Back
High Court Of Delhi
MANI RAM SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 08/31/1984
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - MARKET VALUE - POTENTIALITY OF LAND - REFORMS ACT - SECTION 4 (1), 4 (3), 6, 28 - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 18 - LAND ACQUISITION (AMENDMENT AND VALIDATION) ACT, 1967 - POTENTIALITY OF LAND IS A TRUE ELEMENT OF MARKET VALUE AND MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants' land in village Ghazipur was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector valued the land as purely agricultural land and awarded compensation accordingly. The appellants challenged the award, claiming that the land had potential for more profitable use and should be valued accordingly.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Collector and the lower court erred in not taking into account the potentiality of the land. The court considered judgments from neighboring villages, where land had been valued at a higher rate due to its potential for development. The court also considered the possibility that the authorities under the Reforms Act would have given permission to build on the land.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector and the lower court erred in not taking into account the potentiality of the land in determining compensation. 2. Whether the judgments from neighboring villages were relevant in determining the compensation for the appellants' land.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that potentiality is a true element of market value and must be taken into account in determining compensation. The court relied on the Privy Council decision in Vyricherla Narayana Gajapati v. Revenue Division Officer Vizagpathem, which held that land should be valued with reference to its potential uses, not just its current use. 2. The court held that the judgments from neighboring villages were relevant in determining the compensation for the appellants' land. The court noted that the villages were in close proximity to the appellants' land and that there was a growing appreciation of local needs for housing development.
Final Decision: The court awarded the appellants compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per bigha, along with solatium and interest. The court also allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the market value of the land from the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the date of declaration under section 6 of the Act.
( 1 ) THESE are two appeals from the orders of the Additional District Judge. In R. F. A. No. 54 of 1980 the impugned order was passed on 22-12-1979. In R. F. A. No. 378 of 1980 the impugned order is dated 6th June, 1980. As the point is common in both the appeals we have taken these matters together.
( 2 ) THE land of the appellants invillage Ghazipur was acquired by the. Government pursuant to a notification dated 13-11-1959 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act ). The declaration under section 6 was issued on 20-6-1966. In due course the Land Acquisition Collector made the award (Award No. 27-D/70-71 ). He divided the land into two blocks-block A and block B. Block A he valued at Rs. 750. 00 per bigha. In block B he put that land from which earth had been dug. Consequently he valued it at Rs. 500. 00 per bigha. On a reference under section 18 of the Act the learned Additional District Judge in the case of Pritam Singh and others (R. F. A. No. 54 of 1980) dismissed the reference holding that they. were not entitled to any enhancement. In the other case of Mani Ram Sharma (R. F. A:. No. 378 of 1980) the learned judge enchanced the compensation by Rs. 150. 00 and thereby raised it tors. 900. 00 per bigha. " The land in, both these cases was classed in block A by the Collector. But the judge abolished this distinction of blocks. Dissatisfied with the decision in reference the appellants appeal to this court for enhancement. In B. F. A. No. 54 of 1980 the appellants claim compensation at Rs. 8. 000. 00 per bigha In R. F. A. 378 of 1980 the claim is for Rs. 6. 000. 00 per bigha.
( 3 ) THE real. question is: What was the market value of the land in this. village-Ghazipur on 13-11-59? Counsel for the apppellants has invited our "attention to judgments in the adjoining villages. One is Ujjal Singh vs. Union of India R. F. A. No. 397 of 1968, decided on 29-3-1979 by. one of us. (Avadh Behari Rohatgi J ). This judgment relates to village Karkarduma. Karkarduma adjoins this village Ghazipur. In Karkarduma the value of the land was fixed at Rs. 6. 000. 00 per bigha as on 13 -. 11 -. 59. Strong reliance has been placed on this judgment and it is submitted that in the neighbourhood the value of the land was Rs. 6,000. 00 per bigha and therefore the appellants ought to be awarded compensation at the same rate. The other judgments to which our attention has been invited are relating to Mandavali village. In Shrimati Chander Kanta vs. Union of India, L. A. C No. 134 of 1971 Shri N. C. Kochhar, Additional District Judge, fixed the market price of land in village Mandavali at Rs. 4,000. 00 per bigha for the land acquired pursuant to the notification dated 13-11-59. In another case Kaushalya Devi vs. Union of India, L. A. C. 147 of 1971 he again fixed the same market value, that is. Rs. 4,000. 00 per bigha vide his judgment dated 31-10-75. Yet in another case Raj Kaur vs. Union of India, L. A. C. No. 378 of 1972, decided on 26-2-1976, he fixed the same market value. Now this village Mandavali adjoins village Ghazipur. Some of the owners of Mandavali have preferred TO appeals from the orders of Shri Kochhar which, we are told, are pending in this court.
( 4 ) THE main argument of learned counsel for the Union of India in these cases is that the land in this village was subject to the Land Reforms Act while in Karkardoma the village was not subject to the Reforms Act. Karkardoma was a part of the Shahdra Municipality. Taking these two points of distinction counsel submits that compensation cannot be the same as was awarded in the case of Karkardoma. It is true that this land was subject to the Land Reforms Act. But we must take into consideration the potentiality of the land. The building activity was space in the surrounding villages. In Karkardoma there were sales of plots for building houses. If in the neighbourhood the land was being sold at Rs. 6,000. 00 per bigha it will not be fair to valus the land in Ghazi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
