STATE INFRASTRUCTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF UTTARAKHAND LTD (SIDCUL) vs AVDHESH CHAUDHARY
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
2026:UHC:4078
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
FIRST APPEAL No.17 of 2011
State Infrastructure and Industrial Development
Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd. (SIDCUL).
……….Appellant
Versus
Shri Avdhesh Chaudhary …… Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vipul Sharma along with Mr. Maneesh Bisht, learned counsel
for the appellant.
Mr. Hem Pujari, learned counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (oral)
By means of the present First Appeal filed under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellant has
assailed the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2010 passed
by the learned Additional District Judge, Dehradun in L.A.
Case No.20 of 2006, titled as “Shri Avdhesh Chaudhary vs.
Collector and Another” , whereby the said reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to
as “the Act”) was allowed and the compensation was granted
@ Rs.1000/- per square metre.
2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are as
follows:
(i) The present case emanates out of land acquisition
proceedings, whereby the land of the
claimant/respondent herein bearing Khasra
1
2026:UHC:4078
No.447-Ka area 0.700 hectare and 447-Kha area
0.020 hectare and total area 0.720 hectare
situated in Village Gujrada Mansingh, Pargana
Parwa Doon, District Dehradun was acquired for
the purpose of developing Information Technology
and Electronic Park. The acquiring authority is
stated to be the Managing Director of Uttaranchal
State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.
Dehradun. The Notification under Section 4(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act was published in the
Gazette on 06.11.2004 and was published in the
newspapers on 19.11.2004 and public notice
thereof was issued on 17.11.2004. Thereafter,
Notification under Section 6(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act was issued on 20.01.2005 and it
was published in the newspapers on 06.02.2005
and public notice thereof was issued on
09.02.2005.
(ii) The Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter
referred to as “The SLAO”) declared the award on
07.11.2005. The market value of the acquired land
i.e. 0.720 hectare was determined at
Rs.24,54,494.16 paisa and after adding the
solatium, 30% and 12% additional compensation,
the total compensation was determined at Rs.
34,72,470.40 paisa. For determining the
2
2026:UHC:4078
compensation, the SLAO collected 53 sale deeds
from Sub-Registrar’s office, Dehradun for a period
of one year prior to the date of Notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and after
analyzing all the said sale deeds, the sale deed
mentioned at Serial No.12 of the Schedule II,
pertaining to the sale deed by Shri Govind Singh
S/o Shri Ram Singh to Smt. Abha Bahuguna W/o
Bhaskar Bahuguna dated 29.07.2004, pertaining
to Khasra No.443 of the same village for an area of
132 square meters for Rs. 45,000/- was adopted
as an exemplar sale deed and whose rate was Rs.
13,79,611.36 paisa per acre and on the basis of
that, the compensation was assessed, as
mentioned herein before.
(iii) Dissatisfied with the said compensation as
determined by the SLAO, the claimant/respondent
herein, preferred a reference to the District Judge,
Dehradun through the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, which was registered as L.A. Case No. 20
of 2006, “Shri Avdhesh Chaudhary vs. Collector,
Dehradun & Another” .
(iv) In reference, it was inter alia contended by the
claimant/respondent that the compensation
awarded was on a very low rate due to which, the
reference is being made under Section 18 of the
3
2026:UHC:4078
Land Acquisition Act. The rate of the acquired land
has been determined on the basis of a very low
value exemplar sale deed, overlooking the settled
principles and the government orders which
provide that the compensation has to be
determined on the basis of the highest available
sale deed and that should be the basis for
determining the compensation. It is also
contended in the aforesaid reference that the
acquired land is situated on the Sahastradhara
Road in Mauja Gujrada Mansingh, Pargana Parwa
Doon, District Dehradun and the situation of the
land is residential and it can be used for any
purpose, where all the facilities are available.
Sahastradhara is a main tourist spot and on this
road, there is availability of transport facilities.
This road also leads to Mussoorie. In this manner,
this area is of very high usage.
(v) It was also contended that on account of the said
acquisition proceedings, the claimant/respondent
has sustained a huge financial loss because the
valuation of the acquired land has been made on
the basis of a very low value sale deed whereas
there are many sale deeds of Gujrada Mansingh,
Pargana Parwa Doon, District Dehradun, wherein
though, below the circle rate, the value is around
4
2026:UHC:4078
46 lakhs per acre and are around five months
prior to the date of the notification, but in spite of
that, the valuation has been made for the basis of
compensation at the rate of Rs. 13,79,611.36
paise per acre. The claimant/respondent
contended that he demands the valuation of the
compensation for the acquired land situated on
the Sahastradhara Road on the basis of the
biennial minimum market rate as fixed by the
Collector, Dehradun, Tehsil Dehradun Mauja
Gujrada Mansingh, Pargana Parwa Doon, District
Dehradun for the market rate from 01.11.2003
(modified from 02.12.2003) to 31.10.2005, which
is situated on the Sahastradhara Road up to
Chhatri, which is around 3.5 kilometres on the
Sahastradhara Road and around 125 metres
inside. The claimant/respondent thus made a
claim as per the circle rate at the rate of Rs.2000/-
per square metre and the solatium, additional
compensation and interest on this rate.
