LexBIJENDER & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 10 S.C.R. 534 BIJENDER & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 2846 of2017) OCTOBER 27, 2017 [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss. 4, 6 - Land acquisition - Determination of market rates - C Award of compensation - Enhancement - On facts, High Court upheld the awards of the Land Acquisition Ojjlcer as regards compensation @ Rs.33,00,0001- per acre for the land up to the depth of 2 acres in the bye-pass and Gair Mumkin kind of land whereas it enhanced the compensation from Rs.18, 00, 0001- per acre D to Rs.24, 75,0001- per acre for the land beyond 2 acres - On appeal, held: Acquired land was a large chunk of land having its frontage abutting the road5ide - Courts below justified in applying Belting System for determining the market rate - Further, it was neither permissible and nor proper to rely solely upon the rates of small E F plots and then determine the compensation for a large chunk of acquired land - Thus, taking into consideration all the relevant factors-location of the acquired land, its s11rro11ndings, nature, potentiality, rates of small plots, the purpose of acquisition, development cost needed, non-availability of the sale deeds for large areas sold in acres, etc., just, fair and proper market val11e of the acquired land is determined at Rs.45,00,0001- per acre in place of Rs.33,00,0001- per acre and Rs.35,00,(JOOI- per acre in place of Rs.24,75,0001- per acre. ss. 4, 6 - Land acquisition - Determination of market rates by applying Belting System - Held: Where large pieces of land having different locations are acquired, Belting System is considered G apposite for determining the market value of the lands - In Belting System, the acquired land is usually divided in two or three belts depending upon the facts of each case - Market val11e of the front belt abutting the main road is taken to fetch maximum value whereas the second belt fetches two third or so of the rate determined in H 534 BIJENDER & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 535 relation to the first belt and the third belt, fetches half or so of the A maximum. Land acquisition - Fair and reasonable market value of any acquired land- Determination of- Guiding factors - Held: Is always a question of fact and its answer depends on the nature of evidence, circumstances and probabilities appearing in each case. B Land acquisition - Potentiali~v of the acquired land - Relevant consideration, to be taken into consideration - Elucidated. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The Belting System is a judicially accepted c method for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. It is applied in appropriate cases when different parcels of lands with different survey numbers belonging to different owners and having different locations arc acquired which put together comprises of a large chunk of land. Such chunk cannot be taken as a compact block. Belting System is considered apposite for D determining the market value of the lands. In Belting System, the acquired land is usually divided in two or three belts depending upon the facts of each case. The market value of the front belt abutting the main road is taken to fetch maximum value whereas the second belt fetches two third or so of the rate determined in l relation to the first belt and the third belt, if considered proper to carve out, fetches half or so of the maximum, depending upon facts of each case. [Para 34-36] [545-F-H; 546-A, CJ 1.2 The question as to what is fair and reasonable market value of any acquired land on the date of its acquisition, is always a question of fact and its answer depends on the nature of evidence, circumstances and probabilities appearing in each case. One of . the guiding factors in such cases is the conduct of a hypothetical willing vendor, who would offer the land and a willing purchaser E F in normal human conduct, would be willing to buy the land as a prudent man in normal market condition on the date of the G notification under Section 4(1) of the Act but not an anxious buyer dealing at arm's length nor facade or fictitious sales brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. When the Courts arc called upon to fix the market value of the l!,rnd in compulsory acquisition, one of the types of evidence of H 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R. A the value of the prope
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.