Summary
The State challenged enhancement of land-acquisition compensation to Rs.40 lakh per acre based on a later consent award. The Court held that the High Court had used an unsuitable comparator without examining the circumstances of consent, the three-year difference or similarity of location and development potential. It set aside the enhancement and remanded both first appeals for valuation on the other evidence, excluding that award, within three months of receipt of the order.
Issues
- Whether a subsequent consent award justified the enhanced compensation.
- What assessment was required before treating other acquired land as comparable.
Held
- The comparator concerned acquisition three years later for a different purpose. It could not mechanically supply the market value for the earlier acquisition through unexplained guesswork. (¶ 4)
- A consent award reflects the circumstances in which the parties accepted a particular rate, potentially including urgency. It could not serve as the basis for valuation in this other acquisition, particularly when other evidence was available. (¶ 5)
- Similarity must be examined rather than assumed from proximity or the same village. Location, access to a highway and development potential may materially affect market value. (¶ 6)
- Both first appeals required fresh determination on the other available material. The consent award marked Ex.P.17 was specifically excluded as an unsuitable comparator; the Court did not fix a substitute compensation rate. (¶ 7-7.1)
Result
Appeals allowed to the stated extent without costs. The High Court judgment was set aside and both first appeals remanded for fresh valuation on evidence other than Ex.P.17, to conclude within three months of receipt of the order.