Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Attar Singh & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 4 August, 2009
9. We have heard Counsel appearing for the claimants as well as the
acquiring Authority. With the assistance of the Counsel appearing for the
parties, we have waded through the evidence in the respective Appeals
which was produced by the claimants in the Reference filed by them
separately. We have thought it appropriate to dispose of both the Appeals
together by this common Judgment as we find that the matter in issue to be
answered will be overlapping, as it arises out of common Notification in
respect of one consolidated plot of 17822.75 sq.mtrs. which incidentally
was owned by two owners Vartaks and Pundales. The Vartaks owned
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:11:49 :::
14 FA.1033.03.sxw
portion of the said plot admeasuring 8311.37 sq.mtrs.; whereas, Pundales
owned the other portion of the same plot admeasuring 9511.38 sq.mtrs. We
are fortified in adopting this approach, considering the exposition of the
Apex Court in the case of Attar Singh v. Union of India & Anr. reported
in (2009) 9 SCC 289. In Paragraph 17 of the said decision, the Apex Court,
in essence, has opined that the claimants pertaining to common
Notification should not be treated differently. We are conscious of the fact
that separate evidence has been adduced by the parties in the respective
Reference Applications but while answering both the Appeals, we would
analyse the evidence of both the References to arrive at one common
conclusion to obviate any conflicting opinion in respect of the market price
or any other incidental issue relating to the compensation payable to the
respective claimants.
Mathura Prasad Rajgharia And Ors. vs State Of West Bengal on 27 October, 1970
15. Understood thus, we find no infirmity in the method applied by the
SLAO of considering the comparable sale instances as the benchmark for
arriving at the fair market price of the land under acquisition. It is not as if
as a general rule, the land even though it has width or depth of only 75
sq.mtrs. and having frontage of DP Road from two sides should be still
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:11:50 :::
22 FA.1033.03.sxw
assessed under belting system, as is sought to be contended. Reliance was
placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Mathura Prosad Rajgharia &
Ors. v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1971 SC 465. This
Judgment has been pressed into service on two propositions. Firstly, as to
what is the meaning of word `disposition'. In Paragraph 11 of the said
decision, the Apex Court has expounded that the word `disposition' means
how the land could be disposed of at that time. It does not mean the existing
use of the land but means its disposing power "with the arrangement as it
was on that date". It has further observed that the market value has to be
arrived at keeping in mind the disposition of the land which would mean
the value of the land in a hypothetical market which a willing purchaser
may, in the prevailing conditions pay for the land to a willing vendor,
taking into consideration its situation and advantages. This decision is also
pressed into service to persuade us that method of belting system would
have been the most appropriate method to be applied to the case on hand. In
Paragraph 12 of this decision, the Apex Court has noticed that when a large
area of land in an urban locality is sought to be acquired in determining the
market value, "the method of belting" is appropriate. This dictum will have
to be understood in the context of the fact situation of that case. However,
this decision does not postulate that method of belting is the only method to
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:11:50 :::
23 FA.1033.03.sxw
be applied in relation to acquisition of land in urban locality. Further, in
that case, the area of land which was acquired was admeasuring 39 bighas
and 19 cottahs (63,980 sq.yards). Considering the large tract of area under
acquisition in that case, the Apex Court approved application of belting
system. Thus, the area of the land which was under acquisition dealt with
by the Supreme Court was almost four times bigger than the land under
acquisition. Besides, as noticed earlier, expert witnesses examined by the
claimants have conceded that the land was accessible from two different DP
roads on the western and southern side respectively and the depth of the
plot on the southern side was only around 75 mtrs. In our opinion,
therefore, no fault can be found with the method applied by the Land
Acquisition Officer of comparable sale instances for determining the fair
market price of the land under acquisition.
Cement Corporation Of India Ltd vs Purya & Ors on 7 October, 2004
20,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- was being received on the
execution of the Sale Deed on 12th October 1984. In this view of the matter,
there was hardly any reason to doubt the veracity of the execution of the
said Sale Deed and the terms specified therein. Having regard to the fact
that the claimants had produced certified copy of the Sale Deed and
considering the expansive provision contained in Section 51-A of the Land
Acquisition Act, the Court had no option but to accept the said Sale Deed as
evidence of the transaction recorded therein. We may usefully refer to the
decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Cement
Corporation of India Ltd. v. Purya reported in AIR 2004 SC 4830. The
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has authoritatively answered the
issue regarding the efficacy of Section 51A of the Act. It has held that upon
production of certified copy of the Sale Deed, its admissibility in evidence
would be beyond any question. In Paragraph 35 of the same decision, the
Court has opined that the registered document in terms of Section 51-A of
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:11:50 :::
27 FA.1033.03.sxw
the Act may carry therewith a presumption of genuineness. Such a
presumption, therefore, is rebuttable. Suffice it to observe that the issue
regarding admissibility of a certified copy of the Sale Deed has now been
finally resolved by this decision. In the present case, it is not in dispute that
the claimants produced the Sale Deed dated 12th October 1984 which has
been marked as Exhibit 79. In any case, the claimants have examined the
owner of the said plot Vaishali Sane as PW 3 who has deposed about the
said transaction and proved the sale.
Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 21 July, 1988
In Paragraph 4
of the decision in the case of Chimanlal (supra), the Apex Court has
articulated the broad contours to be kept in mind for determining the fair
market price. The balancing features have also been adverted to in this
paragraph. The smallness of size is a plus factor for getting better price. The
sale instance relied upon by the claimants were ranging between 195 to
300 sq.mtrs. whereas, the land under acquisition is 17822.75 sq.mtrs. While
considering the argument regarding the method adopted by the SLAO, we
have adverted to the consideration of proximity of the land to the road. It is
noticed that the existing DP road abutting the land on the western side was
about 33 feet wide and the proposed road widening thereof was intended
up to 60 feet wide. Besides the said DP road, on the southern side of the
land under acquisition, there was provision of 40 feet wide DP road. We
have also noticed that as in the case of sanctioned layout of the
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:11:50 :::
33 FA.1033.03.sxw
neighbouring land, which was also owned by the claimants, even the land
under acquisition could have been developed in the same manner in which
case, access to all buildable plots on the land could be provided for. In that
case, the argument regarding the advantage on account of proximity to road
only to some plots and not to others would not be available. It is not a case
of acquisition of small plot but one of about 17822.75 sq.mtrs. The frontage
of road would also become relative in the present case, if the layout was to
be provided in the same manner as in the case of sanctioned layout. For, the
frontage and proximity to the road to every section of the land would
become available. Further, we have noticed that the land under acquisition
was completely undeveloped. Only the neighbouring land belonging to the
claimants was developed and the plots were being sold as building plots
which were fully developed. That position is accepted by the witnesses
examined by the claimants themselves.
K.S. Shivadevamma And Ors. Etc vs Assistant Commissioner And Land ... on 8 December, 1995
Somewhat similar plea was taken before
the Apex Court in the case of K.S.Shivadevamma (supra) which came to
be rejected as can be discerned from Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said
decision. In that case, the acquisition was for bus stand purpose. On that
basis, it was argued that the question of providing deduction towards
development cost does not arise. That plea has been rejected on the opinion
that the principle is not for what purpose the land was acquired but what is
to be kept in mind is that had the owner sold the land in open market as
house sites, would he be entitled to use the entire land for building purpose?