9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (7) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atisfied with that award, the reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer at the instance of the claimant under Section 13 of the Act. The claim in that reference was merely confined to the land admeasuring 3 acres 30 gunthas of Ravapur, and 37 gunthas of land from Ugedi which were said to be contiguous to the house sites of those villages respectively. The claim was made at the rate of Re. 1-12 nP. per. one square yard of land from the village of Ravapur. 3 acres and 30 gunthas of land are equal to 18150 square yards of land. In respect of the other land admeasuring 37 gunthas from the Ugedi village, he made a claim at the rate of Re. 00-75 nP. per one square yard of land. 37 gunthas of land are equal to 4477 square yards. That reference was heard by the Court of the Assistant Judge, Kutch at Bhuj. Considering the effect of the evidence adduced by the parties in the case, the learned Judge found that both the lands were Kharaba lands. On that basis he rejected the claim at the rate of Re. 00-75 nP. per square yard for the land of village Ugedi. He, however, felt that much though the land of village Ravapur was Kharaba land, since it had a building potentiality, he awarded c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansactions referred to in Exs. 39 and 40, however, appear to have taken place on 25-10-48. It may be mentioned here that when reliance is sought to be placed for determination of the market value on such, instances of sale of the neighbouring plots having taken place by about the same time when the land in question was sought to be acquired, it would not be necessary to go into other questions relating to the potential value of any such property as likely to be used for building purposes. That has been the settled position of law and if necessary, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer, Surat v. Dalichand Virchand Shroff, ILR (1966) Guj 1006. In that case, it has been observed as under:-- While determining the market value of the land, the potential value of the land has to be taken into consideration. Where, however, the market value is to be determined on the basis of the sale instances of properties in the nearby locality, the potential values of the land should not be separately assessed because the prices evidenced by the sale instances cover the potential values. In Raghubans Narain Singh v. The Uttar Pradesh Government, thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Such entries cannot establish any such things and that can only be done by examining the parties to any such transactions of sale or any person knowing about the same. In support of this contention, he invited a reference to a decision in the case of Madholal Sindhu v. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd. 56 Bom LR 147 :(AIR 1954 Bom 305) where it has been laid down as follows: Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only permits the proof of the signature or handwriting of the person signing or writing the document to be given and considers it to be sufficient in those cases where the issue between the parties is whether a document was signed or written wholly or in part by that person. The section does not go so far as to say that even if it was proved that the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as was alleged to be in the handwriting of the person, was in his handwriting, it would go to prove the contents of that document. In other words, for proving the contents of the document, it would be essential that a person who has knowledge of the contents thereof must appear before the Court to give evidence in that regard. Another case referred to by him was of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... articular time and at a particular price, but that before it can serve as a good piece of evidence for determination of the market value of the land under acquisition, it must be further shown that that transaction was between a prudent purchaser and a willing vendor and that the price given by the purchaser was the normal market price prevailing then. A reference to any such entries either from account books or from revenue records or even the sale deeds, or putting mere reliance on them would not avail the party concerned. The State would then be able to meet any such instances on which the reliance is placed by the appellant, for, it could test the nature of the transaction by cross-examining those persons who speak about the same. That view finds support from another decision in Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay City and Bombay Suburban District v. Trustees of the will of A. H. Wadia, (1956) 58 Bom LR 766. The pertinent observations made at p. 767 may well be quoted with advantage:-- But it is clear that the only sales that the claimant can rely upon are genuine sales, sales which indicate a proper market value. A sale may be a forced sale, a sale may be an accommodatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Not only that, but he has further stated that he took charge from Jayantilal in December 1948 and that he was not at Ravapur before that. It is therefore, obvious that he could not have taken any part in the transactions that took place in about the month of October or November, 1948. His evidence, therefore, cannot help the claimant in that regard. Thus apart from the fact that the entries were wrongly exhibited without any legal and reliable evidence about their proof, the contents of the transactions referred to in Exs. 37 to 40 cannot be taken as established. Even if the contents thereof were taken as proved, in absence of any evidence of the parties to any such transactions of safe, or of any person who knew about those transactions, they can have no value whatever. Any such instances of sale, therefore, even if it was assumed that they had taken place, cannot, therefore, serve as a guide for determining the market value of the property under Section 23 of the Act. 12. It was, however, urged by Mr. Mankad that Mr. Majumdar, the Land Acquisition Officer, has admitted in his evidence about sales of adjacent lands having taken place at certain rates. He has, however, stated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cultivation. Even if it was a waste land not fit to make use of as agricultural land, it can well be made use of as a building site. It is on that basis that he has awarded compensation in respect of this land at the rate of ₹ 1000/-per acre. What, however, is contended by Mr. Desai was that it is not enough that it should be a land which can be made use of for building purposes. In order to claim additional compensation, the Court has to consider that the land's potentiality must have a present value, and to take into account any remote possibility of its use as building site would be in the nature of an imaginative venture on the part of the Court, He invited a reference to a decision in In re Sorabji Jamsetji Tata, (1908) 10 Bom LR 696, where it was held that although land may possess certain potential ties it does not follow that those potentialities have any present value. In this connection we may as well refer to a decision In the case of Atmaram Bhagwant Ghadgay V. Collector of Nagpur, 31 Bom LR 728 = (AIR 1929 PC 92) where it was held that the potential value of the land has to he taken as at the date of notification under which it has been acquired with alt i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... future........ The question therefore turns upon the facts of each case. In the contest of building potentiality many questions will have to be asked and answered: whether there is pressure on the land for building activity, whether the acquired land is suitable for building purposes, whether the extension of the said activity is towards the land acquired, what is the pace of the progress and how far the said activity has extended and within what time, whether buildings have been put up on lands purchased for building purposes, what is the distance between the built-in-land and the land acquired and similar other questions will have to be answered. It is the overall picture drawn on the said relevant circumstances that affords the solution. From all this it would, follow that while considering the potential value of any land as is likely to be used for building purposes, one has to consider various facts apart from the question as to whether the acquired land was suitable for building purposes. In our view, ordinarily the evidence in Court led by any claimant for additional compensation on that basis must first establish that the land in question is suitable for building purpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
