Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Omprakash on 3 February, 2026
1 FA-39-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 3 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
FIRST APPEAL No. 50 of 2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
DEVISINGH
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the
State.
Shri Somesh Gobhuj, learned counsel for the respondent.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 37 of 2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
OMPRAKASH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Somesh Gobhuj, learned counsel for the respondent(s).
FIRST APPEAL No. 38 of 2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
RAMBABU AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Somesh Gobhuj, learned counsel for the respondent(s).
FIRST APPEAL No. 39 of 2015
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-02-2026
10:18:17
2 FA-39-2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
OMPRAKASH
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Somesh Gobhuj, learned counsel for the respondent.
FIRST APPEAL No. 40 of 2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
MANOHARLAL
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Somesh Gobhuj, learned counsel for the respondent.
FIRST APPEAL No. 41 of 2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DHARMENDRA THR. SAVITRIBAI
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Somesh Gobhuj, learned counsel for the respondent.
FIRST APPEAL No. 42 of 2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
SHIVPRASAD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Somesh Gobhuj, learned counsel for the respondent(s).
FIRST APPEAL No. 43 of 2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHIVNARAYAN
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-02-2026
10:18:17
3 FA-39-2015
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Somesh Gobhuj, learned counsel for the respondent.
FIRST APPEAL No. 44 of 2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SATYNARAYAN
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Somesh Gobhuj, learned counsel for the respondent.
FIRST APPEAL No. 45 of 2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
AMBARAM
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Somesh Gobhuj, learned counsel for the respondent.
FIRST APPEAL No. 46 of 2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DINESH
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Somesh Gobhuj, learned counsel for the respondent.
FIRST APPEAL No. 47 of 2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SURESH
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-02-2026
10:18:17
4 FA-39-2015
Shri Somesh Gobhuj, learned counsel for the respondent.
FIRST APPEAL No. 48 of 2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
AATMARAM AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Somesh Gobhuj, learned counsel for the respondent(s).
FIRST APPEAL No. 49 of 2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MAKHANSINGH
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Somesh Gobhuj, learned counsel for the respondent.
FIRST APPEAL No. 63 of 2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
CHHAGANLAL
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Somesh Gobhuj, learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
Looking to the similarity of the dispute involved in the present bunch
of appeals, they are being decided by this common order for the sake of
convenience. The facts of the first appeal No.50/2015 are being referred to.
1.1 The State has filed these appeals under the provisions of Section
54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 being aggrieved by the award dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-02-2026
10:18:17
5 FA-39-2015
17.02.2014 passed by the Reference Court in proceedings under Section 18
of the said Act.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the land belonging to
respondent Devi Singh was situated in Survey No.1315, admeasuring 0.40
Aare, and Survey No.1320, admeasuring 1.15 Aare, totaling 1.55 Aare,
located at Village Makodi, Tehsil Gulana, District Sajapur (M.P.).
2.1 The State Government under the Makodi Talab submergence area
project, issued notification in terms of Section 4(1) thereby issuing
preliminary notification under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
thereby declaring urgency for the acquisition of land on 11.12.2009.
Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the said Act was issued on
14.05.2010 declaring that the land was required for public purpose.
2.2 The aforesaid land of the respondent was also acquired for the said
project after following the due procedure. An award was passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer on 30.11.2010, determining the rate at Rs.2,77,000/- per
hectare for irrigated land and Rs.1,67,000/- per hectare for unirrigated land.
Based on this calculation, compensation of Rs.7,18,068/- was awarded to the
respondent Devi Singh. Being aggrieved by the said award, he filed
application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2.3 The respondent before the reference Court in proceedings under
Section 18 demonstrated by placing on record sale deed (Ex.P-2) executed
on 31.03.2009 that the value of the land was substantially higher than the
value assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award dated
30.11.2010 (Ex.P-1).
