P.K. Mohanti, Actg. C.J.
1. This appeal arises out of a reference under S, 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. An extent of 6.09 acres of land appertaining to plots Nos. 692 and 693 under holding No. 23 in mouza Kalamati was acquired by Government for the State Live Stock Breeding Farm. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 23-1-1964 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 22-9-1964. The compensation awarded by the Collector was a sum of Rs. 929.72 Paise only. On an application by the respondent the necessary reference under Section 18 of the Act was made to the Civil Court. The respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre which according to him was the prevailing market value of the land in question. The learned Subordinate Judge awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per acre.additional compensation at the rate of 15 per cent of the total amount of compensation, and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. Aggrieved by this decision, the State Government has preferred this appeal.
3. According to Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, compensation has to be awarded on the basis of the market value prevalent on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the said market rate must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. In ascertaining the market rate, the Court can rely upon such transactions which would afford a guide to fix the price. Price paid for a land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of acquisition of the land in question would certainly be the best piece of evidence and the price paid for a land possessing advantages similar to those of the land acquired in or about the time of notification will also supply the data for assessment of compensation--vide Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 580.
4. In the present case, the respondent produced some certified copies of sale-deeds dated 5-12-69, 25-7-64, 20-7-59 and 20-7-54--vide Exts. 2 to 5. The transactions under these sale deeds not having been made within a reasonable proximity of the time of the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the learned Subordinate Judge rightly held that they would not afford a safe guide for determination of the market value. The State Government produced some sale deeds of the year 1963 and 1964 (Exts. C to G), but no oral evidence was adduced to show that the lands involved in those sale deeds were similar in quality of the lands in question with similar advantages. The learned Subordinate Judge, therefore, held that those sale deeds were not helpful in fixing the market value of the lands under acquisition. The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the sale deeds produced on their side did not afford a safe guide for determination of the market value has not been assailed before us.
5. In assessing the compensation, the learned Subordinate Judge relied on two previous decisions of his Court (Exts. 1 and 6) passed in land acquisition reference cases determining compensation ofthe lands which had been compulsorily acquired for the same public purpose of construction of the State Lave Stock Breeding Farm. The learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State contended that in the absence of any material to show that the previous decisions relate to lands similarly situated, the learned Subordinate Judge should not have made use of the same in assessing the compensation.
6. It is not disputed that out of the acquired lands 5.46 acres are Ata lands and 0.63 acre is Mal lands. Ext. 1 is a judgment passed in Misc. Case No. 45 of 1977 relating to Ata lands and Mal lands which had been acquired by the State Government for the same public purpose of State Live Stock Breeding Farm under the same notification. In that case the learned Subordinate Judge awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-per acre for Mal lands and at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per acre for Ata lands. Similarly Ext. 6 is a judgment in Misc. Case No. 14 of 1948 relating to Mal lands and had been acquired for the same public purpose of construction of the State Live Stock Breeding Farm under the same notification and compensation had been awarded at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per acre for such lands. Exts. 1 and 6 being the judicial determinations of market value of similar lands in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands furnish a good guide in determining the market price of, the acquired lands. In the case of Khajo Fizuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1963 SC (Notes) 177, page 101 their Lordships of the Supreme Court held previous decisions to be relevant if they relate to similarly situated properties and contain the determinations of value of dates fairly proximate to the relevant date in a case. This decision was followed in a later decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore v. H. Narayannaiah, AIR 1976 SC 2403. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court has also been followed by this Court in the case of Chintamani Sahu v. Collector, Cuttack, (1975) 2 Cut WR 842: (AIR 1976 Orissa 76).
The previous judgments--Exts. 1 and 6--are relevant in the present case, under Section 11 of the Evidence Act, for showing that the rates of Rs. 3,000/-per acre for Mal lands and Rs. 2,000/-per acre for Ata lands, allowed in thosecases, would be highly probable rates in the present case, as the lands acquired in those cases and in the present case were similarly situated and were acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose.
7. In the present case, the respondent also gave evidence in Court that his lands are close to the National Highway and adjoin the Goshala crossing where there is a Busti and that a weekly market sits within the Goshala crossing. This evidence was not challenged by cross-examination.
8. On the basis of the judicial determinations of market value in the previous judgments (Exts. 1 and 6) and the evidence of the respondent, he would have been entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per acre for the Mal lands. But in view of the fact that he had claimed before the Collector compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per acre for both the Ata and Mal lands he could not get more than that. Section 25(1) of the Act provides that where the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under Section 8, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. This Section debars a claimant from getting more than what he claimed before the Collector.
9. As a result of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed with costs G.B.