(vi) The SIDCUL/appellant herein contested the said
reference by filing its written statement and it was
inter alia contended in the said written statement
that people living in the vicinity and elsewhere
were aware that the IT park was to be setup for
5
2026:UHC:4078
which the land has been transferred to opposite
party no.2.
(vii) It was inter alia mainly contended that Khasra
No.447-Ka (Old No.190) is a waste land and
barren. It has no potential value. It is land locked.
There is no access to the said land. Even
otherwise, the land is situated more than 450
meters from the main Sahastradhara Road. It is
further wrong to state that the land is residential
or can be used for the purpose of residence. The
SLAO had taken into consideration a large number
of exemplar sale deeds and had fixed
compensation in accordance with the provisions of
the Act and the amount of award is just and
proper. The awarded amount was right and
adequate and the award given by the SLAO in this
regard took into consideration all relevant factors.
In the additional written statement, the
SIDCUL/appellant herein had contended that the
fixation of compensation as per circle rate cannot
be made the basis for the land acquired under
Land Acquisition Act. The land is beyond 450
metres from the main road. The
claimant/respondent is not entitled to
compensation at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per square
metre. The compensation awarded by the SLAO is
6
2026:UHC:4078
in accordance with the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act.
(viii) Before the Reference Court, the
claimant/respondent had placed on record the
circle rate pertaining to residential and commercial
rates of the area in which the property in question
was situated. The claimant/respondent had also
placed on record a certified copy of a sale deed
executed by Sanjay Sachdeva & others in favour of
Lt. Col. A.K. Thakur, which is duly registered in
Bahi No.1/FD FA Book 1- Jild 1337/1403, Pages
336/883-889, which was registered at serial
number 4455 on 10-6-2004 in the Office of the
Sub-Registrar, Sadar-1, Dehradun. The said sale
deed was pertaining to Khasra No.467 of an area
of 291 square metres situated at Mauja Gujrada
Mansingh, Pargana Parwa Doon, District
Dehradun, having the category of residential land
at the rate of Rs.2000/- per square metre.
(ix) Another sale deed that was placed on record on
behalf of the claimant/respondent was a sale deed
executed by Sanjay Sachdeva & others in favour of
Jasindra Raj Kathuria, which is duly registered in
Bahi No.1/FD FA Book 1, Jild 1337/1403, page
336/873-882 at Serial No.4454 on 10-06-2004 in
the Office of the Sub-Registrar Sadar-1, Dehradun,
7
2026:UHC:4078
which pertained to Khasra No.468, area 288
square metre, situated at Mauja Gujrada
Mansingh, Pargana Parwa Doon, District
Dehradun, having the category of residential land,
at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per square metre.
(x) Vide List 59-C1, another document that was filed
was the circle rate list with Khasra numbers
issued on 31.10.2009 by the Additional District
Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Dehradun. Vide
List 44-C1, copy of Khatauni and copy of the
Revenue Map pertaining to village Gujrada
Mansingh, Pargana Parwa Doon, District
Dehradun, Fasli 1400, was also placed on record.
(xi) On behalf of the SIDCUL/appellant, vide List 29 C-
1, certified copy of sale deed dated 29-7-2004,
executed by Shri Govind Singh in favour of Smt.
Abha Bahuguna duly registered in the Office of
Sub-Registrar, Sadar I, Dehradun and recorded in
Book 1, Volume 1337, Page 402/ADF Book No.1,
Volume 1416, Pages 745 to 754, at Serial number
5436, dated 29.07.2004, was placed on record.
The perusal of the said sale deed would show that
it pertained to land situated within Village Gujrada
Mansingh, Pargana Parwa Doon, District
Dehradun and the schedule of the property shows
8
2026:UHC:4078
that it is situated within Khasra No.170 having an
area of 132 square metres.
(xii) Vide List 38 C-1, SIDCUL/appellant herein had
also placed on record certified copy of the map of
Mauja Gujrada Mansingh, Pargana Parwa Doon,
District Dehradun and certified copy of 12 years
Khasra, Gram Gujrada Mansingh.
(xiii) To prove their cases, the respective parties filed
affidavits of examination-in-chief of the respective
witnesses who were duly cross-examined.
rd
Thereafter, the matter was finally heard by the 3
Additional District Judge, Dehradun and vide
judgment and order dated 13.12.2010, the
reference was allowed and the
claimant/respondent herein was granted
compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per square
metre after 50% deduction.
3. Before the Reference Court, the
claimant/respondent herein relied upon judgments of this
Court rendered in the cases of “Bhopendra Singh and Others
vs. Awas Vikas Parishad and Others” reported in
MANU/UC/0270/2005 and “State of UP versus Kunwar Lal”,
(2006) 1 LACC 325 and submitted that the compensation of
the land in question cannot be granted in any case, less than
the circle rate of the land. Reliance was also placed upon a
9
2026:UHC:4078
judgment of this Court rendered in First Appeal No.75/2018
“Indian Oil Corporation versus Harichand and Another”. In
the said judgments, this court has held that the
determination of the compensation on the basis of circle rate
is proper.