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-02-2026
10:18:17
6 FA-39-2015
2.4 In support of his submissions, respondent No.1 examined himself
as PW-1 and also examined one Ishwar as PW-2. Through their evidence, it
was demonstrated that 0.31 Aare of land was purchased by the said Ishwar
on 31.03.2009 for a sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- in Village Makodi
itself.
3. The State sought to rebut the said claim by examining one Jugal
Kishore Choudhary Patwari who deposed in Para 2 of his cross examination
that Village Makodi is inhibited in area of around 2-3 km. However, nothing
substantial was stated by him with respect to the sale deed placed on record
by the respondent (Ex.P-2) so as to establish that the said land was not
situated near the land of the respondent, which was acquired by the State.
The land purchased vide Ex.P-2 is situated in survey Nos.822 and 823 of
village Makodi, whereas the land acquired by the State from the respondent
is situated in survey No.1315 of the said village.
3.1 The reference Court had framed as many as 8 issues out of which
issue No.2 is relevant for the purposes of the present appeals. The said issue
pertains to the determination of the market value of the acquired land. After
considering the evidence led by both the parties, the Reference Court
recorded its findings in Paras 7 to 12 of the impugned award. The reference
Court found that the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation on
the basis of the guidelines for the year 2009-10, the basis for determining the
market value was the said guideline. However, in para 8, the Reference Court
specifically recorded that the sale deed (Ex.P-2) was executed on 31.03.2009,
whereas the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-02-2026
10:18:17
7 FA-39-2015
on 11.12.2009. Thus, the sale deed Ex.P-2 was executed much prior to the
issuance of the notification.
3.2 Thus, the Court after relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex
Court as well as orders passed by this Court concluded in Para 10 that as per
Ex.P-2 the market value of the acquired land ought to be Rs.9,67,741/- per
hectare for irrigated land and Rs.4,83,871/- per hectare for unirrigated land.
As such, the award dated 17.02.2014 was modified and the amount of the
compensation was directed to be enhanced. Being aggrieved by the said
award, the appellant / State has come before this Court in the instant appeal.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the State is that the
Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the land acquired
on the basis of guidelines of the year 2009-10 which according to the learned
counsel was not only appropriate but also the only correct method available
for determination of the market value of the land. It is further submitted that
since the preliminary notification in terms of Section 4(1) of the Act was
issued on 11.12.2009, the guidelines for the year 2009-10 were taken into
consideration.
4.1 The reference Court erred in relying on the sale deed on the
ground that it was a singular document placed on record and on the basis of a
single sale deed, the Court could not have enhanced the compensation.
5 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the
impugned award and stated that it is settled position of law that highest bona
fide exemplar has to be taken into consideration for determining the
compensation. He further submits that in the present case, neither before the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-02-2026
10:18:17
8 FA-39-2015
Reference Court nor before this Court was the State able to establish any
strong circumstances to indicate that the sale deed produced by the
respondent was not reliable or that it could not form a valid basis for
determining the market value of the acquired land.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Under the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the purpose of
determining adequate compensation on account of acquisition of landowner’s
land, the matters to be considered include the market value of the land as on
the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act
along with the other parameters contained in Section 23 thereof. Section 23
of the said Act provides as under :
“23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation
( 1 ) In determining the amount of compensation to be
awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take
into consideration
first, the market value of the land at the date of the
publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-section
( 1 ) ] [Substituted by Act 38 of 1923, Section 7, for
“declaration relating thereto under section 6“.];
secondly, 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 of the Collectors taking possession
thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person
interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession of
the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person
interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession of
the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his
other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner,
or his earnings;
fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-02-2026
10:18:17
9 FA-39-2015
the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change
his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if
any) incidental to such change; and
sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from
diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the
publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of
the Collectors taking possession of the land.
[(1-A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above
provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount
calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on
such market value for the period commencing on and from
the date of the publication of the notification under section 4,
sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the
award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the
land, whichever is earlier.
Explanation. In computing the period referred to in this sub-
section, any period or periods during which the proceedings
for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any
stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be
excluded.] [Inserted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 15 (w.e.f.
24.9.1984).]
