LexBHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED versus M/S. NEMICHAND DAMODARDAS & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 747 BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED v. M/S. NEMICHAND DAMODARDAS & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 3478 of 2022) JULY 11, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s.4 – Land acquisition – Compensation – Determination of, on the basis of Ready Reckoner rates – Correctness of – Held: Rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner, are for the purpose of collection of stamp duty, which are the uniform rates for all the lands in the area, thus, cannot be the basis for determination of the compensation for the lands acquired under the Act – Market value of the land depends upon the location of the land; area of the land; whether the land is in a developed area or not; whether the acquisition is of a small plot of land or a big chunk of land – There cannot be the same market value for the different lands while determining the compensation – High Court erred in enhancing the amount of compensation by 800% from Rs. 21/- per sq. ft. to Rs. 174/- per sq. ft. relying upon the Ready Reckoner rates, thus, the order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside, and that of the Reference Court determining the compensation @ Rs.21/- per sq. ft. is restored. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The prices mentioned in the Ready Reckoner for the purpose of calculation of the stamp duty, which are fixed for the entire area, cannot be the basis for determination of the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. In the instant case, the Reference Court did consider the submission on behalf of the claimants to determine the market value on the basis of the Ready Reckoner. The Reference Court specifically refused to accept the same on appreciation of the deposition of PW-3, a Government Officer who specifically admitted that the Ready Reckoner was prepared for recovery of the proper stamp duty and the registration charges and that the actual rates of transaction [2022] 7 S.C.R. 747 747 A B C D E F G H 748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 6 S.C.R. of sales in market are different than the rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner and that correct market prices cannot be reflected from the Ready Reckoner. Even PW-4 also specifically admitted in his deposition that the Ready Reckoner is prepared only for collecting stamp duty. [Para 9][757-G-H; 758-A-C] 1.2 There may be various factors, which are required to be considered for determining the market value of the land. The market value of the land depends upon the location of the land; area of the land; whether the land is in a developed area or not; whether the acquisition is of a small plot of land or a big chunk of land and number of other advantageous and disadvantageous factors are required to be considered. Therefore, there cannot be the same market value for the different lands while determining the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner, cannot be the basis for determination of the compensation for the lands acquired under the Act. Therefore, the High Court has committed a serious error in enhancing the amount of compensation by 800% from Rs. 21/- per sq. ft. to Rs. 174/- per sq. ft. relying upon and/or considering the rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner. [Para 11][761-B-E] 1.3 It is mentioned in the Government Resolution that the Ready Reckoner is scientifically prepared by taking into account the geographical conditions of each area, major roads, railways, etc., as well as by inspecting the information of buying and selling transactions and that the Ready Reckoner rates are based on the talukas in rural areas and the urban areas in different parts of the city. There cannot be a uniform market value of the land for the purpose of determination of the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The market value of the different lands vary from place to place and it depends upon various factors. Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside and the judgment passed by the Reference Court determining the compensation @ Rs.21/- per sq. ft. is restored. [Para 12, 13][761-F-H; 762-A-B] A B C D E F G H 749 Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and Ors (1994) 4 SCC 595 : [1994] 1 SCR 368; Lal Chand v. Union of India and Anr. (2009) 15 SCC 769 : [2009] 13 SCR 622; Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan v. Bipin Kumar (2004) 2 SCC 283 – relied on. Shalini Vaman Godbole v. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.