Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.49 seconds)Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Mirza Nausherwan Khan & Anr vs The Collector (Land Acquisition), ... on 26 September, 1974
"It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties (See Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta; Mirza Nausherwan Khan v. The Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad; Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab; Kaushalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad). The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents
of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of a hypothetical layout could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civic amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the price; the profits on the venture etc., are to be made".
Padma Uppal Etc vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 23 August, 1976
"It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties (See Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta; Mirza Nausherwan Khan v. The Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad; Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab; Kaushalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad). The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents
of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of a hypothetical layout could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civic amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the price; the profits on the venture etc., are to be made".
Smt. Kaushalya Devi Bogra And Others Etc vs The Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 15 February, 1984
7. The Supreme Court had in the process of evolving the above principles placed reliance upon two earlier decisions of the said Court in Brig.
Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha And Ors. vs Amritsar Improvement Trust And Ors. on 1 October, 1981
15. We have therefore no hesitation in holding that the limit of deductions on account of development of undeveloped land under acquisition need not be restricted to 33 1/3 per cent only. We must in fairness to Mr. Patil, Counsel appearing for the appellant mention that he did not dispute the above proposition. He fairly conceded that the view taken by the Full Bench was in ignorance of the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, apart from the fact that the view did not represent a correct understanding of the decision in Brig. Sahib Singh's case, supra and that given in Administrator General of West Bengal's case, supra.
Tribeni Devi And Ors vs Collector Of Ranchi on 25 January, 1972
In Tribeni Devi's case, supra, the Court allowed a deduction of 33 1/3 per cent towards the cost of development. The cost of development may range from 20 to 33
per cent depending on the nature of the land, its situation and the nature of the land, its situation and the stage of development etc".
M/S. Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons And Ors vs State Of Gujarat on 26 July, 1995
Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in M/s. Hasanali Khanbhai and Sons case, supra; Smt. Basavva's case, supra and Ratanlal Gupta's case, supra, the Single Judge held that deductions were in the light of the said subsequent decisions permissible upto 53% of the value of the land in question. Although the Single Bench did not in so many words say so, yet the decision of the Full Bench was in the light of the subsequent pronouncement of the Supreme Court ignored as being per incuriam. We entirely agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that deductions on account of development of the land under acquisition need not be limited to 33% only as has been declared by the Full Bench. In our view, the decision of the Supreme Court in Brig.
Smt. Basavva & Ors. Etc vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & Ors on 15 March, 1996
Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in M/s. Hasanali Khanbhai and Sons case, supra; Smt. Basavva's case, supra and Ratanlal Gupta's case, supra, the Single Judge held that deductions were in the light of the said subsequent decisions permissible upto 53% of the value of the land in question. Although the Single Bench did not in so many words say so, yet the decision of the Full Bench was in the light of the subsequent pronouncement of the Supreme Court ignored as being per incuriam. We entirely agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that deductions on account of development of the land under acquisition need not be limited to 33% only as has been declared by the Full Bench. In our view, the decision of the Supreme Court in Brig.
K. Vasundara Devi vs Revenue Divisional Officer ... on 27 July, 1995
To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Basavva and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. , where the Court upheld deduction on account of development charges at 65% of the cost of the land was justified having regard to the prevailing state of the land and the fact that any development of the same would have taken a few years, Reference can also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ratanlal Gupta and Ors. v. Union of India and K. Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO), in which their Lordships upheld deductions towards developmental charges, relying upon its earlier decision in M/s. Hasanali Khanbhai and Sons case, supra.