Land Acquisition Act,1894- Sale exemplars reflecting the prices paid by a willing buyer to a willing seller would be the most relevant piece of evidence for determination of such value.3 25. However, for utilizing these sale deeds as the foundation for determining compensation, it is imperative that these sale instances satisfy certain criteria of comparability. In this regard, it is necessary that the sale deeds adhere to the following factors: i. the sale must be a genuine transaction; ii. the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act; iii. the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land; and iv. the nature of such land, including its size, must be similar to the acquired land.,(Para 24-25)
Land Acquisition Act,1894 – Guesstimation– Guesstimation is a heuristic device that enables the court, in the absence of direct evidence and relevant sale exemplars, to make a reasonable and informed guess or estimation of the market value of the land under acquisition, and concomitantly the compensation payable by the appropriate Government. In that sense, guesstimation hinges on the Court’s ability to exercise informed judgement and expertise in assessing the market value of land, especially when the evidence does not tender a straightforward answer. 32. This principle accentuates the fundamental understanding that determining compensation for land is not a matter of exact science but involves a significant element of estimation. Indeed, this holds true for valuation of land in general, which is affected by a multitude of factors such as its location, surrounding market conditions, feasible uses etc. Accordingly, while evidence and calculations can aid in estimating the land value, they ultimately serve as tools for approximation rather than precision. Instead, land valuation—and consequently the affixation of compensation -While the Court can use the principle of guesstimation in reasonably estimating the value of land in the absence of direct evidence, the exercise ought not to be purely hypothetical. Instead, the Court must embrace a holistic view and consider all relevant factors and existing evidence, even if not directly comparable, to arrive at a fair determination of compensation. (Para 34)