Raju, J.:— This is an appeal against the order passed under s. 26 of the Land Acquisition Act by the First Additional District Judge, Nagpur.
2. Admittedly, 27.66 acres out of khasra Nos. 62, 63, 68, 69 and 72 in Manewada village belonging to the appellant Yeshwantrao had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by a notification dated June 9, 1948.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 550 per acre, but not being satisfied with this amount the appellant made an application under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for a reference to the District Court. In his award the First Additional District Judge, Nagpur, confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Officer with a slight modification. In the present appeal it is contended that the learned Additional District Judge erred in confirming Rs. 550 per acre as the valuation of the land. This is the only point urged in appeal, but various grounds were urged in support of this contention.
4. It is urged that the village of Manewada is adjacent to the village of Babhul-kheda where building activities have been going on, that for purposes of compensation the value of the lands in Babhulkheda should have been adopted as basis in the present ease, that the land acquired has potentialities as building site, and that even as agricultural land it is far superior to the adjacent lands. It is contended that the appellant has not adduced evidence of any sales in Manewada village, but the contention is that the compensation awarded for the lands in Babhulkheda village should have been taken as the basis for compensation for the acquisition of lands in Manewada village. We reject all these contentions of the appellant for the following reasons.
5. The appellant himself has not gone into the witness-box. He examined three witnesses Bajirao (A.W 1), Shri Nerikar (A.W 2), and Maroti (A.W 3). None of these witnesses has deposed about the alleged potentialities of lands in Manewada village for building purposes. The lands in question were acquired in 1948 and the witnesses of the appellant gave evidence in November 1952. In 1952 none of these witnesses has spoken of any building activity in Manewada village. If in 1948 the lands acquired from Manewada village had any potentiality for building purposes, the witnesses could have given evidence of building activities in 1948 or at least in the next three or four years, but admittedly there is no evidence of any sites having been purchased in Mane-wada between 1948 and 1952 as building site.
6. If a land has potentiality as building site, the market makes allowance for it, and naturally the market value of the land rises accordingly. The market takes note of any possibilities for building purposes or for other purposes. Under the Land Acquisition Act the market value has to be determined for purposes of compensation. This market value itself includes estimates by the market of speculative advances in the values of lands in consequence of improvements already made in the locality or in consequence of potentialities for any purposes. The market, even in villages, takes into account the use already made of similar lands in the locality and the probable most advantageous use similar lands are capable of being put to. It is not for the Court to speculate as to the future potentialities of sites or lands. The Court has only to consider the market value on the relevant date. If the land has future potentialities, the market value includes the value of such future potentialities. As laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs v. Charlesworth, Pilling and Co. . 1901 L.R 28 I.A 121.,
“A claimant is entitled to the market value of his land, including such actual speculative advance therein as had already taken place in consequence of improvements in the locality, but excluding any future speculative advance from a like cause.”
7. In the present case it is admitted that during the year of acquisition and also during the next three or four years there had been no sales of land in Manewada village. This amounts to a clear admission that there was no speculative advance in the value of lands in Manewada village. As already observed, the appellant himself has not entered the witness-box and none of his witnesses has spoken of the alleged potentialities of lands in the village. The learned Additional District Judge was, therefore, right in excluding from consideration any future speculative advance in the market value, and in confining his attention to the market value of the land for purposes of agriculture.
[His Lordship after considering the evidence, proceeded.]
8. In view of the fact that the appellant himself has not given any testimony and that his own servant has estimated the value of the land acquired at Rs. 400 to Es. 500 per acre, we see no reason to hold that the learned Additional District Judge erred in confirming the award awarding compensation at Rs. 550 per acre.
No other point has been urged.
We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.
9. Appeal dismissed.