Circle rate/Basic Valuation Register cannot be the basis for determining market value under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.

The State acquired land belonging to the respondent (0.720 hectares in Village Gujrada Mansingh, Dehradun) for an IT Park

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) awarded compensation at approximately Rs. 13.79 Lakhs per acre based on an exemplar sale deed of a similar plot

The respondent/claimant, dissatisfied, sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, claiming the land was residential/commercial and entitled to circle rates of Rs. 2,000 per sqm

The Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,000 per sqm (applying a 50% deduction to the circle rate)

SIDCUL appealed this enhancement before the High Court

1. Whether the Reference Court was justified in enhancing the compensation to Rs. 1,000 per square metre based on circle rates, or whether the SLAO’s reliance on exemplar sale deeds was proper?

The court applied Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act regarding the determination of "market value"

Basic Valuation Registers (circle rates) maintained for stamp duty purposes lack statutory force for determining market value under the Act.

The best evidence for market value is the sale transaction of the acquired land itself if proximate in time

The Court observed that the Reference Court erroneously treated the acquired land as "residential" despite the claimant’s own sale deed (dated 16 months prior to acquisition) and cross-examination revealing the land was used for cultivation and lacked a Section 143 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act declaration

The High Court reasoned that circle rates are intended for stamp duty collection and cannot override actual sale exemplars of comparable land

It noted that the respondent purchased the land in 2003 for significantly less than the Reference Court’s valuation; therefore, the SLAO’s reliance on a proximate exemplar sale deed from the same village was more legally sound than the Reference Court's reliance on circle rates

The court further noted that the best evidence—the claimant's own purchase deed—was ignored by the lower court

The Court answered the issue by affirming that the SLAO’s method of using exemplar sale deeds was correct

The appeal was allowed, the judgment dated 13.12.2010 was set aside, and the SLAO’s original award dated 07.11.2005 was upheld