12/1992 the sale deed executed by m/s. mahalakshmi real estate & investments pvt. ltd. in favour of indo japan software engineering corporation pvt. ltd. and recorded the finding of tact on the above contentious points holding that the land covered in the sale deed is similar in all respects to the lands in question though in fact it is not so, therefore he has urged that the said finding is erroneous in law. therefore, he has found fault with the determination of the market value of the acquired lands at the above rate by the reference court on the basis of the said safe deed and judgment as not proper and legal and prayed to set-aside the same. further, he sale deed relied upon by the learned reference judge is earlier to the preliminary notifications published in reaped of the lands in question and therefore, the same could not have been taken into consideration by the reference court as the basis for fixing the market value of the acquired lands.11. further, he has placed reliance upon ex.d4 produced by the drdo, which is the sale deed of land of thirumalenahalli village, bidarahalli hobli. the sale consideration amount mentioned in the said document is at rs. 1,70,000/- for 3 acres. 14 guntas. the same is not considered, by the reference court at the time of fading the market value of the acquired lands. it is contended that the reliance placed on the documents produced by the land owner by the reference court is not tenable in law as the lands covered in those documents are not comparable to the lands covered in these appeals. therefore, he has urged that the determination of the market value by the reference court in the impugned judgment is not correct and therefore, it is prayed by the learned aga to set aside the judgment and awards of the reference court.12. the learned a.s.g. mr. aravind kumar on behalf of drdo has sought to support the submissions made by the learned addl. government advocate and further contended that the lands in question are acquired by the state government for the purpose of establishment of electronic warfare center, which is in the national interest and the reliance placed upon sale deed marked as ex.p-11 (dt.29/12/1992), certified copy of the award of the lao, bda. marked as ex.p-9, judgment in lac no. 71/1992 ex.p25, judgment in lac no. 55/1996 ex.f26, the endorsement dt.14/11/1997 issued by the ktadb ex.p28p judgment and award dt20/7/2000 passed in lac no. 204/1996 which are marked as ex.p36 and ex.p-37 and judgment in lac no. 44/1995 dt. 19/2/2001 marked as ex.f38, by the learned counsel for the owners seeking for enhancement of market value of the acquired lands is not tenable both on facts and in law. those documental are in relation to the lands, which had already acquired non-agricultural potentiality at the time of publishing the preliminary and final notifications, whereas the lands in question are dry uncultivated lands and therefore, they dud net acquire non-agricultural potentiality and therefore time same are not comparable to the lands in question and hence the market value of the same should not have been fixed at the above rate by placing reliance upon the above documentary evidence. it is further contended by him that the claimants themselves have claimed the market value for the acquired lands at rs. 4,00,000/- per acre before the reference court and the same is maintained by them by filing appeals before this court against, the common judgment and awards. during pendency of these appeals, belatedly, they have fated amendment applications seeking for enhanced compensation as per in m.f.a nos. 2237/03, 2244/03, 2246/03, 2266/03, 2269/03 enhancement at rs. 4,00,000/- per acre whereas in m.f.a no. 2243/03 and in m.f.a no. 3245/03 for rs. 4,70,000/- and rs. 6,22,000/- over and above rs. 3 lakhs already awarded by the reference court, which claim of them is an afterthought and enhanced compensation sought for in the amended applications cannot be granted by this court in law.13. further, he has strongly placed reliance upon ex.d4 the sale deed, of the land in respect of the same village comparable to the lands covered in these appeals and that the claim of the owners for re-determination of market, value of the acquired lands by this court must be as claimed originally by them in their appeals before the amendment applications filed by them in these appeals. therefore, he has submitted that amendment applications filed in the appeals by the owners at any rate are not maintainable in law, for the reason that the owners consistency have maintained their stand for determination of the market value at rs. 4 lakhs per acre acid as such they are not entitled to over and above that amount, even if this court were to come to the conclusion that in the appeals filed by spl.land acquisition officer not entitled for reduction of market value as prayed in their appeals at any rate, the compensation amount cannot be enhanced in the appeals of the owners, more than rs. 4 lakhs per acre as originally claimed by them in their claim petitions before the reference court and in their appeals.14. learned asg in support of his submission has placed reliance upon the decision of the apex court referred in : air2005sc4189 (r.p. singh v. union of india and ors.) wherein the apex court after interpretation of section 23 of the l.a. act has held that the function of the reference court in determining the amount of compensation under the l.a act is to ascertain the correct and true market value of the acquire land as on the date of section 4(1) notification and the methods of valuation may be (1) opinion, of the experts, (2) the price paid within, a reasonable time in bonafide transaction of purchase of the lands or the lands adjacent to the lands (3) capitalisation method or the potential value being close to the developed or developing areas, proximity to road etc. (emphasis is made by this court). reliance is also placed by him upon another decision reported in : air2005sc3467 (ranvir singh and anr. v. union of india) in support of the proposition of law that determination of the market value of the land applying the rule of escalation of market value on the basis of that the land is situated in the nearby village and acquired land is a semi developed area and therefore, it has got a great potentiality cannot be the criteria for the reference court unless the same is proved by the owners by examining independent witnesses before the reference court. further, he has placed strong reliance upon the decision reported in : [2001]3scr1178 (state of haryana v. ram singh) wherein, the apex court while interpreting section 23 read with section 51a, l.a. act, has held that the determination of the market value on the basis of the certified copy of registered agreement for sale is admissible in the evidence before the reference court without examining the parties to the document. this decision is relied upon by him in support of the contention that ex.d4 is the sale deed in respect of the lands in the same village and of the same period of the date of acquisition of the lands covered in these appeals, which has not been taken into consideration by the reference judge at the time of (sic) the market value. therefore, the market value fixed by the reference court in respect of the lands in question is liable to be set aside. in support of the same legal contention he has placed reliance upon another decision of the apex court reported in : [2001]2scr141 (l.a.o and mandal revenue officer v. v. narasaiah). further, reliance is placed, by him on another decision of the apex court reported in : air2003sc4382 (bhim singh and ors. etc. v. state of haryana and anr.), wherein the apex court after interpreting section 23 of