9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Land acquisition proceedings; Valuation of acquired land for compensation. Analysis: The case involved an appeal arising from land acquisition proceedings for the construction of an industrial estate. The original claimants, represented by the heirs and legal representatives, contested the compensation awarded for their lands. The Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed compensation at &8377; 2200 per acre, which was challenged by the claimants. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhavnagar, considered the building potentiality of the lands and increased the compensation to &8377; 4,400 per acre. The High Court upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court. The main instance relied upon by the claimants was a sale agreement and deed for adjacent land known as "Kesarbagh," sold for &8377; 3 per sq. yard. The High Court initially rejected this instance due to lack of proper proof of the sale deed contents. However, after further evidence was presented, the sale deed was duly proved, and the Court acknowledged its relevance in determining market value. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering bona fide transactions of similar lands for market value determination under the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court also considered other sale instances, including one involving a distress sale, but found them unreliable for estimating market value. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's assessment and emphasized the need for credible evidence to determine fair compensation. The Court highlighted the significance of relying on proven instances of sale close to the acquisition date to ascertain market value accurately. Ultimately, the Supreme Court determined the market value of the acquired land at &8377; 8,800 per acre, after considering various factors such as rise in land prices post-acquisition and the specific circumstances of the sale instances. The Court directed the amendment of the Civil Judge's decree to reflect this valuation. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay half of the appeal costs to the appellants. The judgment underscored the importance of relying on credible evidence and comparable instances to ensure fair compensation in land acquisition cases.
|
