1. This is an appeal against the order passed under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act by the First Additional District Judge, Nagpur.
2. Admittedly, 27,66 acres out of khasra Nos. 62, 63, 68, 69 and 72 in Manewada village belonging to the appellant Yeshwantrao had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by a notification dated 9-6-48, The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 550/-per aero, but not being satisfied with this amount the appellant made an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for a reference to the District Court. In his award the First Additional District Judge. Nagpur, confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Officer with a slight modification. In the present appeal it is contended that the learned Additional District Judge erred in confirming Rs. 550/- per acre as the valuation of the land. This is the only point urged in appeal, but various grounds were urged in support of tin's contention.
3. It is urged that the village of Manewada is adjacent to the village of Babhulkheda where building activities have been going on, that for purposes of compensation the value of the lands in Babhulkheda should have been adopted as basis it the present case, that the land acquired has potentialities as building site, and that even as agricultural land it is far superior to the adjacent lands. It is conceded that the appellant has not adduced evidence of any sales in Manewada village, but thecontention is that the compensation awarded for the lands in Babhulkheda village should have been taken as the basis for compensation for the acquisition of lands in Manewada village. We reject all these contentions of the appellant for the following reasons.
4. The appellant himself has not gone into the witness-box. He examined three witnesses Dajirao (A. W. 1), Shri Nerikar (A. W. 2) and Maroti (A. V. 3). None of these witnesses has deposed about the alleged potentialities of lands in Manewada village lor building purposes. The lands in question were acquired in 1948 and the witnesses of the appellant gave evidence in November 1953. In 1952 none of these witnesses has spoken of any building activity in Manewada village. If in 1948 the lands acquired from Manewada village had any potentiality for building purposes, the witnesses could have given evidence of building activities in 1948 or at least in the next three or four years, but admittedly there is no evidence of any sites having been purchased in Manewada between 1948 and 1952 as building site.
5. If a land has potentiality as building site, the market makes allowance for it, and naturally the market value of the land rises accordingly. The market takes note of any possibilities for building purposes or for Other purposes. Under the Land Acquisition Act the market value has to be determined for purposes of compensation. This market value itself includes estimates by the market of speculative advances in the values of lands in consequence ot improvements, already made in the locality or in consequence of potentialities for any purposes. The market even in villages, takes into account the use already made of similar lands in the locality and the probable most advantageous use similar lands arc capable of being put to. It is not for the Court to speculate as to the future potentialities of sites or lands. The Court has only to consider the market value on the relevant date. If the land has future potentialities, the market value includes the value of such future potentialities. As laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Secy, of State tor Foreign Affairs v. Charlesworth Pilling and Co., 28 Ind App 121.
'A claimant is entitled to the market value ol his land, including such actual speculative advance therein as had already taken place in consequence of improvements in the locality, but excluding any future speculative advance from a like cause.'
6. In the present case it is admitted that during the year of acquisition and also during the next three or four years there had been no sales of land in Manewada village. This amounts to a clear admission that there was no speculative advance in the value of lands in Manewada village. As already observed, the appellant himself has not entered the witness-box and none of his witnesses has spoken ot the alleged potentialities of lands in the village. The learned Additional District Judge was therefore right in excluding from consideration any future speculative advance in the market value, and in confining his attention to the market value of the land for purposes of agriculture.
7. No doubt there is evidence that the land acquired is superior to other lands in the locality.
There is the evidence of Bajirao (A. W. 1), the servant of the applicant, that the appellant's land is better in quality. To the same effect is the evidence of Shri Nerikar (A. W. 2) who was an Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture, and who had inspected the land in question. According to him, the soil of the appellant's land could be classified as 'morand No. 2. The third witness Maroti (A. W. 3) has also deposed that the appellant's land is better in quality than his own. But this witness has given an estimate of the value of the appellant's land as Rs. 2000/- per acre. He has not given any reasons in support of his estimate. He has admitted in cross-examination that about four years ago a land of Mr. Limso of Manewada had been sold but he does not know the price at winch it was sold. If the appellant's case was true, he should have produced evidence regarding the sale of Linse's land in Manewada. This witness Maroti has also admitted that fields of 25 acres of one Ghatate had been sold about two years ago for Rs. 8500/-, which works out at Rs. 340/- per acre. Even Bajirao (A. W. 1) who is the servant of the appellant has admitted in his examination-in-chief that the value of the appellant's land 'four years ago was Rs. 400/-to Rs. 500/- per acre and that the value of Maroti's adjoining land was Rs. 300A to Rs. 3257- per acre'.
8. In view of the fact that the appellant himself has not given any testimony and that his own servant has estimated the value of the land acquired-of Rs. 400/- to Rs 500/- per acre, we see no reason to hold that the learned Additional District Judge erred in confirming the award awarding compensation at Rs. 550/- per acre.
9. No other point has been urged.
10. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.
11. Appeal dismissed.