LexJAWAJEE NAGNATHAM versus THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADILABAD, AP., ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
JAWAJEE NAGNATHAM
·-r-
v.
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADILABAD, AP., ETC.
.....
JANUARY 25, 1994
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VE~l<ATACHALA, JJ.]
Lands Acquisition Act, 1894: S. 23-Acquisition of Land-Compensa-
tion-Matters to be considered in detennination of-Held, Basic valuation
~---
Register maintained for purposes of collecting stamp duty had no evindentiary
c value in that it had no statutory force and it would not be a basis to detennine
market value of lands acquired-Onus is always on claimant to prove prevail-
ing market value.
The Stamp Act, 1899: S. 47-A inserted by Andhra Pradesh Act 22 of
D
1971-Held, the section confe"ed no express power on government to deter-
mine market value of lands and to maintain Basic Value Register-The
Register cannot fonn any basis to detennine market value of acquired land
under s. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Certain land of the appellant-landowner situated in a Municipality
E was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The compensation was
awarded on the basis of letting value. On reference under s. 18 of the Act,
the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 75 per sq. yard. The appellant filed
an appeal in the High Court claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/·
per sq. yard. The claim was dismissed.
F
In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the claimant-
appellant that the High Court erred in dismissing his claim as the ac-
quired land was situated in the commercial area and the Basic Valuation
Register showed that for stamp duty the Revenue authorities fixed the
market value in commercial area at Rs. 300 per sq. yard and since the
G respondents did not produce contra evidence, the Basic Valuation Register
formed foundation to determine the market value of the acquired land at
Rs. 300 per sq. yard.
>-
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
H
HELD: 1.1. The High Court rightly held that the Basic Valuation
368
_+
JAWATEE v. DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AP.
369
Register prepared and maintained for the purpose of collecting stamp duty A
had no evidentiary value in that it had no statutory base or force. It cannot
form a foundation to determine the market value mentioned thereunder
in instrument brought for registration, nor would it be a basis to determine
the market value under s. 23 of the Act of the lands acquired. [374-F]
1.2. Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 enacted by Andhra Prctdesh B
State Legislature, empowering the registering officer to levy stamp duty on
instruments of conveyance etc., conferred no express power on the Govern-
ment to determine the market value of lands prevailing in a particular area
and to maintain Basic Valuation Register for levy of stamp duty for
registration of an instrument. [373-G]
C
Jawajee Nagnathan v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.1.R.
1983 A.P. 155, upheld.
Gulzara Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1993] 4 S.C.C. 245,
relied on.
D
Mis. Sagar Cements Ltd., Mattampalle v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
(1989) 3 A.L.T. 677, P. Shashidhar v. Sub-Registrar, (1989) 3 A.L.T. 677,
Land Acquisition Officer v. Venkateswara Prasad, A.S. No. 880of1980 dated
Nov. 11, 1981 & Vasireddi Bharata Rao & Anr. v. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Guntur, (1992) 1 A.L.T. 591, approved.
E
Govt. of A.P. v. Sohan Lal (1988) 2 A.L.T. 306, disapproved.
Director of Survey-cum-LA.O. v.Mohammed Ghouse, (1965) 1 M.L.J.
115, in-applicable.
F
2. In order to determine the market value of the land acquired, the
Court has to take into account one of the three methods, namely, (1)
opinion of experts, (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide
transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to
the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages, and (3) a number
of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the G
lands acquired. Generally the second method of valuation is accepted as
the best. Evidence of bona fide sale8 between willing prudent vendor and
--{__
prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated near about that land
possessing same or similar advantageous feature would furnish basis to
determine market value. [373-C-E]
H
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1994] 1 S.C.R.
A
Special· Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. Adhinarayan Setty,
A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 429; Tribeni Devi & Ors. v. Collector of Ranchi, [1972) 3
S.C.R. 208 & Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kera/a, relied
-+-
B
c
on.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.