Comparable sale instances require proof of genuine transactions, while present building potentiality may still support land valuation.

Comparable sale instances could not justify a higher market value because the alleged transactions were not proved through direct evidence, the sale deeds were not produced, and their genuineness as sales between willing buyers and willing sellers was not established. Mere record entries and unsupported oral assertions were insufficient to prove market value under the Land Acquisition Act. The land's compensation could still be assessed with reference to building potentiality, because surrounding circumstances showed a real present value as a building site on the date of acquisition rather than a merely speculative possibility. The award was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claimant proved a higher market value for the acquired Ravapur land on the basis of nearby sale instances and building potentiality.

Analysis: The evidence of alleged comparable sales was found unreliable because the entries relied upon were not proved by the persons having knowledge of the transactions, the sale deeds were not produced, and the genuineness of the transactions as between willing purchasers and willing vendors was not established. Mere entries in records or oral assertions unsupported by direct evidence were insufficient to prove market value under the Land Acquisition Act. On potentiality, the land was treated as waste land but the relevant question was whether it had present value as a building site on the date of acquisition. The surrounding circumstances, including proximity to village house sites and some nearby plot transactions, showed that the land had a real and not merely speculative building potential.

Conclusion: The claimant was not entitled to enhancement on the basis of the sale instances, but the land could legitimately be valued with reference to its building potentiality. The award of compensation at Rs. 1,000 per acre was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed to establish a higher compensable value beyond the amount already awarded, and the respondent's valuation was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Comparable sale instances can be relied upon for determining market value only when the transactions are proved to be genuine sales between willing purchaser and willing seller, and potentiality affects compensation only when it has present, objectively ascertainable value on the date of acquisition.

---