4. Another judgment cited on behalf of the
claimant/respondent before the Reference Court was in the
case of “Lal Chand vs. Union of India and Another”, (2009) 15
SCC 769 and had submitted that in the matter of land
acquisition, the circle rates are relevant fact.
5. Against such contentions, it was submitted on
behalf of the SIDCUL/appellant herein that the circle rate is
not the sole criteria for determination of the compensation
and it was contended that there is difference in the rate
between the developed land and the undeveloped land.
Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of “Lucknow Development Authority versus
Krishna Gopal”, (2008) 1 SCC 554, it was submitted that
when a land is being acquired for a large area, for a
development authority, it is not proper to enhance the
compensation. It was also submitted before the Reference
Court that the deduction ought to be one-third instead of one-
fourth. It was further submitted that where on the acquired
land there is lack of metalled roads and electricity, there can
be deduction from 35% to 60%. Making reference to other
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
10
2026:UHC:4078
“Mumidi Apparao versus Nagarjuna Fertilizer Chemical
Engineering Ltd.”, (2001) 4 SCC 402, it was contended that
deduction to the value of development of the land acquired
can be made.
6. Reference Court while adverting to the exemplar
sale deed, which was for Khasra No.467 of Gujrada
Mansingh, Pargana Parwa Doon, District Dehradun, and
situated in Khasra No.467 for an area of 291 square metres
and 288 square metres, the Reference Court considered that
the land which has been acquired is having an area of 0.7
hectare i.e. 7,000 square metres and in such a background,
since the sale deed is for a small land, therefore, the sale
consideration which has been shown in the said sale deed, on
the basis of that it will not be proper for determining the
market value of the acquired land. It was considered by the
Reference Court that the stamp duty which has been paid on
this sale deed was on the basis of the circle rate and from
this, the sale consideration is calculated as Rs.1133 per
square metre and the same situation is pertaining to the
other exemplar sale deeds.
7. Placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court in
the case of “Bhopendra Singh versus State of UP”, the
Reference Court considered that the compensation cannot be
less than the circle rate. The Reference Court then inferred
that the acquired land is situated between 50-350 metres
from the main Sahastradhara Road and the circle rate
11
2026:UHC:4078
prevalent at the time of the acquisition whose copy is on
record as 11C/1-11C/2, according to which the residential
rate is Rs.2,000 per square metre and in view of the judgment
of the High Court, it is not proper for assessing the value less
than the circle rate.
8. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of “Lucknow Development
Authority” (supra) and considering that the sale deed of the
land which was acquired vide sale deed dated 07.07.2003
which has been shown as agricultural land, the deduction
needs to be made and after considering the same, the
Reference Court came to the conclusion that from the circle
rate of Rs.2,000 per square metre, deduction of minimum
50% needs to be made for the acquired land since it is a very
large area of land and for the development of the same, there
would be works for electricity, roads etc. on which there will
be a huge expenditure. Therefore, the Reference Court found
it proper that a deduction of 50% be made from the rate of
Rs.2,000 per square metres and the actual compensation is
to be determined at the rate of Rs.1,000 per square metre.
And the Reference Court, thus, came to the conclusion that
after deduction of the 50% from the rate of the Rs.2000 per
square metre, the claimant is entitled to the rate of Rs.1000
per square metre as compensation for the acquired land and
thus, proceeded to allow the reference.
12
2026:UHC:4078
9. Aggrieved against the said judgment and order
dated 13.12.2010, the present First Appeal has been
preferred on behalf of the State Infrastructure and
Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd.
(SIDCUL)/appellant.
present First
10. The short controversy in the
Appeal would be whether the compensation that was
determined by the SLAO on the basis of the exemplar sale
deed at the rate of Rs.13,79,611.36 paise per acre is proper or
whether the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000 per square
metre as determined by the Reference Court is proper?
Thus, the following point arises for determination in the
first appeal as follows:-
“Whether the Reference Court was justified in enhancing the
compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- per square metre on
the basis of the circle rate or whether the criteria adopted by
the SLAO for determining the circle rate on the basis of the
exemplar sale deed at the rate of Rs.13,79,611.36 paise per
acre was proper?”
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record. Assailing the judgment of the Reference
Court, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vipul
Sharma, would submit that the Reference Court has grossly
13
2026:UHC:4078
erred by relying upon the circle rate as a determining factor
for arriving at the compensation.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant would further
submit that in the sale deed dated 07.07.2003, the land of
the claimant/respondent was shown as agricultural land. He
has further pointed out the circle rate, which has been shown
in the said sale deed as Rs.5.40 lakh per acre and the land
sold to the claimant was having an area of 0.720 hectare.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant would further
submit that the exemplar sale deed that was chosen by the
SLAO pertained to exemplar sale deed of the most proximate
and similar land.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of “Jawajee Nagnatham vs. Revenue Divisional
Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and others” , reported in (1994) 4 SCC
595, and particularly referred to para 5 thereof. Relevant
portion of para 5 is being extracted hereunder for ready
reference:-
“5. The question, therefore, is whether the Basic Valuation
Register is evidence to determine the market value. This
Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. T. Adhinarayan
Setty [AIR 1959 SC 429 : 1959 Supp 1 SCR 404 : 1959 Cri LJ
526] in paragraph 9 held that the function of the Court in
awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the
14
2026:UHC:4078
market value of the land at the date of the notification under
Section 4(1). The methods of valuation may be (1) opinion of
experts (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona
fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the
lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar
advantages; and (3) a number of years purchase of the
actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands
acquired. Same was the view in Tribeni Devi v. Collector of
Ranchi [(1972) 1 SCC 480 : (1972) 3 SCR 208] . It was
reiterated in catena of decisions, vide, Periyar and
Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala [(1991) 4 SCC
195] . Therefore, it is settled law that in determining the
market value, the Court has to take into account either one or
the other three methods to determine market value of the
lands appropriate on the facts of a given case to determine
the market value. Generally the second method of valuation
is accepted as the best. The question, therefore, is whether
the Basic Valuation Register would form foundation to
determine the market value. It is, therefore, clear that the
Basic Valuation Register prepared and maintained for the
purpose of collecting stamp duty has no statutory base or
force…………….”
