9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim of ₹ 8/- per sq. yard. Dissatisfied therewith, on appellants' reference Civil Court by its award and in dated 31st July,1973 determined the compensation at the rate of ₹ 2.05 per sq. yard. On appeal to the High Court under Section 54 of the Act, Gujarat High Court by its judgment dated 1st July, 1975 in First Appeal No.242/1973, while holding that the lands under acquisition are capable to fetch market value at the rate of ₹ 10.00 per sq. yard, determined the compensation after 60% deduction, at the rate of ₹ 4/- per sq. yard. In appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, appellants challenges the correctness of the deduction at do% of the price determined to the lands under acquisition. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, Poona & Ors. [(1988) 3 SCC 751] and Bhagwathula Samana & Ors. vs. Special Tehsildar & Land Acquisition Officer, Vishakapatnam Municipality [AIR 1992 SC 2298]. The learned counsel for the State strongly resisted the contention of Shri Dholakia. The question, therefore, is whether the High Court was right in deducting 60% of the price in determining the compensation. Since the State had not come in appeal against the determination of the compensation at ₹ 10/- per sq. yard, the need to go into its correctness is obviated. But suffice it to state that the High Court has rested its conclusion on diverse facts. The first, in our view, rightly is that the lands are situated far away from the municipal limits so as to use for building pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to what are the prevailing conditions and whether a willing purchaser would as a prudent man in the normal market conditions offer to purchase the acquired land at the rates mentioned in the sale deeds. After due evaluation taking all relevant and germane facts into consideration, the Court must answer as to what would be the just and fair market value. These principles were enunciated by this Court in, all decisions including the one relied on by Mr. Dholakia which needs no reiteration. It is a question of fact in each case to consider whether the land under acquisition is possessed of such value which includes potential value, if any, as comparable with reference to the evidence on record. It is seen that the sale instances referred and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the entire land cannot be used for building purposes without providing roads, drainage, electricity and other civic amenities for which necessary deduction of 1/3rd should also be made as held in a catena of decisions of this Court. It is seen that when a large track of land of 7 acres and 28 gunthas was purchased by the claimant owners in 1956 at ₹ 251 per acre, in 1960 when the notification was issued what would be the reasonable and probable price which a reasonable prudent purchaser would offer when a large track of land is offered for sale in open market. In this case, neighbouring land was sold at the rate of ₹ 960/- per acre in 1960 as against the price which is paid in 1956 at the rate of ₹ 251/- per acre. In 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