the l.a. act has held that the beat method of determining market value of the acquired land would be to look at the earlier judgment and awards and not the sale instances. in the instant case, none of the documents referred to supra upon which strong reliance placed by the learned counsel for the owners for determination of the market value of the lands covered in those judgments are situated in the near proximity to the acquired lands. therefore, the reliance placed upon the said documentary evidence by the learned judge of the references court to re-determine the market value of the lands in question in the impugned judgment is vitiated on account of the erroneous finding on the above contentious point. therefore, he has prayed to set the market value fixed by the learned judge of the reference court in the impugned judgment and prayed to award just and reasonable compensation in respect of the acquired lands by suitably modifying the impugned judgment.15. he has further submitted that the amendment applications filed in each one of the appeals by the owners seeking for amendment to the prayer column of their appeals seeking to fix the market value at rs. 4,00,000-, rs. 4,70,000 and rs. 6,22,000/- per acre over and above rs. 3 lakhs already awarded by the reference court are mot maintainable in law and as such he has requested this court for rejection of the said applications. further, he has prayed to dismiss the appeals filed by the owners and to allow the appeals filed by the spl. land acquisition officer.16. with reference to the aforesaid rival legal contention urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the following points would arise for our consideration and determination:(1) whether the amendment applications filed in each one of the appeals filed by the owners as maintainable in law and the same can be allowed?(2) whether the appellants/owners are entitled to claim more market value than what is originally claimed before the reference court at rs. 4 lakhs?(3) whether the appellants/owners are entitled for enhanced compensation by re-determining the true market value of the lands covered in these cases, if so, what would be the enhanced market value per acre to be fixed?(4) whether the findings and the reasons recorded by the reference court on the contentious points (b) and (c) framed in the reference cases and fixing the market value at rs. 3 lakhs per acre of the acquired lands in the impugned judgment is erroneous or on the higher side? if it is so, what would be the just and reasonable compensation to be awarded by re-determining the true market value of the lands.(5) what order?17. points 1 and 2 are taken up first and answered together as they are inter-connected with each other and they are answered in the affirmative by assigning the following reasons.18. the concept of awarding compensation under the provisions of l.a act is traceable to article 300-a of the constitution of india which reads thus:article 300-a: persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law: no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of lawthe pre-constitutional law, namely l.a. act, 1894 confers eminent domain power upon the state government to acquire private lands for the public purposes as defined under section 3(f) of the act. the said act has passed the test of article 13(1) of the constitution of india. by constitutional amendment to vii schedule relating to acquisition of private property entry no. 36 from list no. ii was deleted by the parliament and incorporated the same in the concurrent list no. iii at entry no. 42. the respective state legislature, including the karnataka state legislature have amended their respective state l.a. act, suitably in exercise of their legislative powers under article 246(3) of the constitution of india. the lands covered in these appeals are acquired for the above public purpose by the stole government in exercise of its eminent domain power under the provisions of l.a. act in favour of drdo and therefore, the land owners are interested persons under section 10 of the act and therefore they are entitled for just end fair compensation in respect of their acquired lands on the basis of the prevailing market rate prevailing in the locality. the compensation amount must be determined under section 11 of the l.a. act either by line deputy commissioner, officer appointed by the state government or assistant commissioner of a revenue division in respect of the acquired lands on the basis of the market value of other lands situated in the same locality. section 23 of the l.a. act provides for the matters to be considered by them for determining the true market value of the acquired lands and award compensation amount in favour of the land owners. there is an amended section 23 to the l.a. act under section 72 of the karnataka town and country planning act, 1961 (hereinafter called as kt & cp act) the procedure for determining the market value of designated lands under section 69 chapter ix of the kt & cp act is entirely different from that of the original provisions of section 23 of the l.a. act.19. we are not assisted by the learned counsel in these cases as to whether the amended section 23 is attracted or not to the fact situation in these appeals. the same depends upon whether the lands in question at the time of acquisition, were designated by the planning authority for the purpose to which the lands are acquired? whether they are so designated or not, in view of section 72 of kt & cp act amended? section 23 of the l.a. act is applicable to the acquired lands for the reason that the same are acquired by the state government in favour of second respondent for establishment of warfare centre, which conies under the developmental plan an stated under section 72 of kt & cp act. merely because, the claimants-owners had claimed a particular amount in their claim petitions before the reference court and therefore they are disentitled to get more compensation amount on a reference made under section 18 of the l.a. act cannot be accepted by us as the contention urged in this regard by aga and asg in wholly untenable in law. re-determination of market value of the acquired lands should be made by either the deputy commissioner or reference court by following the procedure prescribed under original section 23 or under the amended section 23 to the l.a. act as per section 72 of kt & cp act. therefore, it is necessary for us to extract sub-section (3) of section 11 and amended section 23 under section 72 of the k.t. & c.p. act, which provision reads as follows:sub-section (3) of section 11: the determination of the compensation for any land under sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this act.section 72 of kt & cp act-72. amendment of section 23 was section 24 of the land acquisition act, 1894, for purpose acquisition under this act- when any land is compulsorily acquired for the purposes of a town planning scheme or a development plan under this act-(a) for section 23 of the land acquisition act, 1894, the following shall be substituted, namely,-section 23: matters to be considered in determining compensation: (1) in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land or any interest therein acquired under this act, the court shall take into consideration the following:(1) the market value-(i) in the case of acquisition of the designated land referred to in sub-section (2) of section 69 of the karnataka town and country planning act, 1961 (hereinafter in this section referred to as the said act), on the date the outline development plan is published under sub-section (4) of section 13 or on the date the comprehensive development plan is published under