Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 1 of 1 (0.33 seconds)

Administrator General Of West Bengal vs Collector, Varanasi on 16 February, 1988

Equally the judgment in Ex.A-3 dated February 14, 1985 in AS No. 232/82 and batch arising out of OP No. 111/80 and batch of the Band situated in Tadavai village, the Division Bench determined market value at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. The foundation for the said determination was the notorious sale-deed Ex.A-1 which was marked therein as A-3. Equally, Ex. A-4 in OP No. 57/84 of the reference court is founded upon the earlier decision. Ex.A-5 and A-6, namely, OP Nos.17-18/89 dated November 29, 1990 were founded on the judgments-Ex. A-2 etc. in which Subordinate Judge granted at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre. Since the very basis of determination of the compensation is clearly erroneous, Ex.A-5 and A-6 cannot form any basis for determination of the compensation. The Division Bench of the High Court in this appeal, placing reliance on Ex.A-5 and A-6 which arose from the same village Alivelu, reduced the market value to Rs.12,000/- per acre on the ratio in Administrator General of West Bengal's case. It is true, as rightly contended by Shri Rao, that the ratio therein relates to the urban lands fit for building purpose and the same principle cannot be applied in determination of the market value of agricultural land. The contention that the doctrine of reinstatement value in determination of the market value to the lands of depressed value due to operation of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1970 prohibiting alienation of the land between the tribals and non-tribals, though, prima facie appears to be alluring but on deeper consideration, it cannot to commend acceptance. What is relevant in fixation of the market value of the land under s.23(1) is prevailing price as on the date of notification under s.4(1). The reasoning of the High Court that since the tribals have no capacity to purchase the land and the lands, therefore, are not possessed of market value also is not a correct approach.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 332 - Full Document
1