1968 (7) TMI 88 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the nature of the land (Kharaba land).
2. Assessment of the compensation rate for the acquired land.
3. Evaluation of the admissibility and relevance of sale instances as evidence.
4. Consideration of the potential value of the land for building purposes.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the nature of the land (Kharaba land):
The lands acquired from the villages of Ravapur and Ugedi were classified by the Land Acquisition Officer as "Kharaba lands," meaning waste lands unfit for any use. The Assistant Judge upheld this classification but acknowledged that the land in Ravapur had building potentiality, thus awarding compensation accordingly.

2. Assessment of the compensation rate for the acquired land:
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2-25nP per acre, deeming the lands as waste. Dissatisfied, the claimant sought higher compensation, arguing the land's potential for building. The Assistant Judge awarded Rs. 1000 per acre for Ravapur land, recognizing its building potentiality, but upheld the initial assessment for Ugedi land. The claimant appealed, seeking compensation at Rs. 1 per square yard for Ravapur land, based on adjacent land sales.

3. Evaluation of the admissibility and relevance of sale instances as evidence:
The claimant cited sale instances of adjacent plots to justify higher compensation. The court emphasized that sale instances must be comparable in time and quality. The claimant's evidence (Exs. 37-40) was challenged as mere rojmal entries, not sale deeds, and lacked corroboration from vendors or purchasers. The court reiterated that proving the contents of documents requires testimony from knowledgeable parties. The claimant failed to provide such evidence, rendering the sale instances inadmissible.

4. Consideration of the potential value of the land for building purposes:
The court examined whether the land's potential for building justified higher compensation. It noted that potential value must have a present market impact and not be speculative. The court considered factors like proximity to village housing and recent nearby land sales. Despite the land being classified as waste, its closeness to village sites and some development activity indicated potential for future building use. The court concluded that the land's building potential justified the awarded compensation of Rs. 1000 per acre.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the Assistant Judge's award of Rs. 1000 per acre for the Ravapur land, recognizing its building potential despite being classified as Kharaba land. The claimant's appeal for higher compensation based on sale instances was dismissed due to insufficient evidence. The judgment emphasized the necessity of concrete, corroborated evidence to substantiate claims for higher compensation based on market value and potential use.