HAR SWARUP GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the order of the Additional District Judge dated May 30, 1978. I was heard thrice. Twice at the request of the appellant and a third time because I had some doubts in. my mind. At an auction sale held on January 31, 1961, the appellant purchased occupancy rights in land measuring 15 bighas 7 biswas in Khasra No. 147 of Village Sadhora Kalan having a garden in it for a sum of Rs. 25,500.00 The sale was made by the Custodian of evacuee property. Pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) dated October, 26, 1961, the Government acquired the land in question. In. due course the Land Acquisition Collector made the award (award No. 1398 dated September 27, 1962). He held that the compensation to which the appellant was entitled was the actual price he had paid at the auction sale. He, therefore, awarded Rs. 25,500.00 to the appellant.

(2.) On a reference under S. 18 of the Act the Additional District Judge confirmed the award of the collector. He held that the amount paid by the appellant at the auction sale fairly represented the market value of the occupancy rights at the relevant time. He, therefore, declined to make any enhancement. He dismissed the reference.

(3.) Now in this appeal the appellant claims enhancement. What was the market value of the occupancy rights purchased by the appellant in the acquired land at the relevant time ? This is the question. Counsel for the appellant argued that the court has to determine the market value of the land and the sale in evidence must be considered in connection with other sales of similar properties in the vicinity. The purchase price of the property, he said, may have been below, or it might have been above, its market value. The landowner may have bought a bargain or he may have overpaid. This is no concern of the acquiring authority which, under the law, is bound to pay the market value of the property taken, no more and no less. With this broad argument there can be no quarrel. But evidence of sale of the subject property itself is highly relevant. Every argument is in favour of its admissbility. A leading American authority has summarised the law in these words :