PRINTERS HOUSE PVT. LTD. versus MST. SAIDAN(DECEASED) BY L.R.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 296 · Decided: 14-10-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
PRINTERS HOUSE PVT. LTD. ETC.ETC. 
v. 
1 MST. SAIADAN (DECEASED) BY L.RS. AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
OCTOBER 14, 1993 
[J.S. VERMA, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23 (1}-Principles of valuation of 
land acquired-Acquisition of plots of lands with dissimilar features-Deter-
C mination of market value at unif onn rate per unit measure-Whether legally 
sustainable-Held, Na-Adoption of Comparable Sales Method-Method of 
Averaging market value fetched for different lands under sale deed and pre-
vious awards-Not a correct method of valuation-Court to choose that sale 
or award which closely or nearly compares with plot of land acquired. 
D 
Several plots of land with differing salient features, belonging to 
different persons needed by appellant company, to set up its factory for 
the manufacture of printing machinery were acquired by preliminary 
notification u/s 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition 
Officer determined the market value of certain acquired lands at the rate 
of Rs. 3,600 per acre and other acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 1,600 per 
E acre. Since the claimants did not accept the said award, they made applica-
tions u/s 18 for referring their cases to the Civil Court for grant of higher 
amounts of compensation for their acquired lands. The Reference court 
made a common award and separate decrees. The claimants as well as the 
State, dissatisfied with the common award and separate decrees of the 
F - Reference Court, preferred appeals in the High Court. The appeals before 
the High Court were heard by a Division Bench. As the said Judge 
rendered differing judgments on the amount of compensation awardable 
to the claimants, the appeals were placed before a third Judge. That judge 
determined the market value of almost all the acquired lands at an 
G uniform rate. The appeals of the claimants were partly allowed and the 
appeals of the State were dismissed. The State did not prefer any appeals 
against the said judgment. The Company for whose benefit the lands were 
acquired, filed civil appeals. The claimants also filed appeals against the 
judgment of the High Court. 
H 
The points which arose for colllsideration were : 
296 
1>• 
·' I 
\ 
\ 
PRINTERS v. SAIY ADAN 
297 
1. Did the High Court apply the correct principle of valuation of · A 
land, in proceeding to determine the market value of separate plots of 
acquired lands of the three claimants, with differing features at an uniform 
rate per unit measure ? 
2. Did the High Court apply the correct principle of valuation of land 
in determining the market value of the acquired plots of land by fixing B 
their unit rate by averaging the market value fetched for different lands 
under- sale deed and previous awards? 
Disposing of the matter, thi~ Court 
HELD 1.1. Where the acquired plots of land belong to different C 
persons and do not have similar feature they should not be treated as a 
single unit for awarding a uniform rate of market value. Where there is 
evidence of sales or awards of land(s), which could be compared with the 
acquired land(s), the court, as a matter of course adopts the 'Comparable 
Sales method of Valuation of land', in preference to other recognised D 
methods of valuation of lands for determining the market value of the 
acquired land. This method generally holds good for determination of the 
market value of several acquired plots of land if acquisition of all such plots 
of land is made pursuant to the same notification. But, if any of the factors, 
such as, location, shape, size, potentiality of tenure of one plot of acquired E 
land wide'· . differs from the other plot(s) of acquired land(s), then the 
market value of each plot of land acquired has to be determined inde-
pendently of the other (s) even if all of them had been acquired }.mrsuant to 
the same preliminary Notification since the differential factors relating to 
different acquired plot greatly affect their value. [311-G-H, 304-bJ 
1.2. The market value of the acquired land when is determined by 
adoption of the 'comparable Sales Method' the same has to be done with 
reference to the price fetched in a sale or market value given in an award, 
F 
as the case mr.y be, of a land which is closest or nearest to the acquired 
land and not with reference to average price fetched by several comparable G 
sale deeds or awards of different types of lands. Where there are several 
comparable sales or awards
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.