sub-section (4) of section 22, as the case may be, of the said act; and(ii) in the case of acquisition of any land included in a town planning scheme made finder the said act, on the date on which such scheme comes into force under sub-section (2) of section 45 of the said act:provided that if proceedings for acquisition of the land under this act are commenced after a period of two years from the date aforesaid the market value of such land shall be the mine of such land on a date two years immediately preceding the date on which a notification for purposes of acquisition of the land is issued under this act;)(2) use to which the land was put on the date of publication of the declaration under section 6;(3) the damage sustained by the person interested by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time when the possession was taken from him;(4) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at line time of the possession feeing taken from him by reason of severing such land from his other land;(5) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of the possession. being taken from him of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, moveable or immovable, in any other manner or his earnings;(6) if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change.20. the word 'land in the same locality' used in section 11(3) and procedure to be followed both by the deputy commissioner or any other nominated officer by the state government to re-determine the market value of the acquired lands, the provisions of section 23 was amended to l.a act as per section 75 of kt & cp act by the state legislature with a definite object and purpose to see that just and fair compensation should be awarded in favour of the land owners whose lands have been acquired for developmental purpose. either the owner or any interested person claim less amount of compensation for their acquired lands either the lao, reference court or any other court cannot award the same amount in view of the interpretation of article 300-a of the constitution of india by the apex court in the decision reported in 2007(8) scc 708 (chairman, indore vikas pradhikaran v. pure industrial coke & chemicals ltd.) wherein it is held, at paragraphs 53, 54, 55 and at para 59 after relying upon its earlier decisions) reported in : air2005sc3520 (hindustan petroleum corporation ltd. v. darius shapur chenai), : [1967]1scr120 khub chand v. state of rajasthan), : 2003ecr769(sc) (cce v. orient fabrics (p) ltd.), : air2005sc3401 (state of rajasthan v. basant nahata), : air2005sc488 (state of u.p. v. manohar) has held that the constitutional right of the land owners under the above article in respect of the property ins held to be a human right, the relevant paragraphs 53, 54, 55 and 59 are extracted hereunder.53. the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional right but also a human right.54. the declaration of human and civic rights of 26/8/1789 enunciates under article 17:17. since the right to property is inviolable and sacred, no one deprived thereof, unless public necessity, legally ascertained obviously requires it and just and prior indemnity has been paid.further under article 17 of the universal declaration of human rights, 1948 dt. 10/12/1948, adopted in the united nations general assembly resolution it is stated that: (i) everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (ii) no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.55. earlier human rights were existed to the claim of individuals right to health, right to livelihood, right to shelter and employment, etc. but now human rights have started, gaining a multifaceted approach. now property rights are also incorporated within the definition of human rights. even claim of adverse possession has to be read in consonance with human rights. a president john adams (1797-1801) put it:property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.the moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws it god, and that there to not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.59. in hindustan petroleum corporation ltd. v. darius shapur chenai construing section 5-a of the land acquisition act, this court observed: (scc pp.634-35, para 6-7)6. it is not in dispute that section 5-a of the act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose sands are bought to be acquired. having regard to the provisions contained in article 300-a of the constitution, the state in exercise of its power of 'eminent domain' may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation. therefor must be paid.7. indisputably, the definition of public purpose is of wide amplitude and takes within its sweep the acquisition of land for a corporation owner or controlled by the state, as envisaged under sub-clause (iv) of clause (f) of section 3 of the act. but the warms would, not mean that the state is the sole judge therefor and no judicial review shall lie see jilubhai nanbhai khachar v. state of gugarat 1995 suppl (1) scc 596.29. the act is an expropriatory legislation. this court in state of m.p. v. vishnu prasad sharma : [1966]3scr557 observed that in such a case the provision of the statute should be strictly construed as it deprives a person of his land without consent. see also khub chand v. state of rajasthan : [1967]1scr120 and cce v. orient fabrics (2004) 1 ssc 597.there cannot, therefore, be any doubt that in a case of tibia nature due application of mind an the part of the statutory authority was imperative.in state of rajasthan v. basant nahata : air2005sc3401 in absence of any substantive provisions contained in a parliamentary of legislative act, be cannot be refrained from dealing with his property in any manner he likes. such statutory interdict would be opposed to one's right of property as envisaged under article 300-a of the constitution.in state of u.p. v. manohar : air2005sc488 a constitution bench of this court held: (scc p. 129 paras 7-8)7. ours is a constitutional democracy and the rights available to the citizens are declared by the constitution. although article 19(1)(f) was deleted by the forty-fourth amendment to the constitution article 300-a has been placed in the constitution, which reads as follows:300-a. persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law- no person shall be deprived of his property saw by a authority of law.8. this is a case where we find utter lack of legal authority for deprivation of the respondent's property by the appellants who are state authorities.therefore there to statutory requirement on the part of either deputy commissioner, assistant commissioner of the revenue division or reference court to determine the correct market value of the acquired lands on the basis of the value of the lands situated in the locality. if, the owners are entitled for more compensation amount than tine claim made by them in their claim petition in respect of their acquired lands cannot foe put against them at the time of determination of market value. in other words, even if the claim of the owner is for less amount than the real and true market value the owners of the acquired lands are entitled to the true and real market value of the acquired lands as their legitimate entitlement of compensation cannot be denied either by the above. authorities or court. if, an argument as advanced by the respondents' counsel that the owners are not entitled for more compensation than what they have claimed wore the reference court is accepted by us, it would not only defeat the concept of just and fair compensation required to be awarded by the above authorities or court by re-determining the market value and pay the same to the owners on the basis of true