9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Analysis: The judgment in these three appeals primarily revolves around the valuation of lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The controversy was limited to the valuation of lands acquired under notifications issued on specific dates. The acquired lands were situated near a national highway, and the appellants claimed a specific amount per sq. yard as compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector had initially fixed varying rates for different types of land in different blocks for the acquisitions covered by the notifications. References were made under Section 18 of the Act, and the reference Court and subsequently the High Court fixed the compensation at different rates per bigha based on detailed analysis of contemporaneous sale instances and other factors. The High Court considered various aspects such as residential and shop plots, plotted areas, development charges, and miscellaneous charges to arrive at the final compensation amount. In the arguments presented before the Court, the appellants contended that the High Court did not consider comparable cases and relied on instances of sale that were not contemporaneous. They also highlighted the rapid upward trend in prices to support their claim for higher compensation. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the High Court's detailed factual analysis justified the fixed market value and that there was no evidence to support the claim of an upward price trend. The Court referred to previous decisions to emphasize that the rate at which small plots are sold may not always be a safe criterion when a large area is being acquired, but it could be considered in certain cases with necessary adjustments. The Court further discussed the principles of determining market value, emphasizing factors such as the market value on the date of notification, matters to be considered and not considered in determining compensation, and the importance of avoiding unjust enrichment or undue deprivation. It was highlighted that speculation should be minimized by basing the market value on comparable sales that are bona fide, of the acquired or adjacent land, and possess similar advantages. Based on the instances provided by both parties, the Court fixed the average rate for the notifications in question and concluded that the compensation should be calculated accordingly. The judgment detailed the reasoning behind the fixed rate per sq. yard and addressed the marginal price differences observed in the evidence on record. Ultimately, the appeals were disposed of without any costs being awarded.
|
