LexCHIMANLAL HARGOVINDDAS versus SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, POONA, AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CHIMANLAL HARGOVINDDAS v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, POONA, AND ANR. JULY 21, 1988 [M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act-Challenging valuation and compensation in respect of land acquired under provisions of-Whether appellant whose land was acquired is entitled to benefit of Central Amending Act 68pf 1984. -. . ' > The appellant not being satisfied with the compensation offered A B c oy the Land Acquisition Officer Jn respect of his land placed under acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, applied for a reference to a civil court, for determining the niarket value of the land for awarding compensation to the appellant. The Trial Court determined the market D value of. the .land in question at .Rs.8692 per acre. The High Court· reduced the amount of compensation payable to Rs.4845.87 from Rs.8692 per acre. The appellant moved this Court for relief, complain- ing that the High Court had erroneously revised downwards the valua- tion correctly arrived at by the Trial Court. . ,. Allowing the appeal partly, the Court ' HELD: The trial Court had virtually treated the award rendered by !he Land Acquisition Officer as a judgment under appeal. The Court , laid down general guidelines to ·be followed in respect of methodology E fl)r valuation, in.order to capsulize the true position. [534E] · F The valuation made by the High Court bad been faulted on three grounds: ( 1) .The High Court should not have made a deduction of 25% in place of deduction made by the Trial Court at 20% to account for G the factor pertaining to largeness of the block .(if land under a~quisi tion. [539B] · · (2) The High Court bad grossly under-valued the land in , determining the market value of the appellant's land at Rs. 7000 per ' acre as a block. [539B-C] "·. H 531 532 [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. (,le SUPREME COURT REPORTS A (3) There was no warrant for pushing down or depressing the market value of land as determined by the trial Court in order to 'deduce the 'present value' by reference to Miram's Tables to account for the factor as regards the estimated time lag for development reach- ing the block of land in question which was situated in the interior. Besides, the time lag of 12 years as estimated by the High Court was B excessive and unrealistic. [S39C-D I The first two grounds were devoid of merit. It was not possible to find fault with the reasoning or conclusion of the High Court. The High Court was regularly engaged in valuation of the lands in different parts of the State and was fully aware of the landscape. It had made the c estimate as regards the time lag for development to reach the appel- lant's land to the best of its judgment, and having taken into account all • the relevant factors, it had arrived at its determination. The High Court had not committed any error or violated any principle of valuation. It was purely a question of fact and it was not possible to detect any error even in the factual findings recorded by the High Court. There was no D material on the basis on which the plea of the appellant could be upheld that the valuation of Rs. 7000 per acre did not reflect the true market value or that the land in question was undervalued. [54IB-F] The Appellant's grievance with regard to the third ground was justified. The appellant's parcel of land in question, situated very much E in the interior, was valued by the Trial Court at Rs.10,866 per acre (less 20% for roads, etc.). The High Court valued this parcel of land at Rs. 7 ,000 per acre. It had valued the land with the best situation on the Ganeshkhaod Road at Rs.20,000 per acre. As against this, the appel- lant's land was valued at Rs. 7 ,000 per acre. This pushing down was made to account for its situation in the interior on the premise that F development would take about 12 years to reach the appellant's land under acquisition. But after 12. years, it would become land adjoining the developed area and not land which could be treated as in the interior. If the present value was to be ascertained, it should be ascertained on the basis of present value of land which would fetch Rs.20,000 per acre after 12 years and not present value of land which G would fetch Rs. 7 ,000 per acre after 12 years. In fact the present value of Rs.20,000 payable at the end of 12 years at 8% would work out to Rs.6942 according to Miram's Table 7, p.657 of A.K. Mitra's Theory and Practic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.