market value but also the object of the phrases 'market value of the lands of the locality' used under section 11(3) of the l.a. act as each phrase and word occurred in the statutory provisions of the act are incorporated with a definite (sic) purpose and object to be achieved toy the legislature, therefore the same cannot be ignored at the time of interpretation of the statutory provisions.21. the above said view of us is supported by the decision of the supreme court reported in air 1985 sc 1576 (bhaga singh and ors. union of territory of chandigarh) upon winch strong reliance is rightly placed by the learned counsel sri. p. krishnappa in support of the amendment applications filed by the owners in the appeals of the owners. the relevant paragraph (3) reads thus:3. it must be remembered that this was not a dispute between two private citizens where it would be quite just and legitimate to confine the claimant to the claim made by him and not to award him any higher amount than that claimed though even in such a case there may be situations where an amount higher than that claimed can be awarded to the claimant as for instance where an amount is claimed as due at the foot of an account. here was a claim made by the appellants against the state government for compensation. for acquisition of their land and under the law, the state was bound to pay to the appellants compensation on the basis of the market value of the land acquired and if according to the judgments of the learned single judge and the division bench, the market value of the land acquired was higher than that awarded by the land acquisition. collector or the additional district judge, there is no reason why the appellants should have been denied the benefit of payment of the market value to determined. to deny this benefit to the appellants would be tantamount to permitting the state government to acquire the land of the appellants on payment of less than the true market value. there may be cases where, as for instance, under agrarian reform legislation, the holder of land may, legitimately, as a matter of social justice, with a view to eliminating concentration of land in the hands of a few mid bringing about its equitable distribution, be deprived of the land which in not being personally cultivated by him or which is in excess of the ceiling area with payment of little compensation or no compensation at all, but where land is acquired under the land acquisition act, 1894, it would not be fair and just to deprive the holder of his land without payment of the true market value when the law, in so many terms declares that he shall be paid such market value. the state government must do what is fair and just to the citizen and should not, as far as possible, except in cases where tax or revenue is received or recovered without protest or where the state government would otherwise be irretrievably prejudiced, take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of the citizen. we are, therefore,, of the view that, in the present case, the division bench as well as the learned single judge should haw allowed the appellants to pay up the deficit court-fee and. awarded to them compensation at the higher rate or rates determined by them.(emphasis supplied)22. the observation of the apex court extracted above are referred to by this court in the case of spl. land acquisition officer v. dasappa : ilr2007kar2848 in which similar amendment applications filed by the owners in that case was allowed by this court by following the decision of the apex court in the case of ghaziabad development authority v. anoop singh and anr. reported in : [2003]1scr522 and also another decision of allahabad high court reported in : air2002all94 (ram singh and ors. v. state of u.p.) wherein this court following the above oases has held that the amendment applications filed by the owner cannot be rejected merely because he has restricted vila claim before the reference court and this court at the time of filing appeal, if he is entitled to get more compensation them what ins has originally claimed either before the spl.l.a.o or reference court, or in this court. it is worthwhile to extract paras 4 and 7 of the decision of the apex court in ghaziabad development authority's to supra in support of our view that the owners are entitled to more compensation than what they have claimed, if the court finds that they are entitled to such amount the relevant paras 4 and 7 are extracted hereunder:4. for the purpose of resolving the first question, we may refer to section 25 before and after its amendment as per the original section 25, 'when the applicant had made a claim to compensation pursuant to any notice given under section 9, the amount awarded to him by the court shall not exceed the account so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the collector under section 11 (emphasis supplied). we need not refer to the other two sub-sections. by act 68 of 1984, section 25 was substituted by the new section 25 which reads as follows:the amount of compensation awarded by the court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the collector under section 11.7. as in the above case, in the instant case too, the award was passed by the land acquisition officer and the reference court earlier to the effective dated of substitution of section 25. hence, the limitation on the power of the court to award compensation as enjoined by the promenaded section would be attracted. however, there is a formidable impediment for the appellant to take shelter under the pre-existing section 25. on a petition filed by the claimant, the application dt. 11/7/1967 wherein compensation was claimed at rs. 20 per sq. yard was allowed to be amended by an order of the reference court passed in the year 1983. it is to be noted that by virtue of section 53 of the land acquisition act, the provisions of the code of civil procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the court unless they are inconsistent with anything contained in the act. in the light of this provision, the high court rightly held that there is no bar under the land acquisition act to file a petition for amendment of the claim application in regard to the quantum of compensation claimed as there is no provision in the land acquisition act which is inconsistent with the power lo allow amendment. the effect of allowing the amendment is to substitute the figure of rs. 20 by rs. 100 per square yard. when once this amendment is recognised and taken note of, it is obvious that the bar under section 25 does not get attracted. whether this amendment could have been permitted in the face of the unamended section 25 has not been put in issue before the high court in specific terms. event in the s.l.p. we found, in vain, any ground questioning the order allowing the amendment. no doubt, a party baa right to challenge a non appealable order in an appeal against the decree as laid down in rule 1a of order 43. but, the fact remains that the legality or propriety of the order permitting amendment was neither specifically challenged before the high court prior a specific ground taken that it was contrary to section 25. at this stage, the appellant cannot be permitted to assail the correctness of the order permitting amendment. if that be bo, the first contention baaed on the pre-existing section 25 has to be necessarily rejected.23. for the reasons stated supra, we allow the amendment applications in these appeals by rejecting the objections of the spl.lao and drdo and accordingly we answer the point nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the owners we direct the teamed counsel for the owners to suitably amend the prayer column of their