You will get handful of compensation as per the principles laid down by Hon'bl High Court as follows. Please check ratios of different judgments.
Bombay High Court
Shalini Vaman Godbole vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 22 June, 2009
Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, S.J. Vazifdar
Sohan Lal (1988) 2 Andh LT, 206, a Divisi
Shalini Vaman Godbole ..Appellant
1.Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Special Unit, Solapur and ors. ..Respondents
on Bench of that High Court, without noticing these two binding decisions, held that the Basic Valuation Register would form foundation to determine the market value and directed to determine the compensation on that basis. The entire controversy was considered by yet another Division Bench in Vasireddi Bharata Rao v. Revenue Divisional Officer (1992) 1 Andh LT, 591. The Division Bench, after considering the case law disagreeing with Sohan Lal8 view as per incuriam, also reiterated that the Basic Valuation Register maintained by the registering authority has no statutory foundation to determine the market value and cannot form the base under Section 23(1) to determine the market value. This Court in Gulzara Singh v. State of Punjab (1993) 4 SCC, 245, held that mutation entries of the land transactions in the revenue records are not evidence unless the parties to the transactions have been examined in proof of documents. In Director of Survey-cum-LAO v. Mohd. Ghouse (1985) 1 MLJ, 116, relied on by Mr Ganguli, the Division Bench of Madras High Court, relying upon the instructions issued by the Government to determine the market value for the purpose of registration of the instrument under Section 47-A, held that it would form basis to determine the market value under Section 23 in an appropriate case, subject to proof of the market value. What were the instructions issued by the Government and whether they had any statutory foundation, have not been stated by the Division Bench. If the broad proposition of law that under Section 47-A of Stamp Act such instructions could be issued, as contended for the appellant herein, as appears to be the view of the High Court, it is not correct law. As we have already noted, Section 47-A being local amendment, made by each State Legislature did not find any such statutory basis. Like A.P. Act, Tamil Nadu Act is also referable to transactions intra vivos and not as general guidelines. If they are based on evidence inter partes it would be consistent with Section 47-A. Accordingly we hold that the basic value of registration has no statutory base. It cannot form any basis to determine the market value of the acquired lands under Section 23 of the Act. The burden of proof is always on the claimant to prove, in each case the prevailing market value as on the date of notification published in the State Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Act with reference to the sale deeds of the same lands or neighbours lands possessed of same or similar advantages and features executed between willing vendor and willing vendee or other relevant evidence in the reference court. The State did not file any appeal against the award of the reference court which itself is a matter gone in favour of the appellant. We do not find any justification to further enhance the market value.