Comparable land valuation rejects deduction where acquired land matches exemplar land in nature and potentiality

Compensation for acquired land could not be reduced merely because the acquisition was treated as a large block or because the exemplar land was at a slightly different distance. The earlier exemplar award had attained finality, and the lands were found similar in nature and potentiality; no material inferiority in the acquired land was proved. On that basis, the High Court's 25% deduction was unsustainable, the reduction was set aside, and the compensation fixed by the Reference Court was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reduction of compensation by the High Court on the basis of the size of the acquired land and the distance between the acquired land and the exemplar land was justified.

Analysis: The earlier award relied upon as the exemplar had attained finality and the lands covered by the exemplar and the present acquisition were found to be similar in nature and potentiality. Mere clubbing of small holdings to describe the acquisition as a large area did not justify deduction, and the stated difference in distance was not shown to affect quality or potentiality. In the absence of evidence proving any material inferiority of the acquired land, the reduction of compensation by 25% could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The reduction of compensation by the High Court was unjustified and was set aside; the compensation fixed by the Reference Court was restored.

Final Conclusion: The claimants' appeals succeeded and the State's appeals failed, with the compensation rate restored to that fixed by the Reference Court.

Ratio Decidendi: When comparable lands are shown to be similarly situated and no material disadvantage is proved, compensation cannot be reduced merely because the acquisition is treated as a large block or because of a marginal difference in distance.

---