15. Another judgment being relied upon by the learned
“Krishi Utpadan
counsel for the appellant is in the case of
Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun vs. Bipin Kumar and
another” , reported in (2004) 2 SCC 283 and he has
particularly drawn the attention of the Court to para 7
thereof, which is being extracted hereunder for ready
reference:-
15
2026:UHC:4078
“ 7 . It has been held by this Court in the case of Jawajee
Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer [(1994) 4 SCC 595]
that market value under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 cannot be fixed on the basis of a basic valuation
register maintained by the registering authority for collection
of stamp duty. Therefore, the reliance by the Reference Court
on the values of land fixed by the District Magistrate for
stamp duty purposes is clearly erroneous. For the purposes
of the Land Acquisition Act the market value must be
determined on the basis of sale deeds of comparable lands.
In this case the Land Acquisition Officer had taken note of
one such sale deed where the price was Rs 15.37 per sq
yard. The Reference Court also had before it the sale deed by
which the respondent purchased a portion of the acquired
land. As stated above, the sale deed was for Rs 15.40 per sq
yard. Section 92 of the Evidence Act precludes a party from
leading evidence contrary to the terms of a written document.
It was, therefore, not open to the respondent to urge that,
even though his sale deed showed a price of Rs 15.40 per sq
yard the real market value was Rs 120 per sq yard. To
permit a party to so urge would be to give a premium to
dishonesty. Parties who undervalue their documents, for
purpose of payment of stamp duty, cannot be allowed to then
claim that their own documents do not reflect the correct
market value. Therefore, as per sale instances of the
comparable lands, the market value, on dates of sales, were
in the region of Rs 15.37 to Rs 15.40 per sq yard.”
16. Another judgment being relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellant is in the case of “New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority vs. Harnand Singh” , reported
in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1691 and he has particularly
16
2026:UHC:4078
referred to para 24 thereof, which is being extracted
hereunder for ready reference:-
“24. Given the statutory intention behind term ‘market value’,
the natural corollary is that the sale exemplars reflecting the
prices paid by a willing buyer to a willing seller would be the
most relevant piece of evidence for determination of such
value.”
17. Another judgment being relied upon by the learned
“Bharat Sanchar
counsel for the appellant is the case of
Nigam Limited vs. Nemichand Damodardas and another” ,
reported in (2022) 14 SCC 60 and he particularly relied upon
paragraphs 12 and 13 thereof, which are being extracted
hereunder for ready reference:-
“12. The aforesaid decision in Jawajee Nagnatham [Jawajee
Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1994) 4 SCC 595]
has been subsequently followed in a subsequent decision of
this Court in Lal Chand [Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009)
15 SCC 769 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 766] and it is observed that
the market value of the land under Section 23 of the Land
Acquisition Act cannot be fixed on the basis of the rates
mentioned in the Basic Valuation Registers maintained for
the purpose of collection of proper stamp duty. In that case,
as the Reference Court determined the amount of
compensation on the value of the land fixed by the District
Magistrate for stamp duty purposes, this Court has observed
and held that the same was erroneous.
13. As such, we are in complete agreement with the view
taken in the aforesaid two decisions that the prices
17
2026:UHC:4078
mentioned in the Ready Reckoner for the purpose of
calculation of the stamp duty, which are fixed for the entire
area, cannot be the basis for determination of the
compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. It is required to
be noted that in the present case, the Reference Court did
consider the submission on behalf of the claimants to
determine the market value on the basis of the Ready
Reckoner. The Reference Court specifically refused to accept
the same on appreciation of the deposition of PW 3. PW 3, a
government officer specifically admitted that the Ready
Reckoner was prepared for recovery of the proper stamp duty
and the registration charges and that the actual rates of
transaction of sales in market are different than the rates
mentioned in the Ready Reckoner and that correct market
prices cannot be reflected from the Ready Reckoner. Even PW
4 also specifically admitted in his deposition that the Ready
Reckoner is prepared only for collecting stamp duty. The
Reference Court, therefore, rightly relied upon and followed
the decisions of this Court in Jawajee Nagnatham [Jawajee
Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1994) 4 SCC 595]
and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti [Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti v. Bipin Kumar, (2004) 2 SCC 283].”