( 2 ) In addition to the market value of the land as above
provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of [thirty
per centum] [Substituted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 15, for ”
fifteen per centum” (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).] on such market
value, in consideration of compulsory nature of the
acquisition.”
8. This Court while considering the provisions of Section 23 has held
in the case of Sitabai Vs. State of M.P. and Another in ILR (2009) MP 843
in paras 12 to 14 as under :
12. The determination of the compensation by the Reference
Court by averaging the price which was recorded in the
office of Registrar in the sale and purchase register prior to 3
years of the date of notification for arriving the market value
of the acquired land cannot be accepted more particularly
when the Sale-deeds Exs.P/6 and P/7 were available before it.
“13. In the present case, the appellant examined village
Patwari Phoolsingh (PW-1), Rameshwar (PW-2), Ashok
Kumar (PW-3) and Sawarmal (PW-4). (PW-3) and (PW-4)
are the purchasers of lands vide Sale-deeds Exs. P/6 and P/7.
They have proved the Sale-deeds Exs. P/6 and P/7 executedSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-02-2026
10:18:17
10 FA-39-2015
on 31.03.1989 and 30.03.1989, respectively. Sale-deed
Ex.P/7 demonstrate the market value of per Hectare of land
at village Banbana to be Rs.35,365/-. Ex.P/6 is the Sale-deed
of 31.03.1989 according to which the market value per
Hectare of the land at village Banbana is Rs.47,337/-.
Applying the ratio of Supreme Court market price of the
higher of the Sale-deeds has to be taken which is market
price as per the Sale-deed Ex.P/6 in respect of the land which
is for Rs.47,337/- per Hectare.
14. The Sale-deed Ex.P/6 is of 1 year 6 months and 12 days
prior to the date of notification. The appreciation of the
market value to the extent of 15% per year of the land in
between the period of execution of the Sale-deed Ex.P/6 and
the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, having
regard to the fact that it is situated near Nagda an industrial
town, near the Ujjain-Nagda Highway in the light of the
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Krishi Utpadan
Mandi Samiti Sahaswan, District Badaun Vs. Bipin Kumar
and another (supra) can be accepted as rate of increase of the
price of the land from the date of sale-deed to the date of
notification. Thus, taking into consideration sale-deed Ex.P/6
by which on 31.03.1989 the market value of land was
Rs.47,337/- per Hectare and adding 15% per annum as
appreciation of the rate of the land for 1 year 6 months and
12 days the market value of acquired land of Banbana comes
to Rs.47,337 + Rs.10,888/- = Rs.58225/- per Hectare.”
8.1 Similarly in the case of State of M.P. and Anr. Vs. Ramlal in ILR
(2016) MP 1456, the Court while considering the provisions of Section 23 of
the Act has held in Paras 11 and 12 as under:
“11. When there are several exemplars with reference to the
similar land, then as a general rule, highest of the exemplar
has to be considered and accepted if it represents bona-fide
transaction. Where sale deeds pertaining to different
transaction are relied upon, the transaction representing the
highest value is required to be preferred as against others
unless there are strong circumstances for taking a different
course. In a series of judgments, now it has been settled that
the averaging of various sale deeds for fixing the fair
compensation is not the proper course of action. (See
Meharwal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and others
Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 5 SCC 432, Anjani
Molu Desai Vs. State of Goa and others (2010)13 SCC 710,
Bakhtavarsingh Vs. Union of India (1995)2 SCC 495, Sitabai
and Others Vs. State of MP and others 2010(1) MANISHA
33(MP), judgment of this Court dated 30/1/2009 in FA No,
542/2002 Kailash Chandra Vs. Executive Engineer andSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-02-2026
10:18:17
11 FA-39-2015
another and the judgment of this court dated 12/1/2015 in FA
No.901/2008 Hiralal (dead) through L.Rs Vs. State of MP
and connected appeals.