respective appeal.24. point nos. 3 and 4 are answered in favour of the owners and against the spl. land acquisition officer and drdo by aligning the following reasons:(i) except the certified copy of the sale deed of the land situated at shringaripura village marked as ex.d4 dt.16/12/1994 in l.a.c. 263/1996 (m.f.a no. 2037/2003, the sale and of the lands situated in different villages is compared with that of the acquired lands and fixed the market value in the common award passed by land acquisition officer at rs. 60,000/- per acre, neither the l.a.o. nor the drdo made efforts to get the sale statistics of the lands of the village or lands which are situated in the near proximity to this acquired lands from the jurisdictional sub-registrar's office with a view to find out the true and correct market value of the acquired lands of the owners. no doubt, the reference court judge in the impugned judgment has not placed reliance upon ex.d4, while answering the contentions point nos. (b) and (c) framed by him to determine the market value. but he has placed reliance upon the sale deeds and judgments of the reference court in relation to the similar lands situated in the sub-urban area of bangalore city either sold or acquired say the state government for different public purposes a1 the relevant paint of time when the lands in question were aho acquired and recorded the finding of fact on the above contentious points holding that determination of the market value by the spl. land acquisition officer in respect of the acquired lands at rs. 60,000/- per acre is not correct and therefore he has rightly found fault with the same and held that the same does not reflect the true and correct market value of the acquired lands.(ii) further the learned reference judge has rightly relied upon ex.p9 the certified copy of the judgment in lac no. 1/96-97 and ex. p25-the certified copy of another judgment and award passed in lac. no. 71/1992. the learned reference judge has appreciated the legal evidence on record and considered the vary relevant fact, namely that number of industries such as cipla factory, magnesium products, elotra equipments, asiatic industrial cases, bpl, bhuvalka steel, sk, indians daily, bhuvalke trade link, om pharmaceuticals, bengal lamps, ishar footwear, keerthi chemicals, cyberg india, sharavathi steel products, smithkklin beecham, loharo steel, pirnack engineering services, modern rubber industries, grindwell nortan ltd., flexible polymers, charoin bokeband india, peninsula milling ltd., sambavang sriram ltd., integrated logistic, eid parry, profile gears and engineering, godrej agrorvate, unicorn agra ltd. as situated within 1-4 kms distance from the acquired lands. the existence of the above industrial establishment in the near proximity to the acquired lands are not disputed by the respondents counsel in the cross-examination of pw.1 and pw.2 and further it is in the evidence of the owners before the reference court that the said industries have been in existence for the last 30 years prior to the date of publication of the acquisition notifications, to acquire the lands in question, time suggestion put to p.w.1 in the cross-examination dated 3/2/2001 made by the learned counsel on behalf of first respondent that the industries referred to by pw1 at paragraph(9) in his examination-in-chief that the above industrial establishments are situated at a radius of 2 kms from his village, the further suggestion put to pw-1 in his cross-examination by the learned counsel for first respondent is that all the industries referred to above are established subsequent to publishing of preliminary notifications which suggestion is denied by the said witness. the above said positive evidence placed on record by pw-1 must be read along with the suggestion put to d.w. 1-jogaiah in his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the claimants wherein he has stated in his evidence that be has no ideas that the reference court in lac. no. 204/96 and lac. no. 44/95 has awarded compensation at the rate of rs. 12 lakhs per acre in regard to lands acquired at pattanadur agrahara against the preliminary notification dated 13/9/1984.(iii) he has further stated that it might be that the lands, within the limits of sringjaripura, pattanadur agrahara, kondasapura, hoodi, mahadevapura, kaggadasapuna had acquired the potentiality for establishment of industries. his further statement of evidence to that, it might be in all the above villages number of industries have been established long back. the said relevant and positive evidence on record must be read along with the evidence adduced by the witness on behalf of the owners to appreciate the evidence to record the finding of feet that in and around the acquired lards die industrial establishments have been in existence for the last 30 years and therefore the acquired lands have acquired non-agricultural potentiality, hence the market value has to be fixed on the basis that the acquired lands had acquired non-agriculture potentiality, hence they are surrounded by various industrial establishment within 2 kms. in the further cross-examination made by the 2nd respondent's counsel to p.w. 1 on 3/3/2001, he has stated that his village is at a distance of 22 kms. from vidhana soudha by road and the bangalore city corporation limits extends upto battarahalli village, which is on the old madras road and the distance is 12-13 kms. from vidhana soudha. the distance between the said village and the village in respect of which lands are acquired is 6 knw. life village is in bangalore urban district. further, he has stated that the acquired lands are nearer to hal airport and proposed international airport at devanahally. in support of the above fact in the evidence of fw-1 at para-9 tie has stated that industrial establishments referred to above are situated within the near proximity of the acquired land, to substantial his oral testimony he has produced ex.p24 endorsement issued by the jurisdictional village panchayath. the said positive evidence considered and appreciated by us with reference to the lands covered in the judgments ext.p9, p25, p26 passed by the concerned jurisdictional court on the sale deeds of comparable lands tm per ex.p4 and p.11 referred to above. the lands covered in ex.p9 situated at kondadasapura, goravigers, kotam nallur and kaji sonnenahalli, bidrahalli hobli, bangalore east tq. were acquired against the preliminary notification dated 12/12/1991 for the purpose of shifting wholesale steel plant by the bangalore development authority and the market value re-determined by the reference court in respect of that lands is at rs. 6/- lakhs per acre. the determination of the market value of the lands covered under ex.p9 acquired under the preliminary notification dated 12/12/1991 were also situated in the aforesaid direction of the lands. in question and the same are within the proximity of the acquired lands, and within 20 kms. from vidhana soudha, the market value is re-determined at rs. 16.54/- lakhs per acre by the reference court. no doubt, the appreciation value is sought by the owners at 10% for the year 1993 to 1995 in respect of the two preliminary notifications of the land in question, this claim of the owners need not be considered by us.