Acquired land valuation must use comparable sales and development potential; reduction in compensation was unjustified.

Acquired land valuation must reflect the land's location, comparability of sale instances, and development potential. The lands were near a national highway and railway track and had higher potential for house-site use, while the sale deeds for nearby lands close to the notification date showed higher values than the data land relied on by the acquiring authority. The data land was not comparable because a railway track separated it from the acquired lands. The Reference Court therefore adopted the better comparables and assessed compensation accordingly, and the Supreme Court found the High Court unjustified in reducing that compensation, restoring the Reference Court's award.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the compensation payable for the acquired lands from the amount fixed by the Reference Court.

Analysis: The acquired lands were found to be situated near the national highway and railway track and to have higher development potential for house-site use. The sale deeds relating to adjacent lands executed close to the date of notification showed significantly higher values than the data land relied upon by the acquiring authority. The data land was not comparable because a railway track separated it from the acquired lands. The Reference Court therefore adopted the better comparable sales and assessed compensation on the basis of the potential and location of the acquired lands, while the High Court reduced the amount without adequately accounting for those features.

Conclusion: The reduction made by the High Court was held unjustified and the compensation fixed by the Reference Court was restored, in favour of the appellant.

---