9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted thereunder. By notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short 'the Act') was published in the State Gazette on November 21, 1963 to acquire 5 acres-589-1/3 sq. yards in T.S. No. 981, Block No. 34 of Waitair Ward, Vishakapatnam for a housing scheme. The Collector awarded at ₹ 1.58 per sq. yard and on reference, the Civil Court enhanced the compensation to ₹ 10 per sq. yard with solatium at 15 per cent and interest at 4 per cent. The respondent claimed @ ₹ 12 per sq. yard. On appeal and cross appeals the High Court confirmed the award and dis- missed the appeal as well as cross objections for enhancement to ₹ 12 per sq. yard. Two contentions have been raised by Shri Narsimahachar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... word "market value" would postulate price of the land prevailing on the date of the publication of the notification under section 4(1). This Court repeatedly laid the acid test that in determining the market value of the land, the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser would form the basis to fix the market value. For ascertaining the market rate, the Court can rely upon such transactions which would offer a reasonable basis to fix the price. The price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the acquisition of the land in question would be the best piece of evidence. In its absence the price paid for a land pos- sessing similar advant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 acres and odd area. It is undoubted that in respect of a notification of 1961 in which another T.S. number in the locality, namely, T.S. No. 1008, ultimately, the High Court awarded @ ₹ 10 per sq. yard. Perhaps had there been no bona fide or genuine sale transaction relating to the self- same land, the reliance placed on that judgment may be justified but exclusion of bona fide and genuine sale trans- actions in respect of the same land under acquisition and to place reliance on the award of some other land is obviously illegal. When the claimants themselves sold as a willing seller of an acre of land @ ₹ 5 per sq. yard large extent of five acres and odd under acquisition, if it is offered to be sold as a block, it would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Rednam Dharma Rao & Ors., C.A. No 4187 of 1982, dated July 17, 1990 wherein this Court had upheld the deduction of 1/5 from the market value towards developmental charges. It is settled law that the High Court and the Reference court when made wrong application of a principle or important points effecting valuation has been over looked or misapplied, this Court would under Art. 136 correct the same, vide The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v.T. Adinarayan Setty, [1959] Suppl. 1 S.C.R. 404; Dattatrayaya Shankarbhat Ambalgi and Ors. v. The Collector of Sholapur and Anr., AiR 1970 SC 850-'[1971] 3 S.C.C. 431; The Dollar Co., Madras v. Collector of Madras, [1975] Supp. SCC 403 and Padma Uppal Etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing schemes relating to weaker sections deduction 1/4 may be justified. On that basis, this court in R. Dharma Rao's case upheld deduction of 1/5 because the owner while obtaining the lay out had already set apart lands for road and drainage. Therefore, deduction of 1/3 would be reasonable. In fact in The Tehsildar, Land Acquisi- tion, Vishakapatnam v.P. Narasing Rao & Ors., [1985] 1 A.P.L.J. 99, a Division Bench of the High Court surveyed judgments of the High Court relating to housing schemes of Vishakapatnam upholding deduction of 1/3 to be reasonable. Accordingly we hold that 1/3 of the market value should be deducted for development of the lands. The High Court com- mitted greivous error in giving a curious reasoning of valuing at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
