LexBHULE RAM versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014) 4 S.C.R. 247 BHULE RAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 6251 of 2010) MARCH 28, 2014 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: A B s. 23 - Acquisition of large tract of land - Compensation c - Belting method - Held: Market value of land acquired is to be assessed keeping in mind the limitation prescribed u/s 23, which mandates that the market value of the land is to be assessed at the time of notification uls 4 -- Therefore, value which has to be assessed is the value to the owner who parts 0 with his property and not the value to the new owner who takes it over -- Fair and reasonable compensation means the price of a willing buyer which is to be paid to the willing seller - Where huge tract of land has been acquired, belting system may be applied ss. 9 and 23 - Acquisition -'of land - Claim for higher compensation - Held: Burden of proof lies on land owner to prove inadequacy of market value fixed for land acquired - E In the instant case, appellant has not put on record as to what was his claim u/s. 9 and the award was made relying upon F some other award - Before High Court, appellant relied upon solely another judgment relating to land of same village and High Court awarded compensation as per demand of appellant - Reference court had already held appellant's land as non-comparable with other lands - There is no reason to G interfere. The appellant filed the instant appeal claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 10, 00,000/- per acre for 247 H 248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R. A his land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award u/s 11 of the Act was made on 6.6.1994 assessing the market value of the land of the appellant @ Rs.4, 65,000/- per acre. The reference court enhanced the compensation assessing the market value of the land B @ Rs.5, 99,850/- per acre with other statutory benefits. On appeal, the High Court further enhanced the compensation assessing the market value of the land @ Rs.6, 51,000/- per acre placing reliance on other judgments. c Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The law can be summarised to the effect that the market value of the land is to be assessed keeping in mind the limitation prescribed in certain D exceptional circumstances u/s 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 23 mandates that the market value of the land is to be assessed at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, value which has to be assessed is the value to the owner who parts with his E property and not the value to the new owner who takes it over. Fair and reasonable compensation means the price of a willing buyer which is to be paid to the willing seller. A guess work, though allowed, is permissible only to a limited extent. The market value of the land is to be F determined taking into consideration geographical situation/location of the land alongwith the advantages/ disadvantages i.e. distance from Highway or a road situated within a developed area etc. In urban area even a small distance makes a considerable difference in the price of land. However, the court should not take into G consideration the use for which the land is sought to be acquired and its remote potential value in future. In arriving at the market value, it is the duty of the party to lead evidence in support of its case, in absence of which the court is not under a legal obligation to determine the H BHULE RAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 249 market value merely as per the prayer of the claimant. A [para 7 and 15] [254-C, E-G; 257-F-H; 258-A] Raja Vyricheria Narayana Gajapatraju Bahadur Garu v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, AIR 1939 PC 98; and Adusumilli Gopalkrishna v. Sp/ Deputy Collector (Land 8 Acquisition), AIR 1980 SC 1870; Viluben Jhalejar Contractor · v. State of Gujarat, 2005 (3) SCR 542 =AIR 2005 SC 2214; Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board v. Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., 2011 (1) SCR 600 = AIR 2011 SC 781; Bilkis & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2011 (4) C SCR 733 = (2011) 12 SCC 646 and Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mui/a v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 2709 - relied on. Thakur Kamta Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 1976 ( 3 ) SCR 585 = AIR 1976 SC 2219; Special Land Acquisition D Officer v. Karigowda & Ors., 2010 (5) SCR 164 =AIR 2010 SC 2322; and Charan Das & e~c. etc. v. H.P. H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.