SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Bom) 613

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Versus
PRATAPSINGH SHOORJI VALLABHDAS
Decided on : MAY 3, 2005

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18 - Reference - Court to analyse only those sale instances which are proved before it as a comparable land for determining the market value of land under acquisition. - It is now well settled that the market value of the land has to be determined on the basis of comparable sale instances and not on the basis of average price derived by clubbing larger number of sale instances. The respondent has not produced any evidence so as to discard sale instance No. 1. The sale instance No. 1 is proved and therefore Court is required to accept sale instance No. 1 which is only the sale instance proved as a comparable land for the purpose of determining the market value of the land under acquisition.

( 1 ) THE present reference is filed by the SLAO under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land sought to be acquired is in respect of area admeasuring about 1982 sq. mts situated at Kanjurmarg, bombay. The public purpose for which the said land is proposed to be acquired is jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road. On 18-3-1995 a notification was issued under section 126 (2) of the MRTP Act, 1966 and same was published in the government Gazette on 26-6-1975. The land in question forms part of CTS No. 122 (pt) is more particularly located on the eastern side of Central Railway Line between Kanjurmarg Railway Station and Vikhroli Railway station. On 13-3-1975 an award was passed under section 11 of the LA Act and the SLAO has determined the value of the land at Rs. 20/- per sq. mts after giving various other allowances such as distance and valuation of structure and ultimately an award has been passed in favour of the Claimants for a sum of Rs. 8,00,189. 95/-, The claimant being dissatisfied by the said award on 31-6-1975 made an application for enhancement of the compensation under section 18 of the Act pursuant thereto the SLAO has made the present reference on 9-9-1981 in this Court seeking a decision by this Court under section 18 of the LA Act on the request of the claimants for enhancement of the said valuation.

( 2 ) IN the present land acquisition reference two witnesses are examined by the claimant, one is Aditya Pratap Singh who is the son of claimant No. 1 and constituted attorney of claimant No. 1 to 3 and another Mr. Vinit Ramanlal Shah, expert valuer in support of his valuation report dated 28-1-1994. The learned counsel appearing for the SLAO has cross-examined the said witness but has not produced any witness on their behalf. Insofar as oral evidence is concerned the first witness namely Aditya P. Singh has identified the said land and has produced documents in the form of order and plan of the said property. He has deposed that the said land was acquired for public purpose for construction of jogeshwari-Vikhroli link road. He has also deposed that pursuant to the said acquisition the claimant was awarded compensation of Rs. 34,198. 10/- (including 15% solatium) at the rate of Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr. He has stated in the evidence in examination-in-chief that he was looking after the said land and he has visited the same and thus he is aware of the location and condition of the said land. According to him the said land was vacant in 1975. According to him the said land was a levelled land and that prior to taking over possession he had visited the land. He has identified the said land in the plan. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that the land was at a distance of 100 mts. from Kanjurmarg railway Station and 300 mts from Vikhroli Railway Station. He has further stated that the said land was also at a distance of 100 mts from LBS Marg which is one of the major arterial road. He has been cross-examined by SLAO and in his cross-examination he has admitted that the land which was acquired was a barren land and was not put to any use at the time of acquisition in 1975. He has also deposed that the land was a grassy land. He has deposed that the surrounding area of the land which was a government land was occupied by hutments. He has also admitted in the cross-examination that there is no development on the acquired land or surrounding areas of the said land. He has however deposed that the land is not a residential land and was closely located to Kanjurmarg Railway station. In his cross-examination he has also expressed his inability to classify the acquired land for residential purposes but he has stated that the acquired land is located on the eastern side of the railway line. He has admitted in his crossexamination that the said land had no access and he has further admitted that there are no other comparable sale instances are available on the eastern side of the railway line. He has admitted that there











































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top