9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence was filed by the claimants under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter relating to determination of the market value of the acquired lands to the Civil Court. Before the Reference Court, the claimants initially claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 200 per square meter which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 250/- per square meter. By a judgment and order dated 16th April, 1996, the learned District Judge allowed the reference application filed by the claimants determining the market value at the rate of Rs. 225/- per square meter. The State of Gujarat preferred an appeal there against in the High Court of Gujarat which was marked as First Appeal No. 5041/96. A Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment and order dated 11th May, 1999 allowed the said appeal and remitted the matter to the Reference Court on the premise that the deed of sale whereupon the claimants relied upon had not been proved in accordance with law. Before the District Court, upon remand parties adduced evidence. 2. The Reference Court relying on or on the basis of a deed of sale dated 15th December, 1978 (Ex. 145), whereunder a piece of land measuring 46.30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the acquired lands have large area but also on the ground of future developments which were required to be made. It was submitted that keeping in view the fact that the claimants would be getting the amount of compensation in lump sum, the High Court erred in passing the impugned judgment. In support of the said proposition, strong reliance has been placed on Bhagwathula Samanna and Ors. v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam AIR 1992 SC 2298 , Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor v. L. Kamalamma (Smt.) Dead by LRs and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 781 and Ravinder Narain and Anr. v. Union of India [2003] 2 SCR 424 . 8. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Claimants-Appellants, on the other hand, would contend that the High Court failed to take into consideration the fact that the lands situated in village Pratappura were fully developed whereas lands situated in Godhra Bhagal were not so developed and in that view of the matter it was not a case where the amount of compensation should have been determined upon deduction to the extent of 33% and 25% respectively for the large and small ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on business of distillery till 1949 and thereafter they had started business of pulse and rice mills on the acquired lands. It is an admitted fact that the acquired lands were converted into non-agricultural use since many years prior to the acquisition. 13. Before us, Ms. Wahi did not raise any contention that the sale instance relied upon by the Reference Court as also the High Court was improper. She, however, drew our attention to the following observations made by the Reference Court: However, the fact remain that the lands under acquisition are situated in the area called as Pratappura in Santrampura town, whereas the sale deed, ex. 145, pertains to a property situated in Godhra Bhagol area The sale deed is not about the property situated in Pratappura area. Furthermore, though the amount of consideration of the entire land is Rs. 20,000/-, but there is no just and proper data about the valuation of the built up portion of the said plot. The L.A. Officer in his award dtd. 16.3.82 fixed the valuation of the built-up portion at Rs. 7,500/- but in the sale deed, ex. 145, nothing specific is mentioned about the separate valuation of the built-up portion in the land. The witness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be considered in determining the compensation; the principal among which is the determination of the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4. 18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefore. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not. 19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered. 20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition which is the only relevant factor. Even in the vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity roads, drainage, electricity, communications etc. then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified. In L. Kamalamma (supra), this Court held: ...Ext. B-30 is a sale deed dated 9-8-1976, the transaction having taken place prior to eight months from the issue of the preliminary notification for acquisition of land in the present case. Having found that the piece of land referred in Ext. B-30 is situated very close to the lands that are acquired under the notification in question the reference court and the High Court relied upon the said document and, in our view, rightly. Further when no sales of comparable land were available where large chunks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [See Kasturi and Ors. v. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 202 , Tejumal Bhojwani (Dead) Through LRS. And Ors. v. State of U.P. AIR 2003 SC 3791 , V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) BY LRS. v. Land Acquisition Officer Mandal R. Officer, (2003) 12 SCC 642 , H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1800 and Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority and Anr. AIR 2004 SC 2006. 30. In The Registrar, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad (supra), whereupon Mr. Ranjit Kumar placed strong reliance, the Court noticed that if the acquisition is made for agricultural purpose, question of development thereof would not arise; but if the sale instance was in respect of small piece of land whereas the acquisition is for a large piece of land, although development cost may not be deducted, there has to be deduction for largeness of the land and also for the fact that these are agricultural lands. In that view of the matter, deduction at the rate of 33% made by the High Court was upheld. It may not, therefore, be correct to contend, as has been submitted by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, that there cannot be different deductions, one for the largeness of the land and another for development co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