12. It is also settled that for determining the market value of
larger area, the sale deed of smaller area can also be
considered if there is no other cogent material available, but
while relying on the sale deed for a smaller area, a suitable
percentage is to be deducted for determining the market value
of the larger area. See Ahsanul Hoda Vs. State of Bihar AIR
2013 SC 3463, Ravinder Narain and another Vs. Union of
India (2003)4 SCC 481 and Aatmasingh (Dead) through L.Rs
Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2008 SC 709, the judgment of this
Court dated 9/11/2001 passed in FA No.360/2000 in the
matter of Laxminarayan deceased through L.Rs and others
Vs. Union of India as also the judgment dated 19th
December, 2014 in FA No.497/2012 in the matter of
Subhash Vs. State of MP and another and connected bunch
of appeals.”
9. It is thus clear that this Court has repeatedly held that the sale deed
showing the market price of land situated in close proximity and executed
just prior to the acquisition are to be relied and that compensation should be
determined on the basis of the highest price bona fide sale exemplar. It has
further been held that it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to
determine proper compensation and that transactions reflecting the highest
value are required to be preferred unless strong circumstances exist for
adopting different course.
10. In the present case, no such strong circumstances have even been
pleaded, let alone proved by the State Government.
11. The State Government has also not been able to establish that the
land purchased under the sale deed (Ex. P-2) was not situated in close
proximity of the land acquired by the State Government.
12. The aspect of determination of compensation on the basis of
market value in terms of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act has also
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-02-2026
10:18:17
12 FA-39-2015
been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases. In the case of
Chindha Fakira Patil vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer in (2011) 10 SCC
787, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in paras 14 to 21 as under :
“14. In our view, the approach adopted by the High Court
was clearly erroneous. There is no basis for the assumption
that the purchaser of the land must have offered higher price
for special reasons. Exhibit 28 was proved by Shri Arjun
Sukdeo Patil, who had appeared as witness on behalf of the
appellants. It was open to the counsel for the respondent to
cross-examine the witness and elicit the special reasons, if
any, for sale of land allegedly at a higher price. However, the
fact of the matter is that no such question was put to the
witness.
15. As a matter of fact, it is neither the pleaded case of the
respondent nor has it been argued before us that the sale deed
Exhibit 28 had not been proved or that the price mentioned
therein was not the highest price paid for jirayat land in the
area. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the High
Court was not right in interfering with the fixation of market
value by the Reference Court for jirayat land at the rate of Rs
3 lakhs and for bagayat land at the rate of Rs 6 lakhs per
hectare. The mere fact that average sale price of the
transactions relied upon by the respondent was substantially
less could not be made a ground for discarding Exhibit 28.
16. In M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur v. Collector of
Madras [(1969) 1 MLJ 45 (SC)] , this Court considered a
question similar to the one raised in this appeal and observed:
(MLJ pp. 46-47)
“… After all when the land is being compulsorily taken
away from a person, he is entitled to say that he should
be given the highest value which similar land in the
locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide
transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and
a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. It
is not disputed that the transaction represented by Ext.
R-19 was a few months prior to the notification under
Section 4 that it was a bona fide transaction and that it
was entered into between a willing purchaser and a
willing seller. The land comprised in the sale deed is 11
grounds and was sold at Rs 1961 per ground. The land
covered by Ext. R-27 was also sold before the
notification but after the land comprised in Ext. R-19
was sold. It is true that this land was sold at Rs 1096 per
ground. This, however, is apparently because of twoSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-02-2026
10:18:17
13 FA-39-2015
circumstances. One is that betterment levy at Rs 500 per
ground had to be paid by the vendee and the other that
the land comprised in it is very much more extensive,
that is, about 93 grounds or so. Whatever that may be, it
seems to us to be only fair that where sale deeds
pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf
of the Government, that representing the highest value
should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong
circumstances justifying a different course. In any case
we see no reason why an average of two sale deeds
should have been taken in this case.”
