COLLECTOR, RAIGARH versus DR. HARISINGH THAKUR & ANR. AND VICE VERSA

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 183 · Decided: 27-10-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASWANT SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
\ 
183 
COLLECTOR, RAIGARH 
v. 
DR. HARISINGH THAKUR & ANR. AND VICE VERSA 
October 27, 1978 
[JASWANT SINGH, R. S. PATHAK AND A. P. SEN, JJ.J 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894) Ss. 4, 9, 18, 23 and 24-Agricu/tura/ 
land acquired for doubling raitway truck-Payment of compensation-Potential 
value of such land as a building site-Reliance on comparative sales! capitalisation 
basis for ascertainment of quantunz of compensation. 
Agricultural land belonging to the respondent!: was acquired by the rail\\'ays 
for doubling the railway line, compensation payable for the acquired land was 
fixed lat Re. 1/6 per sq. ft. But the respondent claimed Re. -/12/- per sq. ft. on 
the ground that the land had a great potential value as a building site. On 
reference the Additional District Judge enhanced the rate of compensation to 
Re. -141- per sq. ft. and allowed solatium at 15%. On appeal 
the High 
Court enhanced the compensation to Re. -/8/- per sq. ft. 
On further appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants 
that the courts below had erred in treating the land, which was primarily agri· 
cultural land, as abadi land overlooking that it had not been declared as 
such. 
[Per Jaswant Singh & Pathak, JJ. Sen, J. dissenting] 
Dismissing the appeals. 
B 
c 
D 
HELD : ( 1) Taking all the facts into consideration it cannot be said that 
E 
the basis C>n which the Additional District Judge and the High Court proceeded 
was wrong or that the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court was 
in anr way eXcessive or exorbitant. 
[188 FJ 
(2) The question as to whether a land, has potential value as a building site 
or not is primarily one of fact depending upon several factors such as its condi· 
tion and situation, the user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being 
pnt, its suitability for building purposes, its proximity to residential, commercial 
and industrial areas and educational, cultural or medical institutions, existing 
amenities like water, electricity and drainage and the possibility of their future 
extension, whether the nearby town is a developing or a prospering town with 
prospects of development schemes and the presence or absence of pressure of 
building tictlvity towards the land acquired or in the neighbourhood thereof. 
[187&F] 
(3) In the instant case it was clear from the observations of the Special Land 
Acquisition. Officer and the Addi. District Judge that the land had a great poten-
tial value as a building site. Moreover the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer did not 
lead any evidence worth the name to show the price of comparable sites but 
remained content with the production only of the sale. statement prepared by 
the Revenue Inspector. The sale statement consisted mostly of sales relating to 
the year 1951 which is not relevant to the question on hand. Without examin-
ing the vendors or vendees, the sale statement was not admissible in evidence and 
could not be relied upon. From the material on record it was clear that Raigarb 
was a growing town. Instead of utilising the land for doubling the railway track 
F 
• 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
184 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 2 S.C.R. 
the railway had built staff quarters. On three sides of the land there were pucca 
buildings and on the fourth side there was 
a 
metalled 
road. 
[187G-H, 
188C-D, E] 
[Per Sen, J. (dissenting)] 
1. Upon compulsory acquisition of property, the owner is entitled 
to 
the 
value of the property in its actual condition at the time of expropriation with all 
its advantages and with all its possibilities, excluding any advantage due to the 
carrying out of the claim for the purpose for which the property is acquired. 
The value of the acquired property with all its possibilities had to be adjudged 
on the material on record. [191 F, HJ 
Vyricharla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizaga-
patnam., 66 IA 104, follu\ved. 
2. The market price must be fixed with reference to the date of the notifica-
tion under s. 4 irrespective of any trend, for an increase to the value thereof. 
The basis for determination of the market value of the land withins. 23(l)(i) 
of the Act is the value of the land to the owner. Only such transactions \vould 
be relevant which can fairly be said to afford a fair criterion of the value of the 
property as at the date of the notification. 
That test is clearly not fulfilled in 
the present case.. 
[192A-B] 
3. In a reference under s. 18 of the A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.