Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)Kar. Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board vs K.S. Gangadharappa & Anr on 15 April, 2009
(10) In the case of Karnataka Urban Water Supply and
Drainage Board and others vs. K.S. Gangadharappa and another,
(2009)11 SCC 164, the Apex Court has held that where a large area is the
subject matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said
to be a safe criterion. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute
proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for
fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material it may in
appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating court to make comparison of the
prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary
deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices. The
Apex Court further held that the rates paid for small parcels of land do not
provide a useful guide for determining the market value of the land acquired.
While determining the market value of the land acquired, it has to be correctly
determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of
the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. The
compensation must be determined by reference to the price which a willing
Patna High Court FA No.816 of 1991 dt.06-03-2012
11/13
vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. While
considering the market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land
and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it must alike be disregarded.
The value of the land is not to be estimated as its value to the purchaser. But
similarly this does not mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might
desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. According to the Apex
Court, the principles to be considered is when sale is within a reasonable time
of the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, it should be a
bonafide transaction, it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent
to the land acquired and it should possess similar advantages. It is only when
these factors are present it can merit a consideration as a comparable case.
Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum-L.A.O vs Shaik Azam Sahem Etc.Etc on 13 January, 2009
(12) In the case of Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land
Acquisition Officer vs. Shaik Azam Saheb and others, (2009) 4 SCC 395, the
Apex Court has again held that while comparing the market value of developed
lands with that of undeveloped lands suitable deductions have to be made
towards the cost of development.
Kanta Devi & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 8 July, 2008
(14) In view of the above settled proposition of law laid down
by the Apex Court, the learned Land Acquisition Judge while relying upon the
Exhibit-1 series should have granted suitable deduction of some percentage as
the lands involved in the sale deeds are homestead land and are very small area
not even 1 kattha whereas the land acquired was more than 2 acres.
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
State Of Uttar Pradesh Etc vs Smt. Ram Kumari Devi Etc on 15 February, 1996
"4. It is seen that small pieces of land of an extent
of 60' x 20', 40' x 40' and 1600 sq. ft. were sold by
the claimants, obviously on coming to know of the
proposed acquisition. It is common knowledge that
acquisition proposal would be made at an earlier
point of time and finalisation of acquisition would
take a long time. In the process, on becoming
aware of the acquisition, obviously, these sale
deeds have been brought into existence to inflate
the market value. It is laid down by this Court
which is a well-settled principle that it is the duty
of the court to assess reasonable compensation.
Burden is on the owner to prove the prevailing
Patna High Court FA No.816 of 1991 dt.06-03-2012
10/13
market value. On adduction of evidence by the
parties, the acid test which the court has to adopt
is that the court has to sit in the armchair of a
prudent purchaser, eschew feats of imagination
and consider whether a reasonable prudent
purchaser in the open market would offer the
same price which the court is intending to fix the
market value in respect of the acquired land. Since
it is a compulsory acquisition, it is but the solemn
duty of the court to assess reasonable
compensation so as to allow the same to the owner
of the land whose property has been acquired by
compulsory acquisition and also to avoid needless
burden on public exchequer. No feats of
imagination would require to bog the mind that
when 13.75 acres of land was offered for sale in an
open market, no prudent man would have
credulity to purchase that land on square foot
basis."
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
1