18. Another judgment relied upon by the learned
“T. S. Ramachandra
counsel for the appellant is in the case of
Shetty vs. Chairman, Karnataka Housing Board and Another” ,
reported in (2009) 14 SCC 334, and has placed reliance upon
paragraphs 2, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13, which are extracted
hereunder for ready reference:-
18
2026:UHC:4078
“2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken
from Civil Appeal No. 3332 of 2001. The appellant's land
measuring 1 acre 32 guntas in Survey No. 32/1 at
Henjagondanahalli Village was acquired pursuant to the
preliminary Notification published on 20-5-1987. The Land
Acquisition Officer had granted compensation at the rate of
Rs 17,500 per acre. The Reference Court on appeal enhanced
the amount from Rs 17,500 to Rs 2,17,800 per acre. This
amount was calculated at the rate of Rs 5 per square foot.
The Karnataka Housing Board aggrieved by the said
judgment preferred an appeal before the High Court of
Karnataka.
7. The fact is that this very land was purchased by the
appellant a year ago i.e. on 24-3-1986 for Rs 45,000 and for
the same land the High Court gave the compensation of Rs
1,30,680 per acre only after a year. In our considered
opinion, the view which has been taken in the impugned
judgment is in consonance with the settled legal position. The
High Court has taken into consideration all the relevant facts
in granting compensation. The High Court was fully justified
in giving due weightage to the fact that the sale deed of 1986
in respect of this very acquired land was available and the
same ought to be the basis for determining the market value
of the land.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance
on Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu v. Revenue Divl.
Officer [(1980) 1 SCC 575] . In this case, this Court observed
that
19
2026:UHC:4078
“the best evidence of the market value of the acquired land is
afforded by transactions of sale in respect of the very
acquired land….” (SCC p. 576, para 2)
9. In Tehsildar Land Acquisition v. A. Mangala Gowri [(1991)
4 SCC 218] this Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 218f-
219a)
“The market value postulated in Section 23(1) of the Act is
designed to award just and fair compensation for the lands
acquired. The word ‘market value’ would postulate price of
the land prevailing on the date of the publication of the
notification under Section 4(1). The acid test that for
determining the market value of the land is the price which a
willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a
willing purchaser would form the basis to fix the market
value. For ascertaining the market rate, the court can rely
upon such transactions which would offer a reasonable basis
to fix the price. The price paid in sale or purchase of the land
acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the
acquisition of the land in question would be the best piece of
evidence. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing
similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the
land acquired in or about the time of the notification would
supply the data to assess the market value. But exclusion of
bona fide and genuine sale transactions in respect of the
same land under acquisition and to place reliance on the
award of some other land is obviously illegal.”
10. In Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of
Kerala [(1991) 4 SCC 195] , in para 10, this Court observed
as under: (SCC p. 203)
20
2026:UHC:4078
“10. … When the courts are called upon to fix the market
value of the land in compulsory acquisition, the best evidence
of the value of property is the sale of the acquired land to
which the claimant himself is a party, in its absence the
sales of the neighbouring lands. In proof of the sale
transaction, the relationship of the parties to the transaction,
the market conditions, the terms of the sale and the date of
the sale are to be looked into. These features would be
established by examining either the vendor or vendee and if
they are not available, the attesting witnesses who have
personal knowledge of the transaction, etc. The original sale
deed or certified copy thereof should be tendered as
evidence. The underlying principle to fix a fair market value
with reference to comparable sales is to reduce the element of
speculation. In a comparable sale the features are: (1) it must
be within a reasonable time of the date of the notification; (2)
it should be a bona fide transaction; (3) it should be a sale of
the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired; and
(4) it should possess similar advantages. These should be
established by adduction of material evidence by examining
as stated above the parties to the sale or persons having
personal knowledge of the sale transactions. The proof also
would focus on the fact whether the transactions are genuine
and bona fide transactions.”
13. The facts of Dollar Co. v. Collector of Madras [(1975) 2
SCC 730] are identical to the facts of the instant case. The
relevant portion of paras 5 and 6 reads as under: (SCC p.
731)
“In determining the market value the main criterion is what a
willing purchaser would pay a willing vendor. Ordinarily a
party will be entitled to get the amount that he actually and
21
2026:UHC:4078
willingly paid for a particular property, provided the
transaction be bona fide and entered into with due regard to
the prevalent market conditions and is proximate in time to
the relevant date under Section 23. The best evidence of the
value of property is the sale of the very property to which the
claimant is a party. If the sale is of a recent date, then all
that need normally be proved is that the sale was between a
willing purchaser and a willing seller, that there has not been
any appreciable rise or fall since and that nothing has been
done on the land during the short interval to raise its value.
But if the sale was long ago, may be the Court would
examine more recent sales of comparable lands as throwing
better light on current land value. Such lands should be close
by and not a mile-and-half away as one of the examples
pressed here was. So, an actual transaction with respect to
the specific land of recent date is a guide-book that courts
may not neglect when called upon to pin the precise
compensation.”
19. While placing reliance upon the aforesaid
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel
for the appellant would submit that as far back as in the year
1994, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down the law that
the methods of valuation may be (1) opinion of the expert, (2)
the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide
transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands
adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar
advantages; and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual
or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired.