(iv) the documents ex.p9 and ext.p.25 are in rotation to the lands of kondadasapura village, the said lamb were acquired under notification dated 28/7/1988 by the state government in favour of drdo for the same purpose and the amount of market value fixed is rs. 2,48,000/- per acre with all other statutory benefits in which cases, the sale deed executed by the chief commissioner of income tax department in respect of 2 acres 10 guntas of land on 17/2/1992 in favour of m/s. hari ram hotel for rs. 13,21,951 per acre of land bearing sy. no. 54/1 of mahadevapura village, which land in within the proximity of the acquired lands. the owners in these appeals are claiming appreciation value at 10% per acre every year over and above the sale consideration amount and therefore requested to re-determine the market value of the acquired lands as the land covered in the said sale deed is comparable to their lands. further exs.p36 and 37, 29 and 38 are the judgments and awards passed in respect of land bearing sy. no. 119/2 of pattanadur agrahora village and fixed the market value at rs. 12 lakhs per acre. again, it is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the owners that they are comparable lands to the acquired lands having regard to the distance from vidhana soudha and those lands are situated in the sub-urban area of bangalore city. the fact that within two kms. from the acquired lands various industries referred to supra are established and they have been functioning for the last 30 years in the locality is proved on the basis of oral and documentary evidence as per ex.p24 the endorsement issued by the village panchayath secretary, mandur hobli and also the evidence adduced by the witness pw-1 examined on behalf of the owners to justify their claim before the reference court. the above said oral and documentary evidence on record would establish the fact that the lands covered in the said judgments and awards passed by the reference court which documents are referred to above may not be situated within the nearest proximity of the acquired lands, but nonetheless they are comparable to the lands in question from the utility point of view aw the lands covered in those documentary evidence and these lands are acquired for developmental purpose by the state government is also one of the important criteria required to be taken into consideration by this court to come to the right consideration that the acquired lands have acquired non agricultural potentiality and therefore the market value fixed in respect of those lands can be taken into consideration by us to determine the true market value of the lands in question.(v) in this regard, it is worthwhile to make reference to the judgment of the privy council reported in (vyriacherla narayana gajapattiraju v. revenue divisional officer, vizagapatam wherein at page 102 with reference to section 4(1) of the l.a. act certain observations are made which are extracted herein below in jurisdiction of the findings and reasons recorded by the learned reference judge and agricultural lands in support of our conclusion that the land owners are entitled for enhancement of compensation by re-determining the market value by us in the appeals of the owners on the basis of positive legal evidence on record, the relevant portion at page 102 from the above case is extracted hereunder:it is perhaps desirable in this connection to say something about this expression 'the market price'. there is not in general any market for land in the sense in which one speaks of a market for shares or a market for sugar or any like commodity. the value of any such article at any particular time can readily be ascertained by the prices being obtained for similar articles in the market. in the case of lands its value in general can also be measured by a consideration of the prices that have been obtained in. the past for land of similar qualify and in similar positions, and this is what must be meant, in general by 'the market value' in section 23. but sometimes it happens that the land to be valued possesses some unusual, and it may be, unique features as regards its position or its potentialities. in such a case the arbitrator in determining its value will have no market value to guide him, and he will have to ascertain as beat he may from materials before him, what a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser, for the land in that particular position and with those particular potentialities. for it has been established by numerous authorities that the land is not to be valued merely by reference to the use to which it; m being put at the time at which its value has to be determined (that time under the indian act being the date of the notification under section 4(1), but also by reference to the uses to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the future. no authority indeed is required for this proposition. it is a self-evident one.25. in the decision reported in atma singh v. state of haryana reported in air scw 2007 7835 at paragraph 9 the ratio laid down in : air1992sc2298 in the case of bhagwathyula samanna v. spl. tahsildar & l.a.o. is extracted, which is as under:9. ...in fixing the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, generally a deduction is given taking into consideration the expenses required for development of the larger tract to make smaller plots within that area in order to compare with the small plots dealt with under the sale transaction. however, in applying this principle of deduction it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. it is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition which is the only relevant factor. if smaller area within the large tract is already developed and situated in an advantageous position suitable for building purposes and have all amenities such as roads, drainage, electricity, communications etc. then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it in part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified.in the present cases the lands covered by the acquisition are located by the side of the national highway and the southern railway staff quarters with the town planning trust road on the north. the neighbouring areas are already developed ones and houses have been constructed, and the land has potential value for being used as building sites. having found that the land is to he valued only as building sites and having stated the advantageous position in which the land in question lies though forming part of the larger area, the high court should not have applied the principles of deduction. it is not in every case that such deduction is to be allowed. therefore, the high court erred in making a deduction of one third of the value of the comparable sale and thus reducing the fair market value of land from rs. 10 per sq.yard to rs. 6.50 per sq.yard.26. the above judgment has been followed by the supreme court in no. of cases. further in the judgment of the supreme court in the case of bhimsingh v. state of haryana referred to supra upon which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the drdo, the apex court at paragraph 6, after interpretation of section 23 of l.a. act has made an observation that for determination of thus compensation, the best, method would be to look at the earlier judgments and awards and not sale instances, the relevant paragraph 6 of the above decision of the apex court referred to supra is extracted hereunder:6. on behalf of the appellants it was submitted that the high court erred in not taking into account the sale instances which had been brought on record. it was pointed out that the high court had held, in respect of most of the sale instances, that they could not be relied upon as the vendor and/or vendee had not been examined. reliance was placed upon the judgment of this court in the case of land acquisition officer & mandal revenue officer v. v. narasaiah reported in : [2001]2scr141 . in this case reliance was placed upon section 51-a of the land acquisition act and it was held as follows:if the only purpose served by section 51-a is to enable the court to admit the copy of the