TRIBENI DEVI AND ORS. versus COLLECTOR OF RANCHI

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 208 · Decided: 25-01-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

208 
TRIBENI DEVI AND ORS. 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF RANCm 
January 25, 1972 
[K. s. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND K; K. MATHEW, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894)-Compensation-Principles for 
determing. 
According to the general principles set out in sections 23 and 24 of 
the Land Acquision Act, 1894, for determining compensaticm, the com· 
pensation payable to the owner of the land is the market value which is 
detennined by reference to the price which a seller might reasonably ex-
pect to obtain from a willing· purchaser; but since it _may not be possible 
to ascertain this with any amount of precision the authority charged wtth 
the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by 
an objective standard. The land acquired, has, therefore, to be valued not 
only wtth reference to its condition at the time of the declaraticm under s. 
4 of the Act, but its potential value also must be .taken into account. This 
Court has laid down the methods of valuation to be adopted in ascertain· 
ing the market value of the land on the date of the notification under s. 4, 
which are: (i) opinion of experts (ii) the price paid within a reasonable 
time in bona fide transactions of the purchase of the lands acquired or the 
lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advanfages and 
(iii) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective 
profits of the lands acquired. These methods, however, do not preclude 
the Court from taking any other special circumstance into consideration, 
the requirement being always to arrive as near as possible an estimate of 
the market vaJue. In arriving at a reasonable correct market value it may 
be necessary to take even two ·or all these methods into account in as 
much as the exact valuation is not always possible as no two lands may be 
sarne either in respect of the situation or the extent or the potentiality, 
nor is it possible in alt cases to have reliable material from which that 
valuation can be accurately determined. f211 HJ 
Special Land Acquisition Officer Bengal"re v. 
T. Adinarayan Setty. 
(1959\ Supp, 1 S.C.R. 404, referred to. 
In the present case, the High Court was not justified in adopting the 
sale-deed in respect of a land which was farther away not only from the 
land acquired, but from the town. The annual rental value of the land 
acquired, based on the rent fixed in 1944 when that land was not of such 
gI;."eat value as it had acquired at the time when section 4 notification was 
issued, woiild also not furnish a proper method of computation. The High 
Court was not justified in giv;ng 10 per cent towards potential value, be. 
ca11'Se, that element was inherent in the fixation of market value of the land 
and could not be assessed separately .. The High Court was also not justi· 
lied in disallowing 5 per cent awarded by the Judicial 
Commi~ as 
compensation for severance merely because there was an entrance to the 
land. When a portion of the land is acquired and a large portion left out 
there would be diminution in the value of land that is left out for which 
so:ne compensation has to be allowed. [214 Bl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C.A. Nos. 661, 1380, 1885 
& 1886 of 1967. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
TRIBENI DEVI v. COLLECTOR RANCHI (!aga11moha11 Reddy, /.),209· 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 25, 1965 
of the Patna High Court in First Appeals Nos. 437 and 438 of 
1959. 
S. V. Gupte. B. P. Rajgarhia and U. P. Singh, for the appellants .. 
(in C.A. Nos. 661 a:nd 1380 of 1967) and for respondent No. 1 
(in C.A. Nos. 1885 and 1886 of 1967). 
D. Gcburdhm1, for the respondent (in C.A. Nos. 661 and 1380 
of 1967 and for the appellant (in C.A. Nos. 1885 and 1886 of 
1967). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P. Jaganmoltan Reddy, J. These appeals arc by certificate 
against the judgment of tile Patna High Court in land acquisition 
appea]s. 
Two notifications dated 7-7-1954 under section 4 of 
the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Act l of 1894) (hereinafter 
called 'the Act'), were issued one in respect of a portion of Plot 
Nos. 178 and 1784 admeasuring 2.65 acres and the other in res-
pect of the whole of the plot No. 
1783 admeasuring 2 
acres situated in Ward No. 3 of Ranchi Municipality. 
Section 
6 notification in respect of these lands was published on 7-9-1954 
MJd poswsion was taken on 23-9-1954 under section 17(1) after 
making a declaration under section 17 ( 4) tha•t !he p

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