22
2026:UHC:4078
20. Learned counsel for the appellant would further
submit that in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham (supra) , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that Basic Valuation
Register prepared and maintained for the purpose of
collecting stamp duty has no statutory base or force. It
cannot form a foundation to determine the market value
mentioned thereunder in instrument brought for registration.
Equally, it would not be a basis to determine the market
value under Section 23 of the Act, of the lands acquired in
that area or town or the locality or the taluk etc.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the latest judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have
followed the said judgment rendered in the case of Jawajee
Nagnatham (supra) . In the case of “Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court following the
judgment in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham (supra) has held
that the market value under Section 23 of the Act cannot be
fixed on the basis of a Basic Valuation Register maintained by
the registering authority for collection of stamp duty.
Therefore, the reliance by the Reference Court on the values
of land fixed by the District Magistrate for stamp duty
purposes is clearly erroneous. For the purposes of Land
Acquisition Act, the market value must be determined on the
basis of sale deeds of comparable lands.
22. Relying upon the judgment of New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority (supra), learned counsel for
23
2026:UHC:4078
the appellant submits that sale exemplars reflecting the
prices would be the market value.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant also while
referring to the judgment of “Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited”
(supra) would contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
been consistently following the judgment rendered in the case
of Jawajee Nagnatham (supra) and in the judgment of “Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited” of the year 2022 and it has again
while relying upon the judgment of Jawajee Nagnatham
(supra) has held that the market value of the land under
Section 23 of the Act cannot be fixed on the basis of the rates
mentioned in the Basic Valuation Register maintained for the
purpose of collection of the stamp duty. The Reference Court
determined the amount of compensation on the value of land
fixed by the District Magistrate for stamp purposes and the
same was erroneous. Thus, the learned counsel for the
appellant would state that it is settled law that circle rates
cannot form the basis for the determination of the market
value and the Reference Court has clearly erred by relying
upon the circle rate for determining the market value.
24. Learned counsel for the appellant has further
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of “T. S. Ramachandra Shetty vs. Chairman, Karnataka
Housing Board and Another” , reported in (2009) 14 SCC 334
and has made a submission that the sale deed of the
claimant/respondent herein was executed on 07.07.2003 and
24
2026:UHC:4078
under Section 4(1) of the Act, Notification was passed on
06.11.2004. In the case of “T. Rama Swamy” there was a
difference of 16 months between the execution of the sale
deed and the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and in
the case of “T. S. Ramachandra Shetty , there was a difference
of 14 months and the case is identical on facts. In the said
case of “T. S. Ramachandra Shetty” (supra) , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the sale deed of the acquired
land would be the best determining factor for the purpose of
fixing and arriving at the correct compensation.
25. Learned counsel for the appellant makes a further
submission that the Reference Court by granting
compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000 per square metre has, in
fact, granted compensation about almost thrice over the price
at which he had purchased the property in question in the
year 2003.
26. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and the case law cited on behalf of the learned
counsel for the appellant, he would submit that the judgment
of the Reference Court is based on the wrong assumption of
determining the market value of the acquired land and thus
the Reference Court has erred at arriving at the rate of
compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000 and the impugned
judgment and order of the Reference Court is, thus, clearly
erroneous, it cannot be sustained and deserves to be set-
aside.
25
2026:UHC:4078
27. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Mr.
Hem Pujari would submit that the determination of the
compensation on the basis of exemplar sale deed is only one
of the methods of determining the compensation. He makes a
submission that the other manner of determining the
compensation would be on the basis of the circle rate of the
land in question. He further submits that the compensation
in no case can be less than the circle rate of the property in
question.
28. Learned Counsel for the claimant/respondent
would place reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the
case of “Bhopendra Singh and Ors. vs. Awas Vikas Parishad
and Ors.” MANU/UC/0270/2005 and placed reliance upon
Para 7 of the said judgment, wherein it is held that the
market value determined for the circle, is the minimum
statutory market value, in accordance with the statutory
rules framed under the Stamp Act. Para 7 of the aforesaid
judgment is extracted hereunder for ready reference:-
“7. The learned Counsel for the Respondents strongly placed
reliance on the judgment reported in MANU/SC/0745/1994 :
1994 4 S.C.C. 595 Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue
Divisional Officer Aidalabad Andhra Pradesh as well as the
judgment reported in MANU/SC/0030/2004 : 2004 2 S.C.C.
283 Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sehsawan Badayun v.
Vipin Kumar and Anr. They have further placed reliance on a
judgment rendered by Allahabad High Court reported in
MANU/UP/0019/2004 : 2004 (96) R.D. 368 Hajari Lal Sahu
26
2026:UHC:4078
v. State of U.P. In the two judgements while interpreting
Section 3 reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered
by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue
Divisional Officer Aidalabad Andhra Pradesh. In the said
judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has interpreted Section 47-
A as applicable in Andhra Pradesh as to be the charging
Section and has not taken into consideration the proviso of
Section 3 of the Act and has proceeded on the basis that
since the "Basic Valuation Register" having no statutory
sanction cannot be read in evidence for enhancement of
market value. The Apex Court observed that the Basic
Valuation Register was prepared in the official capacity by
the Revenue Department or its Registering Officer of Andhra
Pradesh hence it cannot be determined as to be an evidence
for calculation of the compensation under Section 23 of the
Land Acquisition Act. As remarked in Para 5 of said
judgment it seems that it was not brought to the
knowledge/notice of the Apex Court that Section 47-A as
applicable in Andhra Pradesh is not the same in State of U.P.