document in evidence there was no need for a legislative exercise because even otherwise the certified copy of the document could have been admitted in evidence.the state has the burden to prove the market value of the lands acquired by it for which the state may have to depend upon the prices of lands similarly situated which were transacted or sold in the recent past particularly those lands situated in the neighbouring areas. the practice had shown that for the state officials it was a burden to trace out the persons connected with such transactions mentioned in the sale deeds and then to examine them in court for the purpose of proving such transactions. it was in the wake of the aforesaid practical difficulties that the new section 51-a was introduced in the l.a act. when the section says that certified copy of a registered document 'may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document' it enables the court to treat, what is recorded in the document, in respect of the transactions referred to therein, as evidence.the words 'may be accepted as evidence' in the section indicate that there is no compulsion on the court to accept such transaction as evidence, but it is open to the court to treat them as evidence. merely accepting them as evidence does not mean that the court is bound to treat them as reliable evidence. what is sought to be achieved is that the transactions recorded in the documents may be treated as evidence, just like any other evidence, and it is for the court to weigh all the pros and cons to decide whether such transaction can be relied on for understanding the real price of the land concerned.it was submitted that even though the reference court and the high court had not taken the sale instances into account in view of the then prevailing law, this court can and should look into the sale instances to arrive at the compensation, payable. a number of sale documents were shown to this court, it was submitted that if an average of all these sale instances is taken the price would come to over r.500 per square yards. we are unable to accept this submission. in many of the sale instances the price is inclusive of price of the structures standing on the land. even otherwise, when compensation has already been fixed by the high court in earlier proceedings and when in one such proceeding this court has already approved the rate fixed then in our view the best method would be to look at the earlier judgments and awards. therefore the high court, cannot be faulted for having faced compensation on the basis of earlier judgments.27. in view of the observations made in the said case, the ground urged by learned aga on behalf of the spl. land acquisition officer and a.s.g. on behalf of second respondent contending that reliance placed upon the judgments passed by the reference court in respect of the comparable lands and sate deeds is not legal and valid and the approach of the reference court in placing reliance upon the documentary evidence exs.p9, p25, p26 and apply the same to the cases on hand to answer the contentious points (b) and (c) in the impugned judgment in favour of the owners and fixing the market value at rs. 3 lakhs per acre of the acquired land is not justified, this contention is wholly untenable in law. the learned judge of the reference court has rightly applied those judgments and awards to the acquired lands on the premises that they are comparable lands is the conclusion arrived at by him on the basis of proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record and the same is legal and valid for the reason that in and around the acquired lands the industrial establishments referred to supra have been established long back and further the said lands are situated within the sub-urban area of bangalore city within 21 kms. from vidhana soudha and the lands covered in other previous judgments and awards passed by the reference court are rightly compared by it to the acquired lands as they have also got similar advantages and potentiality.28. the said finding are supported by the aforesaid decision of the apex court. the contention urged on behalf of the respondents that reference court has fixed the market value of the acquired lands stating the lands covered in ex.p24, 36, 37 and ex.p9 are situated within the proximity of the acquired lands in not factually correct and therefore the same should not have been applied and accepted by the reference court to the lands in question to re-determine the market value which contention of them in once again in wholly untenable in law and therefore the same is liable to be rejected for the reason that acquired lands need not be compared simply on the basis of their location and proximity but also from the utility point of view having regard to toe distance of the lands to the bangalore city and the same are acquired for developmental purpose by the state government as observed by the privy council and supreme court, oases referred to supra and the decision of the division bench of this court in the cases referred to in the later portion of this judgment. therefore, we hold that the learned reference judge is perfectly justified in applying the judgment and awards of the comparable land referred to supra and the lands in question are acquired for establishment of research center by the d.r.d.o. and they have established the same immediately after the acquisition of lands in question. the fact that the acquired lands were put to immediate use for the construction of the buildings of the center by second respondent would itself amounts to acquiring the lands for non-agricultural purpose as they had acquired potentiality, though they are all agricultural lands.29. in another decision reported in : [1988]2scr1025 (administrator general of west bengal v. collector, varanasi) at para 4 it is laid down as under:4. x x x x x. the determination of market value of a piece of land with potentialities for urban use is an intricate exercise which calls for collection and collation of diverse economic criteria. the market value of a piece of property for purposes of section 23 of the act, is stated to be the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at warms length. the determination of market value, as one author put it, is the prediction of an economic event, viz, the price-outcome of a hypothetical sale, expressed in terms of probabilities. prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual, and indeed the best, evidences of market value. other methods of valuation are resorted to if the evidence of sale of similar lands is not available.30. in the case reported in : [1972]3scr208 smt. (sic) devi v. collector, ranchi the apex court has laid down the law as under:4. the general principles for determining compensation have been set out in sections 23 and 24 of the act. the compensation payable to the owner of the land is the market value which is determined by reference to the price which a seller might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser, but as this may not be possible to ascertain with any amount of precision, the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard. the land acquired has, therefore, to be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of the declaration under section 4 of the act but is potential value also must be taleen into account. the sale deeds of the lands situated in the vicinity and the comparable benefits and advantages which they have, furnish a rough and ready method of computing the market value. this, however, is not the only method...x.x.x.xxx. this court has in sql. l.a.o. bangalore v. t. adinarayana setty : air1959sc429 indicated at page 412 the methods of valuation to be adopted