Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.32 seconds)The Requisitioning And Acquisition Of Immovable Property Act, 1952
The Collector Of Lakhimpur vs Bhuban Chandra Dutta on 29 January, 1971
A site plan of an area in Ajmer, available in the record, by
consent of parties, is utilised by the High Court for
locating the actual situation of the lands covered by the
sale deeds vis-a-vis the actual situation of the acquired
land. A sale deed dated 11.10.1960 produced in evidence as
Ex.P-4 is found to relate to sale of 48.400 sq. yards of
land at the rate of Rs.650 per sq. yard by Mayo College to
Life Insurance Corporation of India while another sale deed
dated 17.11.960 produced in evidence as Ex.P-19 is found to
relate to sale of 13,572 sq. yards of land at the rate of
Rs.7 per sq. yard by the very Mayo College to Model Housing
Cooperating Society Ltd. These sale deeds, according to
the High Court, since related to lands situated in a
populous area of Ajmer City, the lands sold under them were
not comparable to the acquired land which was situated at a
place farther away from the city. Although it was contended
on behalf of the appellant that the lands sold under the
said two sale deeds ought to have been held by the High.
Court as those comparable to the acquired land, that
contention cannot merit our acceptance since the location of
the lands covered by the sale deeds is altogether different
from the location of the acquired land, as becomes apparent
from the site plan with reference to which the High Court
has concluded that the lands covered by the sale deeds'
lands and the acquired land were not comparable.
Sale deed dated 14.1.1964 produced as Ex.P-5 whereunder Mayo
977
College had sold 1,000 sq. yards of land at the rate of
Rs.10 per sq. yard in favour of Mrs. V.M. Kaula; another
sale deed dated 25.9.1964 produced as Ex.P-6 relating to
sale of a small strip of land at Rs.10 per sq. yard between
the same parties; and a third sale deed dated 13.11.1964
produced as Ex.P-7 whereunder the very Mayo College had also
sold to Navin Chandra Sharma 782 sq. yards of land at Rs.7
per sq. yard, are regarded by the High Court as not
comparable sales for determining the value of the acquired
land, in that each of them were small bits as compared to
the acquired land. The High Court, as suggested on behalf
of the appellant, cannot be found fault with for its refusal
to act upon the said three sale deeds as comparable sales to
determine the market value of the large extent of the
acquired land, when it is well settled that the prices
fetched' under sale deeds of small bits of lands ought not
to, ordinarily, be made the basis for determination of large
extents of acquired land, (See: Collector' of Lakhimpur v.
Bhuban Chandra Dutta, [1974] SCC 236 and Prithvi Raj Taneja
v. State of M.P., [1977] 1 SCC 684. Besides, in the instant
case when' sale deeds of lands of even larger extents of
lands situated in the very area where the bits of lands
covered by the three rejected sale deeds were' situated were
not considered by the High Court as comparable sales for the
reason of their situation in a populous area of the city,
that reason should equally hold good for the High Court not
acting upon the three sale deeds relating to bits of lands
as comparable sales for fixing the market value of the
acquired land.
Prithvi Raj Taneja vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others on 18 January, 1977
A site plan of an area in Ajmer, available in the record, by
consent of parties, is utilised by the High Court for
locating the actual situation of the lands covered by the
sale deeds vis-a-vis the actual situation of the acquired
land. A sale deed dated 11.10.1960 produced in evidence as
Ex.P-4 is found to relate to sale of 48.400 sq. yards of
land at the rate of Rs.650 per sq. yard by Mayo College to
Life Insurance Corporation of India while another sale deed
dated 17.11.960 produced in evidence as Ex.P-19 is found to
relate to sale of 13,572 sq. yards of land at the rate of
Rs.7 per sq. yard by the very Mayo College to Model Housing
Cooperating Society Ltd. These sale deeds, according to
the High Court, since related to lands situated in a
populous area of Ajmer City, the lands sold under them were
not comparable to the acquired land which was situated at a
place farther away from the city. Although it was contended
on behalf of the appellant that the lands sold under the
said two sale deeds ought to have been held by the High.
Court as those comparable to the acquired land, that
contention cannot merit our acceptance since the location of
the lands covered by the sale deeds is altogether different
from the location of the acquired land, as becomes apparent
from the site plan with reference to which the High Court
has concluded that the lands covered by the sale deeds'
lands and the acquired land were not comparable.
Sale deed dated 14.1.1964 produced as Ex.P-5 whereunder Mayo
977
College had sold 1,000 sq. yards of land at the rate of
Rs.10 per sq. yard in favour of Mrs. V.M. Kaula; another
sale deed dated 25.9.1964 produced as Ex.P-6 relating to
sale of a small strip of land at Rs.10 per sq. yard between
the same parties; and a third sale deed dated 13.11.1964
produced as Ex.P-7 whereunder the very Mayo College had also
sold to Navin Chandra Sharma 782 sq. yards of land at Rs.7
per sq. yard, are regarded by the High Court as not
comparable sales for determining the value of the acquired
land, in that each of them were small bits as compared to
the acquired land. The High Court, as suggested on behalf
of the appellant, cannot be found fault with for its refusal
to act upon the said three sale deeds as comparable sales to
determine the market value of the large extent of the
acquired land, when it is well settled that the prices
fetched' under sale deeds of small bits of lands ought not
to, ordinarily, be made the basis for determination of large
extents of acquired land, (See: Collector' of Lakhimpur v.
Bhuban Chandra Dutta, [1974] SCC 236 and Prithvi Raj Taneja
v. State of M.P., [1977] 1 SCC 684. Besides, in the instant
case when' sale deeds of lands of even larger extents of
lands situated in the very area where the bits of lands
covered by the three rejected sale deeds were' situated were
not considered by the High Court as comparable sales for the
reason of their situation in a populous area of the city,
that reason should equally hold good for the High Court not
acting upon the three sale deeds relating to bits of lands
as comparable sales for fixing the market value of the
acquired land.
Union Of India vs Kamlabhai Harjiwandas Parekh & Others on 7 September, 1967
As it is ruled by this Court in Union of India v. Kamlabhai
Harjiwandas Parekh & others, [1968] 1 SCR 463, that the
provision of Section 8(3) of the Requisitioning and
Acquisition Act lays down a principle aimed at giving to the
owner of the acquired land an amount of compensation which
approximates to such land's just equivalent value on the
date of its acquisition, our endeavor here would be to see
whether that principle is rightly applied by the High Court
in determining the amount of compensation payable for the
acquired land.
Section 29 in The Defence of India Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 36 in The Defence of India Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Defence of India Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Atmaram Bhagwant Ghadgay vs The Collector Of Nagpur on 22 January, 1929
Indeed, 'Comparable Sales Method' of valuation of an
acquired land is invariably resorted to by every court ever
since the Privy Council in Atmaram v. Collector of Nagpur,
AIR 1929 P.C.92, regarded that method as one which furnishes
'a healthy criterion' for determining the market value of an
acquired land. As regards the acquired land, with the
market value of which we are concerned, parties themselves
had produced evidence of sales of lands before the
Arbitrator in order to enable him to determine its market
value based on prices fetched for lands under those sales.
The same sale deeds are considered by the High Court to find
as to which of them could form the basis for determining the
market value of the acquired land. It is why we have now to
see, whether the sale deeds relied upon by the High Court to
determine the market value of the acquired land did really
furnish a proper basis to make such determination by
resorting to 'the Comparable Sales Method' of valuation of
land.
1