Post-notification sale deeds may establish market value when proximate, subject to appropriate deduction.

Land measuring 1,191 sq. m. belonging to the first respondent was acquired for the ECR–OMR radial/link road scheme pursuant to a notification dated 04.02.2006 under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.

The Land Acquisition Officer considered 2,658 data-sale documents, rejected 2,657 of them, and adopted data sale No.1993 dated 16.11.2005 to fix compensation at Rs.159 per sq. ft.

The claimant sought enhancement before the Reference Court, relying principally on Ex.C1, a sale deed dated 24.12.2007 reflecting Rs.6,170 per sq. ft., and Ex.C2, a sale deed dated 06.07.2005 reflecting Rs.800 per sq. ft.

The Sub Court, Tambaram, enhanced the market value to Rs.2,400 per sq. ft. The Special Tahsildar challenged that enhancement under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The claimant also pointed out that, although the judgment awarded interest at 15%, the decree inadvertently recorded interest at 9%.

Whether the Reference Court was justified in relying on Ex.C1, a post-notification sale deed dated 24.12.2007, for determining the market value of the acquired land and fixing compensation at Rs.2,400 per sq. ft.?

Whether the Land Acquisition Officer’s adoption of data sale No.1993 and rejection of the remaining 2,657 sale transactions provided a reliable basis for fixing compensation at Rs.159 per sq. ft.?

Whether the decree required correction regarding the rate of interest payable on the enhanced compensation?

The Court exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and applied the principle that market value must reflect fair and just compensation for the acquired property.

A post-notification sale transaction is not legally inadmissible where it is proximate in time and location and is relied upon as the best available evidence of market value; however, appropriate deduction or adjustment must be made for the subsequent rise in value, as recognised in Prem Chand v. Union of India, State of Haryana v. Suresh Kumar, and Karan Singh v. Union of India.

The Court also relied on Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.K. Project v. Mahaboob, emphasising that land losers are entitled to realistic compensation without being disadvantaged by prolonged litigation.

Regarding interest, the Court applied the principles affirmed in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, under which Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and the proviso to Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act relating to additional market value, solatium, and interest apply to the relevant acquisition.

The Court held that the Reference Court’s reference to Ex.C1 as being prior to notification was merely a typographical error, since the surrounding discussion demonstrated that the Court understood Ex.C1 to be a post-notification transaction.

Ex.C1 was situated close to the acquired land and reflected substantially higher value, while the acquired property had significant locational advantages, including frontage on the ECR–OMR link road, proximity to Sholinganallur junction, and the presence of IT establishments, colleges, industries, hotels, offices, and banks nearby.

Although Ex.C1 reflected Rs.6,170 per sq. ft., the Reference Court substantially reduced the value to Rs.2,400 per sq. ft., thereby making an appropriate adjustment for the fact that the transaction occurred approximately one year and ten months after the notification.

By contrast, Ex.C2 concerned an interior property situated away from the acquired land and therefore did not possess comparable locational advantages.

The Land Acquisition Officer’s reliance on data sale No.1993 was also found inadequate because the sale deed was not produced before the Reference Court, the departmental witness did not know the location of the property, and the rejection of 2,657 other transactions was based only on general and sweeping observations.

Consequently, the Court found no perversity or illegality in the Reference Court’s valuation. As to interest, the Court corrected the decree to conform to the applicable statutory entitlement: 9% per annum for one year from the date of possession and 15% per annum thereafter.

The decree was modified to provide interest at 9% per annum on Rs.4,09,34,135.77 for one year from the date of taking possession and 15% per annum thereafter until deposit, consistent with the applicable statutory provisions and Tarsem Singh.

The petitioner was directed to pay the entire award amount to the first respondent within 12 weeks from receipt of the order, with no order as to costs.