Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can an auction sale of developed plots be relied on as the exemplar for market value where other comparable sale instances are already available on record?

No. Being an auction sale reduces the exemplar's reliability to indicate the true market value, because an auction inevitably motivates buyers to purchase at higher prices than the prevailing market rate and incorporates extraneous factors, like competition, ego, and speculation, into setting of sale price. Such auction exemplars can only be used when no other comparable sale instances are available.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s.4 — s.23(1) — s.24 — s.34 — Market value — Sale exemplars — Auction sale — Escalation — Solatium and interest — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s.23(1) — Auction sale exemplar — unreliable indicator of true market value — Held: An auction sale reduces the exemplar's reliability, because an auction motivates buyers to purchase at higher prices than the prevailing market rate and imports competition, ego and speculation. Such exemplars can only be used when no other comparable sale instances are available. (¶22, 23) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s.4 — s.24 — Post-notification sale instances — price rise to be disregarded — Held further: Sale instances after the initiation of the acquisition are unreliable, as land value tends to appreciate expecting benefits from the public purpose. The 'fifthly' clause of Section 24 mandates that the price increase due to that purpose be disregarded. (¶25) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s.23(1) — Highest sale exemplar — higher escalation in metropolitan areas — Held further: The exemplar depicting the highest market value ought to be used among multiple reliable sale instances, an average only where rates are within a narrow margin. Escalation for the time gap, ordinarily 10-12% per year, must be higher in metropolitan areas. (¶38, 43) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s.34 — s.23(1A) — s.23(2) — Interest and solatium on enhanced compensation — Held further: Interest under Section 34 runs at 9% per annum for the first year after taking of possession and 15% thereafter, and a court cannot deviate from that explicit mandate. All statutory benefits are due on the enhanced amount; appeals allowed in part, market value reduced. (¶48, 50, 52)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Barla Ram Reddy v. The State of Telangana — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India