The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian opined that it is not the nature of land which alone is determinative of the market value of the land. The market value must be determined keeping in view the various factors including proximity to the developed area and the road etc.
Facts
The land admeasuring 2.42 hectares of land was intended to be acquired in pursuance of the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of resettlement of affected person from Lower Wardha submergence project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at the rate of Rs.56,500/- on 31.07.2000. The landowners aggrieved against the inadequate determination of the market value sought references u/s 18 of the Act. Before the learned Reference Court, five sale exemplars were relied upon, out of which two were excluded on the ground that such sale exemplars were after the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, the three sale exemplars were considered. The learned Reference Court found that two of the sale exemplars are of agricultural land but there is no concrete evidence to conclude that the land in these two exemplars were having non-agricultural potentiality at the time of acquisition. The third sale exemplar was taken into consideration though it was in respect of a small portion. The Reference Court found that land to be in the near vicinity of the land acquired but deducted 30% of the value on account of non-similarity, 30% on account of the sale being of a small area and another 30% on account of development charges. Thus, the Reference Court found that per hectare market value would be Rs.1,95,853.55/-. It is the said compensation which was allowed by the Reference Court along with the statutory benefits.
Contentions made
The landowners in their reference averred that the acquired land was near to the populated area of Deoli town having all the facilities like Educational Institutions, Banks, Tahsil Office, Hospitals, Courts and is located within the municipal area of the Deoli. The State in its reply denied the claim for enhancement without disputing the location of the land acquired.
Appellant: The learned Reference Court has made deduction to the extent of 90% from the best sale instance which is near to the acquired land. The Reference Court has made deduction 30% of the value on account of non-similarity, 30% on account of the sale being of a small area and another 30% on account of development charges. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the 4 Reference Court has been illegally interfered with by the High Court. The sale exemplars Exh.31 and Exh.32 are of agricultural land which have no potentiality for non-agricultural activity comparable to the acquired land for residential and commercial purpose being in close vicinity near to such Educational Institutions, Banks, Tahsil Office, Hospitals, Courts. Therefore, the order of the High Court is not sustainable. Thus, the appellant prayed for restoration of the order passed by the Reference Court.
Respondent: The two sale exemplars (out of the three considered) were of agricultural land whereas the land acquired was a non-agricultural land. Therefore, the High Court had rightly set aside the compensation based on a sale exemplar of a small area of 151 square meters.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“It is not the nature of land which alone is determinative of the market value of the land. The market value must be determined keeping in view the various factors including proximity to the developed area and the road etc… The High Court has erred in law in holding that since the land of the sale exemplars Exh.31 and Exh.32 is of irrigated agricultural land whereas the land acquired is unirrigated, is not the reasonable yardstick to determine market value of the land as the land in question is close to already developed area.”
Judgment
The order passed by the High Court was set aside and the order of the Reference Court was restored.
Case Name: Madhukar s/o Govindrao Kamble & Ors. vs Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation & Ors.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 368-369 OF 2022
Bench: Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Decided on: 31st January 2022
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments