Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (4) TMI 1697

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are situated adjacent to the main road will fetch good market value than the lands which are situated beyond the road. Though learned single Judge of the High Court was of the opinion that there was no basis of granting ₹ 2,500/- per cent for the suit lands, we are of the considered opinion that on the basis of the alleged sale deeds which were done in the proximity within a very short time amply prove its value in relation to the adjoining lands. Learned subordinate Judge was right in holding the potential value of the suit lands. - Civil Appeal Nos. 2294-2295 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 16-4-2018 - Mr R. K. Agrawal And Mr Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr V. Prabhakar, Ram Chandar, Jyoti Parasher and R. Chandrachud, Advs JUDGMENT R.K. Agrawal, J. 1. The above appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 06.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in A.S. Nos. 88 and 601 of 2001 and Cross Objection No. 27 of 2007 whereby learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent while dismissing the cross objection filed by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the compensation awarded for the acquired lands was grossly inadequate and abnormally low and does not reflect the correct market value of the said lands. He further contended that the market value of the acquired lands at the relevant time was not less than ₹ 20,000/- per cent. The potential value of the acquired lands and rise in price were not considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. Learned Counsel finally contended that the High Court also erred in law while computing the market value of the lands in question and interference by this Court is sought for in this regard. 6. It was the stand of the Respondent before the courts below that the entire land belonging to the claimant was not acquired but a portion of it alone was acquired. The remaining portion could be used by the claimant. Further, the Respondent is not entitled to pay compensation for the unacquired land. It was further the stand of the Respondent that the compensation awarded to the claimant is already on the higher side as compared to the compensation awarded to the lands in vicinity and no interference is sought for by this Cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ere situated in the midst of developed areas and is connecting the major big areas in the vicinity. LAOP No. 54 of 1995, which was pending on the file of learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu was transferred to the file of learned subordinate Judge, Madurantagam and re-numbered as LAOP No. 120 of 1998. Vide judgment and order dated 27.03.2000, learned subordinate Judge, granted compensation to the Appellant herein at the rate of ₹ 2,500/- per cent together with 30% solatium, 12% additional amount from the date of Notification which was reduced to ₹ 1,670/- per cent with solatium and other statutory benefits by learned single Judge of the High Court in appeal vide judgment and order dated 06.11.2009. 10. Since the acquired lands are situated in different survey numbers, different quantum of compensation has been awarded for the lands so acquired. The general principles which have been followed in assessing the compensation payable in all these matters are the location of the lands sought to be acquired, their potential for development, their proximity to areas which are already developed and the exorbitant rise in the value of the lands over t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... course of proceeding, various sale deeds of adjacent lands were brought to our knowledge. It is also undisputed fact that the entire land belonging to the Appellant herein was not acquired but a portion of it alone had been acquired. It is the grievance of the Appellant that the acquisition of land to the extent of 4.63 acres out of total holding of 6.11 acres, rendering the balance land to be an uneconomical holding for the purpose of continuing agriculture operations. There is no doubt that the land owners have to suffer when their lands acquired under the LA Act. Hence, they must be compensated properly in lieu of their lands to do proper justice. 13. Since the point of consideration before this Court is related to the amount of compensation, we confine ourselves to that point only. Learned subordinate Judge, vide judgment and order dated 27.03.2000 rightly held as under: ....There is a railway track in between the data land and acquired land. Therefore, while considering on the said angle, the nature of the acquired land and the data land are not similar. On considering the plan marked on behalf of the claimant and on behalf of the Respondent i.e. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the acquired land cannot be fixed as stated in those sale deeds, it could be fixed to its potential at the rate of ₹ 2,500/- per cent as compensation to the claimants. 15. An assessment of the compensation payable for land acquired must take into account several factors, including the nature of the land, its present use and its capacity for a higher potential, its precise location in relation to adjoining land, the use to which neighbouring land has been put to use, the impact of such use on the land acquired, and so on. In the case at hand, the Respondent determined the value of the suit land based on the sale deed dated 15.04.1993 under which 26 cents in S. No. 294/A/1-B16 had been sold at the rate of ₹ 400/- per cent which has happened five months prior to the date of acquisition of the suit land and that land has been taken as data land. Learned subordinate Judge very correctly appreciated the fact that there is a railway track between the data land and the acquired land and in that view of the matter, both the lands cannot be considered as similar. It is also evident that the acquired lands are in the midst of a railway track and national highway .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates