Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: V.N.DEVADOSS in Agra Development Authority vs Nafisha Begum And 10 Othrs. on 25 July, 2019Matching Fragments
(xi) Auction sales are relevant for fixing market value in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.N. Devadoss vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer and Inspector and others {(2009) 7 SCC 438}.
(xii) When there are several exemplars with reference to similar land, it is the general rule that the highest exemplar, found to be bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted. Reference in this regard may be had to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish vs. State of U.P. {(2009) 14 SCC 758 (Par-42)}, Anjana Molu Desai vs. State of Goa, {(2010) 13 SCC 710 (para-13)}, Chindha Thakre Patil vs. S.L.A.O. {(2011) 10 SCC 787 (para-15)}, Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) vs. State of Punjab, {(2012) 5 SCC 432} and Mohd. Yusuf and others vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2018 SC 2248.
36. Learned counsels for the respondents have relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Natural Resources Allocation, In Re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 [JT 2012 (10) SC 145 : 2012 (10) SCC 1 ] and V.N. Devadoss vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer and Inspector and others {(2009) 7 SCC 438}. I have perused both the judgments. Natural Resources Allocation case (supra) is with regard to auction of 2G spectrum and the question basically involved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether the only permissible method for disposal of all natural resources across all sectors and in all circumstances is by the conduct of auctions and What is the permissible scope for interference by courts with policy making by the Government including methods for disposal of natural resources. The judgment in the case of V.N. Devadoss (supra) arose from the proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act for payment of stamp duty and in that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the property was offered for sale in the open market by inviting bids and, therefore, there is no question of any intention to defraud the revenue or non-disclosure of the correct price of the properties which were disposed of under the orders of BIFR and AAIFR on the basis of value fixed by Assets Sales Committee.