Apart from it the proviso of Section 3 was also not considered
because the fact that Section 47-A as applicable in Andhra
Pradesh excludes Schedule I-B of the Act which includes
Article 23 for the conveyancing prepared under Section 3 of
the Act, hence the ratio propounded by the said judgment
would not be applicable here in this case.”
29. Learned counsel for the claimant/respondent
would further submit that in the said judgment, it has been
held that while awarding compensation for land acquired
under the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation cannot be
27
2026:UHC:4078
paid at a lesser rate than that of market value determined for
the purpose of payment of stamp duty under the Stamp Act.
30. Learned counsel for the claimant/respondent
would further draw the attention of the court to the circle rate
of the area in question for the relevant period from
01.11.2003 (corrected from 02.12.2003) to 31.10.2005 for
Tehsil Dehradun, as issued by the Collector, Dehradun, and
serial 3 of the residential and commercial rate for Raipur
Road - Sahastradhara Chowk to Sahastradhara Road up to
Chhatri for a distance of 51 metres to 350 metres from the
road. He further submits that the rate fixed by the Collector is
Rs.2,000 per square metre.
While placing reliance upon the Uttar Pradesh
Stamp (Valuation of property) Rules 1997, the Learned
counsel for the claimant/respondent would submit that the
area falling in between 51 metres to 350 metres on the
Sahastradhara Road, has been thus categorized as residential
area, and the Reference Court has rightly determined the
compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000 per square metre.
31. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn
the attention of the Court to the exemplar sale deeds, which
pertain to the Village Gujrada Mansingh, Pargana Parwa
Doon, District Dehradun, which are sale deeds registered on
10.06.2004, and the same are for the residential areas and
the circle rate is portrayed to be Rs.2000 per square metre
28
2026:UHC:4078
and on the basis of the same submits that the land of the
claimant/respondent fell between 51 metres to 350 metres
from the Sahastradhara Road and as such, the market value
of the land has to be determined on the basis of the circle rate
at the rate of Rs.2000 per square metre, and the Reference
Court has, thus, rightly determined the compensation at the
rate of Rs.2000 per square metre.
32. He would further submit that though the land was
purchased by the claimant/respondent by virtue of a sale
deed dated 07.07.2003, however, the circle rates having been
revised on 02.12.2003 and the land of the
claimant/respondent was declared to be a residential area
and the circle rate of Rs.2000 per square metre was the
minimum land value. There cannot be anything less than the
minimum circle rate.
33. Learned counsel for the claimant/respondent
would further draw the attention of the Court to a circle rate
list issued on 31.10.2009 by the Additional District
Magistrate, (Finance and Revenue), Dehradun and he would
submit that for Gujrada Mansingh, Pargana Parwa Doon,
District Dehradun, Khasra No.447-Kha would be situated
between 50 metres to 350 metres and it has to be valued as
at the rate of Rs.2000 per square metre.
34. Learned counsel for the claimant/respondent
would further submit that the exemplar sale deed as has been
29
2026:UHC:4078
adopted by the SLAO, could not have been accepted and
adopted as an exemplar sale deed because that particular
sale deed was for an area which was beyond 350 metres from
the main Sahastradhara Road and it would not truly reflect
the market value and as such the SLAO has erred by
determining the market value on the basis of the exemplar
sale deed.
35. Learned the counsel for the claimant/respondent
further submits that in the exemplar sale deed, there is no
mention of the market value and no basis of the stamp duty
paid. Thus, he would submit that it was not safe to rely upon
the said sale deed and to treat it as an exemplar sale deed for
the determination of the compensation to the
claimant/respondent.
36. Learned counsel for the claimant/respondent
would further draw the attention of the Court to para 43 of
the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
“New Okhla Industrial Development Authority” (supra) and has
submitted that the principle of guesstimation can be applied
based on the circle rate after granting a marginal increase
over the same. Para 43 of the said judgment is being
extracted hereunder for ready reference:-
“43. In order to further substantiate this estimation, we place
our reliance on the decision rendered in Krishan
11
Kumar v. Union of India, where this Court acknowledged
that while sale exemplars may not directly establish the
30
2026:UHC:4078
amount of compensation to be granted, compensation could
be determined applying the principle of guesstimation, based
on the circle rate after granting a marginal increase over the
same.”
37. Learned counsel for the claimant/respondent
would also submit that the circle rate may not be the criteria
but it is settled law that the circle rate is the minimum,
market value for the determination of the compensation to be
paid in the case of acquisition.
38. However, learned counsel for the appellant would
make a further submission while referring to para 25 of the
judgment in the case of “New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority” (supra) that if the para 25 of this judgment is read
in conjunction with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of “Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers
Ltd. v. State of Kerala”, (1991) 4 SCC 195 and “T.S.
Ramachandra Shetty”, (2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases 334,
then the exemplar sale deed should have been the sale deed
of the claimant/respondent himself.
39. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the circle rate would not be the minimum rate for the
determination of compensation, rather it would be the rate at
which the sale deeds are to be executed.
40. Relying upon paragraph 26 of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “New Okhla Industrial
31
2026:UHC:4078
Development Authority” (supra), the learned counsel for the
claimant/respondent would submit that sale deeds for
smaller areas cannot form basis for the determination of
compensation for the larger areas.
41. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that in Para 26 itself, it has been held that there is no legal
impediment against considering sale exemplars of smaller
parcels of land, provided they are subjected to cuts or
deductions.
42. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length and having considered the record & all the case laws
as have been cited on behalf of the learned counsel for the
parties, it is apparent that while the SLAO has determined
the compensation on the basis of exemplar sale deeds and
has determined the compensation at the rate of
Rs.13,79,611.36 paise per acre, the Reference Court has
determined the compensation on the basis of the circle rate of
the land treating it to be a residential area.
43. A bare perusal of the circle rate for the residential
and commercial land for the period December 2003 to
October 2005, it is writ large on record that the circle rate of
Rs.2000 per square metres for the area falling between
Sahastradhara Chowk to Sahastradhara Road up to Chhatri
of Rs.2000 per square metre is for residential area and not for
32
2026:UHC:4078
agricultural area. The Reference Court appears to have tread
on the premise that the acquired land is a residential land.
44. A bare perusal of the statement of PW-1 in the
cross-examination, the claimant/respondent has stated that
it is wrong to say that before acquisition, he was not doing
cultivation on the acquired land. He also denied the
suggestion that prior to purchasing the land, it was barren
land.
45. A bare perusal of the sale deed of the
claimant/respondent would reflect that it was purchased as
an agriculture land, which is mentioned in the sale deed
itself. Perusal of the sale deed of the claimant/respondent
shows that in Serial No.9 on the first page of the sale deed,
under the caption “Kind of Property” it has been mentioned as
“agriculture land”. There is nothing on record to indicate that
the nature of the land has been changed from agriculture to
non-agriculture by any order under Section 143 of the Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
(hereinafter referred to as U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act). Since the
property was purchased as an agricultural land and there is
no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R.
Act, hence, the land would be deemed to be agricultural land.
46. The reliance placed upon by the learned counsel
for the claimant/respondent that in the circle rate, which was
issued in the year 2003 by the Collector, Dehradun for the
33
2026:UHC:4078
area pertaining to Khasra No.447, the land in question has
been categorized as residential area is absolutely erroneous
and against the record. The Reference Court has fallen into
error by treating the land in question as a residential area on
a misreading of the documents on record. It is further
revealed from record that the exemplar sale deed adopted by
the SLAO to determine the market value of the acquired land
is on the basis of the sale deed of the same village Gujrada
Mansingh, Pargana Parwa Doon, District Dehradun and as
such, the SLAO has not committed any error in determining
the market value and the compensation on the basis of the
exemplar sale deed.
47. It is also pertinent to mention that it has been the
settled position of law right since the year 1994 when the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham
(supra) , had held that the Basic Valuation Register prepared
and maintained for the purpose of collecting the stamp duty
has no statutory base or force and it would not be a basis to
determine the market value under Section 23 of the Act. It is
further relevant to point out that in the case of “Periyar”
(Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly held that
when the courts are called upon to fix the market value of the
land in compulsory acquisition, the best evidence of the value
of property is the sale of the acquired land to which the
claimant himself is a party in its absence, the sales of the
neighboring lands. In the present case, since the sale deed of
34
2026:UHC:4078
the property in question was just 16 months prior to the
Notification under Section 4 of the Act, hence that could have
been one of the best exemplars to be adopted. However, the
exemplars adopted for determining the compensation, bears a
higher value than the sale deed of the claimant/respondent
herein. Therefore, on this count too, the compensation as
determined and assessed by the SLAO cannot be faulted with.
48. Thus, on all these counts, the Reference Court has
grossly erred by enhancing the compensation as was
determined by the SLAO and thus, the point for
determination needs to be answered to the effect that the
criteria adopted and the valuation/compensation as
determined by the Reference Court was wrong and erroneous
and cannot be sustained, and the valuation and the criteria
as has been adopted by the SLAO for determining the
compensation for the acquired land was the correct method,
and the compensation determined and awarded by the SLAO
deserves to be upheld. The instant first appeal thus deserves
to be allowed.
49. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment
and decree dated 13.12.2010 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Dehradun in L.A. Case No.20 of
2006, titled as “Shri Avdhesh Chaudhary vs. Collector and
Another” is, thus, set aside. The SLAO award dated
07.11.2005 is hereby upheld.
35
2026:UHC:4078
50. Let the original records be transmitted to the court
concerned.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
22.05.2026
Akash
Digitally signed by AKASH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=dae2472c001d56469ea76fc0caa68f48ef
73518c148d140566ab1e26f9cbe61d,
postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=27096a1625377537a487dee4922
4c891823fc6a0334628b21e516047ed4f22f7,
cn=AKASH
Date: 2026.05.29 17:15:50 +05'30'
AKASH
36