in ascertaining the market value of the land on the date of the notification under section 4(1) which are: (i) opinion of experts, (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bonafide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (iii) a number of years' purchases of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. these methods, however, do not preclude the court from taking any other special circumstances into consideration, the requirement being always to arrive as near as possible at an estimate of the market value. in arriving at a necessary to take even two or all of these methods into account inasmuch as the (sic) valuation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or the potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which that valuation can be accurately determined.31. in air (sic) sc 1652 chimanlal hargovinddas v. spl. l.a.o. wherein at sub-para (13) of 4 the factors to be borne in mind while determining the market value of acquired lands are enumerated.4 (15). the market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it minus factors:(sic) factors:1. smallness of size.2. proximity to a road.3. frontage on a road.4. nearness to developed area.5. regular shape.6. level vis--vis land under acquisition.7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.32. in the division bench decision reported in 2004(3) kar.l.j. (sic) this court after referring to its earlier decision reported in 1992(4) kar.l.j. 428 in the case of (k.s. shivadevamma and ors. v. assistant commissioner and land acquisition officer, davanagere and anr.) and 1995(6) kar.l.j. 686 in the case of alisab (deceased) by lrs. v. assistant commissioner and land acquisition officer, bellary at paras 11 & 12 has laid down the law as hereunder:11. k.s. shivadevamma and ors. assistant commissioner and land acquisition officer, davanagere and anr. 1992(4) 428, a division bench of this court held:it is clear that, if reasonably the land acquired has a potentiality for urban use, said benefit should be extended to it while awarding compensation. lands in the outskirts of an expanding city has every tenancy to become ripe for building use in course of time. court has to make a reasonable exercise to find out the market value by reference to the existing material, unless the material on record is absolutely useless to find out the values of similar lands. it the value of comparable lands, is of small size, appropriate (sic) building layout is imagined to work out the market value of land which may not be in the very locality but, situated in a nearby locality, provided, it is comparable to the acquired land with regard to the potentiality. if the available market rate is of some recent post, appropriate (sic) rate may be applied to estimate the rate as on the date of the preliminary notification. no doubt, the entire exercise by the court would be indirectly guided by the court's own a reasonable value for the land in question, at the relevant point of time.12. this court in alisab (deceased) by lrs. v. assistant commissioner and land acquisition officer, bellary 1995(6) kar.l.j. 686 dealing with factors to be considered in determining the compensation and (sic) of fixing fair compensation observed thus:it is the onus of the state acting through the land acquisition officer to fix the fair compensation in the first instance. though the law assumes that the land acquisition officer will act correctly, the law also makes provision for revision of the figure awarded, by the court, and experience has shown that in almost every case, the courts had even required to intervene by stopping up the compensation. it is true that if the original awarded amount is disputed that the must lies on the claimant and that on such basic issues as the question as to haw must grain or other agricultural in as particular year is concerned, that is the landowner who is the best person to testify. if one were to take not of the fact that for purposes of obtaining some more money that there would be a natural tendency to (sec), a court will go by the (sic) standards and figures and as far as these are concerned, if independent evidence is not forthcoming then some reliance of a considerable degree will have to be placed on the figures which the state comes out with.therefore, we have to affirm the findings and reasons recorded by the learned reference judge on the contentious points (b) and (c) in the impugned judgment.33. since the market value of the acquired lands is not properly fixed by the reference court by appreciating the legal evidence on record and applying the judgments and sale deeds referred to supra with regard to the lands covered therein as they are comparable to the acquired lands. therefore the claim made by the owners in these appeals is justifiable in law. the reference court has not taken the guidance from the sale deeds at those judgments to re-determine the market value of the acquired lands, therefore, we are of the view that the market value fixed at rs. 3 lakhs by it to the acquired lands is not true and correct market value. for the foregoing reasons we have to answer the point nos. 3 and 4 in favour of the owners holding that they are entitled for the enhanced compensation by re-determining the market value of the acquired lands.34. the next question for our consideration is what would be the true and correct market value of the acquired lands is required to be re-determined by us to award just and fair compensation in favour of the owners. in our considered view, having regard to the nature of the lands and their proximity to bangalore city and the lands having acquired non-agricultural potentiality as they are surrounded by the industries and which are within nearest proximity situated within 5kms distance to bangalore-madras n.h. 4 and which ware within 21 kms distance from vidhana soudha, though the lands in question at the time of acquisition in the year 1992-93 and 1994-95 were agricultural lands the above undisputed facts and legal evidence on record has weighed in our mind to fix the true and correct market value of the lands in question. the other factors such as that these lands are close to the international airport at (sic) may be the subsequent event, still it may be relevant factor for the reason that in and around the acquired lands the developmental projects are implemented by both union and state governments and therefore the said fact also should be taken into consideration by us keeping in view that those lands were designated lands for developmental plan under section 69 of the kt & cp act. the fast development of the lands in the sub urban area of bangalore city is also one more relevant consideration for us to enhance the compensation, we have taken over all factors and legal evidence, particularly the judgments and awards in respect of similarly placed lands and sale deeds of similar comparable lands. therefore, we feel that it is just and proper to fix the market value at rs. 7 lakhs per acre with all (sic) benefits as provided under the provisions of l.a. act and cost of these proceedings in respect of the acquired lands covered in these appeals.35. accordingly, points 3 and 4 answered in favour of the claimants/appellants.on point 5, we pass the following:order(i) the appeals of the land owners are allowed with proportionate costs in part by fixing the market value at rs. 7/- lakhs (seven lakhs) per acre with all other statutory benefits. the judgment and award of reference court are accordingly modified.(ii) the land owners are directed to pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation within eight weeks from today.(iii) the appeals of the land acquisition officer are dismissed.