Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.28 seconds)
State Of West Bengal vs Shiladitya Banerjee &Ors on 2 December, 2024 cites

Trishala Jain & Anr vs State Of Uttaranchal & Anr on 5 May, 2011

In Trishala Jain & Anr. (supra) the Apex Court was in fact facing the same situation as in the 27 instant case where the evidence adduced by the parties was not sufficient and held that the discretion is vested upon the Court to apply a guesswork provided it is reasonable and have some nexus with the data on record. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant that the Court should rely upon a rate report submitted by the surveyor of the Land Acquisition Collectors office as it was relied upon a property situated at a distance of 4 kilometres from the acquired land whereas the Exhibit 1 and 1(a) is admittedly situated within one and a half kilometre. The aforesaid exemplars indicate the prices per cottah as on April 30, 1993 at Rs. 6 lakh 53 thousand and on November 28, 1987 at Rs. 7 lakh 59 thousand per cottahs. The Reference Court determined the market value at Rs. 2 lakh 50 thousand per cottah; the reasons do not appear to have been provided therein. What appears to us from the impugned judgment that the reference Court has taken the average of the market price per cottah on the basis of the Exhibit 1 and 1(a) as well as the rate report which took into consideration the sale effected on 7.1.1988 in respect of Premises no. 14A, Beliaghata Road, Kolkata. As indicated above, the property which is situated at a distance of 4 kilometres from the acquired property cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the market price of an acquired property, more particularly, when the property situated within one and a half kilometre from the acquired land was sold indicating the price per cottah. Furthermore, the surveyor relied upon a sale-deed dated 7.1.1988 whereas the said Exhibit 1(a) relates to a transaction of a property effected on 28.11.1987 and 30.4.1993. We noticed a disparity in the sale price per cottah in Exhibit 1 and 1(a). The Exhibit 1 revealed the sale price per cottah 28 at Rs. 7 lakh 59 thousand per cottah as on 28.11.1987; on the other hand, Exhibit 1(a) indicates the sale price at Rs. 6 lakh 53 thousand per cottah as on 30.4.1993. Ordinarily, the price of the land increases by a passage of time and the decrease in the price after a gap of 5 years has to be understood while comparing the price in the said exemplars. In order to arrive at the genuinity or a true and correct market value of the land in the vicinity, we are not unmindful of the fact that the owner of an adjoining land may offer a higher price which may not be a real market price as the advantages of purchasing adjoining land would be more beneficial to the adjoining owner than an outsider. It would not be safe for or to take into consideration the sale price shown in the Exhibit 1 but there is no fetter on the part of the Court in taking into account the market price shown in Exhibit 1(a) not only for the reason that it is in the close distance but also having the same advantages and disadvantages that of the acquired land. Averaging the price may not always be infirm but the Court must record the reasons for the same. The property as relied upon by the surveyor was at a distant place and it would not be proper on the part of the Trial Court to take into account the same for the purpose of determining the average market price of the land. It is evident from the record that the possession of the land was taken under Act II of 1948 more than several decades before the initiation of an acquisition proceeding and obviously developments have been made thereupon to make suitable for the purpose for which the possession was so taken. The property comprised in Exhibit 1(a) is admittedly situated within 2ΒΌ kilometres away from the acquired land, and, therefore, the contention of the appellant that the rate report should be 29 taken into consideration which was based upon the sale price of 44A, Beliaghata Main Road which is situated with the 4 kilometres away from the acquired land cannot be accepted as a safe mode. Taking into account that the development has been undertaken and the advantages and disadvantages are similar to that of Exhibit 1(a), there is no fetter on the part of the Court to discard certain amount on account of the development while ascertaining the market price. Considering the aforesaid aspect, we are of the view that the market price of the acquired land is at Rs. 4 lakhs per cottah and, therefore, the impugned judgment is modified to such extent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 471 - S Kumar - Full Document

The Special Land Acquisition ... vs Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib on 19 March, 2002

In Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA Bagalkot vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 688 the Apex Court granted the appreciation of 10 per cent for every subsequent year in determining the market price of the land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the given case, no evidence was produced by the parties nor any comparable sale transactions were tendered in evidence to prove the market value as on the date of notification. The reliance appears to have been made on a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and the judgment rendered in the land acquisition case which was later on confirmed by the High Court determining the market price as on the date of the statutory notification issued several years before. The facts discerned 7 from the finding of the said report would reveal that the base market value of the land was taken on the basis of the determination made in the another land acquisition case and allowed the 10 per cent appreciation every year because of the development activities undertaken for establishing a new township as the old township was submerged in water. In the backdrop of the aforementioned factual matrix it was held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 95 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next