LexCHATURBHUJA MODI AND ORS. versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 849 CHATURBHUJA MODI AND ORS. v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 940 of 2004) AUGUST 11, 2010 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] A B Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Acquisition of large tract of land - Compensation - Determination of market value - C Comparable sale - Criteria for relying on sale deeds - Held: Sale deed by which a very small piece of land was sold cannot be made the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land - Sale deed which was proximate to the date of s.4 notification and a/so in geographical proximity to D the acquired land can be made the basis - Where the market value of large block of land is determined on the basis of sale · transactions for smaller property, appropriate deduction has to be made for making allowance for the loss of the acquired ' land required to be used for internal development - The E extent of area required to be set apart has to be assessed by the court having regard to the shape, size and situation of the concerned block of land - In the instant case, High Court fixed the rate of the land at Rs. 3, 00, 0001- per acre after giving some variations and discount, which in the light of evidence F on record was just and proper. A Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 9.12.1982 proposing to acquire land belonging to the appellants situated in Cuttack, Orissa. The Land Acquisition Officer assessed G the market value of the land @ Rs.75,000 per acre. The reference court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,50,000 per acre. Dissatisfied with the amount of 849 H 850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A compensation, the appellants-landowners filed appeal before the High Court. They produced two sale deeds, Exhibit 1 dated 4.10.1982 and Exhibit 2 dated 17.4.1982. The High Court did not rely upon Exhibit 2. It, however, relied upon Exhibit 1 and enhanced the compensation to B Rs.3,00,000 per acre. Still aggrieved, landowners filed the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The criterJa which provide a good C indication of whether a sale deed may be comparable to the one in question are: (1) it must be within a reasonable time. of date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act; (2) it should be a bonafide transaction; (3) it should be sale_ of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the D one acquired; and (4) it should possess similar advantage. [Para 9] [855-G-H; 856-A] 1.2. Exhibit 2 was a certified copy of registered sale deed dated 17.04.1982 by which a very small piece of E land measuring only Ac. 0.003 decimals was sold at the rate of Rs. 9, 00,000/- per acre and therefore, it cannot be put up as a safe guide and basis for determining the market value of the acquired land which admeasured Ac. 2.429 decimals. It also came in the evidence, which was F relied upon by the civil court, that the purchaser of Exhibit 2 had his own land adjoining the land covered under it and, therefore, he might be in dire necessity for purchasing the said land even at a higher price. The High Court, therefore, rightly kept Exhibit 2 sale deed out of its consideration. As regards the other sale deeds which G were produced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, namely Exhibits B to B/3, there was no evidence by the Collector indicating that the lands covered by the said sale deed transactions were in any manner comparable land with that of the land under acquisition. Therefore, H CHATURBHUJA MODI AND ORS. v. STATE OF 851 ORI SSA the said sale deeds also cannot be made the basis for A determining fair and reasonable market price of the land acquired. [Paras 6-8] [854-E-H; 855-A-F] 1.3. Although the land admeasuring Acre. 0070 decimals sold at the rate of Rs.5,50,000 per acre, under the sale deed evidenced in Exhibit 1 was not an excellent 8 comparison in terms of area, the same indicated a sale transaction completed at around the same time as the acquisition of the said land. Moreover, Exhibit 1 also concerned a plot that was in geographical proximity to the acquired land. Reliance could be placed on the said C documentary evidence for determining and assessing the compensation of the acquired land after giving the necessary deduction. [Para 9] [856-A-C] 1.4. While determining compensation, some D conjecture is unavoidable as it is generally not possible to have any documentary e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.