17. In State of Punjab v. Hans Raj [(1994) 5 SCC 734] , this
Court held as under: (SCC p. 736, para 4)
“4. Having given our anxious consideration to the
respective contentions, we are of the considered view
that the learned Single Judge of the High Court
committed a grave error in working out average price
paid under the sale transactions to determine the market
value of the acquired land on that basis. As the method
of averaging the prices fetched by sales of different
lands of different kinds at different times, for fixing the
market value of the acquired land, if followed, could
bring about a figure of price which may not at all be
regarded as the price to be fetched by sale of acquired
land. One should not have, ordinarily recourse to such
method. It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale
transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or
in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate
to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the
neighbourhood of the acquired lands possessing similar
value or utility taken place between a willing vendee
and the willing vendor which could be expected to
reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable
prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions
are the real basis to determine the market value.”
18. In Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of Goa [(2010) 13 SCC
710 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 788] , the Court again considered
the same issue and held: (SCC p. 717, para 23)
“23. Therefore, we are of the view that the averaging of
the prices under the two sale deeds was not justified.
The sale deed dated 31-1-1990 ought to have been
excluded for the reasons stated above. That means
compensation for the acquired lands had to be fixed
only with reference to the sale deed dated 30-8-1989
relied upon by the Land Acquisition Collector which
will be Rs 57.50 per square metre. As the said market
value has been fixed with reference to comparable
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-02-2026
10:18:17
14 FA-39-2015
bharad land with fruit trees, the question of again
separately awarding any compensation for the trees
situated in the acquired land does not arise.”
19. In view of the law laid down in the abovenoted three
judgments, it must be held that the High Court committed an
error by refusing to rely upon Exhibit 28 on the ground that
the average sale price of the transactions relied upon by the
respondent was far less than the price for which land was sold
vide Exhibit 28.
2 0 . The High Court was also not right in upsetting the
finding of the Reference Court on the issue of nature of land.
In his deposition, Arjun Sukdeo Patil categorically stated that
there were wells in the lands of the appellants and there were
jujube, tamarind, mango, pomegranate trees. This was
supported by the entries contained in 7/12 extracts. The High
Court discarded the evidence of the appellants by observing
that they had not cultivated sugarcane and wheat.
21. When it was not in dispute that there were wells in the
acquired land, the mere fact that the appellants had not
cultivated sugarcane or wheat cannot lead to an inference that
the land was not irrigated and, in our view, there was no valid
reason for the High Court to interfere with the finding
recorded by the Reference Court that parts of the lands were
bagayat and for such land they were entitled to compensation
@ Rs 6 lakhs per hectare.”
12.1 Again, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the provisions
of Sections 18 and 23 of the Land Acquisition Act in the case of Meharwal
Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 5 SCC 432 held in para
17 as under :
“17. It is clear that when there are several exemplars with
reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the
highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide
transaction, has to be considered and accepted. When the
land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is
entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality
is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered
into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near
about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be
only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different
transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the
transaction representing the highest value should be preferred
to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying aSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-02-2026
10:18:17
15 FA-39-2015
different course. It is not desirable to take an average of
various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing
fair compensation.”
13. As such, not only this Court but even the Hon’ble Apex Court has
repeatedly held that that the transaction representing the highest value is to
be preferred over others, unless there are strong circumstances justifying
different course.
14. There is one more aspect of the matter, namely, the existence of
guidelines issued by the State for the year 2009-10. The said guidelines
though relevant are issued only with the object of ascertaining the collection
of revenue. By issuance of such guidelines, the State ensures that stamp duty
is paid at the minimum rate mentioned therein. However, it cannot be said
that the guidelines so issued by the State are binding for the purpose of
determination of market value nor can they be used to ignore the market
value of the property which may be demonstrated by producing sale deeds
relating to land situated in close proximity to the acquired land.
15. In such circumstances, in the considered view of this Court, the
Reference Court has correctly determined the value of the land, hence, no
interference is warranted in the impugned award passed by the Reference
Court.
16. Resultantly, the present appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-02-2026
10:18:17
16 FA-39-2015
Anushree
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 18-02-2026
10:18:17
