U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD versus ASHA RAM (D) THR. LRS & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 3 S.C.R. 751 · Decided: 23-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
751
   [2021] 3 S.C.R. 751
751
U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD
v.
ASHA RAM (D) THR. LRS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 337 of 2021)
MARCH 23, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Land Acquisition: Comparable sale – Land acquired under
s.28 of Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965
– Market value should be based on the sale instances, which are
proximate to both the date of notification under s.28 of the Act and
to the land sought to be acquired – Sale instances four years later
than the publication of s.28 – Cannot be taken into consideration
in terms of s.24 of Land Acquisition Act – Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam
Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – s.28 – Land Acquisition Act,
1894 – s.24.
Land Acquisition: Market value of land – Determination of –
Held: Potentiality of the acquired land is one of the primary factors
to be taken into consideration to determine market value of land –
The question whether a land has potential value or not primarily
depends upon its condition, situation, use to which it is put or its
reasonable capability of being put and also its proximity to
residential, commercial or industrial areas/institutions – The existing
amenities like water, electricity as well as the possibility of their
further extension, for instance whether near about town is
developing or has prospects of development have to be taken into
consideration – It also depends upon the connectivity and the overall
development of the area – Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad
Adhiniyam, 1965 – s.28.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The land forming the subject matter of the
present appeals was acquired in pursuance of notification under
Section 28 of the Act published on 26.6.1982. Therefore, firstly,
the attempt to determine the market value should be based on
the sale instances, which are proximate to both the date of
notification under Section 28 of the Act and to the land sought to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
be acquired. The land owners have relied upon seven sale
instances in respect of villages of which the land was acquired.
Out of such seven sale instances, two are almost four years later
than the publication of notification under Section 28 of the Act,
and thus cannot be taken into consideration in terms of the Section
24 of the LA Act. [Para 28][768-G; 769-A-B]
2. The potentiality of the acquired land is one of the primary
factors to be taken into consideration to determine the market
value of the land. Potentiality refers to the capacity or possibility
for changing or developing into the state of actuality. The market
value of a property has to be determined while having due regard
to its existing conditions with all the existing advantages and its
potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous
manner. The question whether a land has potential value or not
primarily depends upon its condition, situation, use to which it is
put or its reasonable capability of being put and also its proximity
to residential, commercial or industrial areas/institutions. The
existing amenities like water, electricity as well as the possibility
of their further extension, for instance whether near about town
is developing or has prospects of development have to be taken
into consideration. It also depends upon the connectivity and the
overall development of the area. The record in the present matter
does not suggest that there were large scale development
activities. The evidence is rather of sale of small areas. There is
nothing on record as to when the industrial units were set up and
what was the cost of land. Furthermore, there are no sale
instances of land situated in Village Makanpur prior to date of
notification i.e. 26.6.1982. The sale instances produced by the
land owners pertain to Village Sahibabad and Jhandapur which
are at a distance of about 3.5 kms from Delhi border.
[Paras 29, 30][769-C-F]
3. The sale instances of a smaller area have to be
considered while keeping in view the principle that where a large
area is the subject matter of acquisition, suitable deduction is
required to be made as no prudent purchaser would purchase
large extent of land on the basis of sale of a small extent in the
open market. The Court thus has to consider whether the willing
vendee would offer the rate at which the trial court proposes to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
753
determine the compensation. This Court has even provided for
50% deduction for development charges on the pr

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