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

1980 Supreme(Gau) 13

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
BAHARUL ISLAM AND N. IBOTOMBI SINGH, J.
P.G.DOmbrain and others etc -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Kamrup Gauhati and another, etc -Respondent
First Appeals Nos. 7 and 10 of 1972
Decided On : 26-02-1980

Advocates Appeared:
S.R. Goswsmi and K.R. Pathak; (in F.A. No. 7 of 1972) and M.K. Sharma, Sr. Govt. Advocate, (in F.A. No. 10 of 1972), Jr. Govt. Advocate, (in F.A. No. 7 of 1972) and K.R. Pathak (in F.A. No. 10 of 1972)

The market value of the acquired land is to be determined on the basis of comparable sales, taking into consideration the potential value of the land.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - MARKET VALUE - DETERMINATION - COMPARABLE SALES - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - POTENTIAL VALUE OF LAND - INTEREST ON EXCESS AMOUNT.

Fact of the Case:

Agricultural lands were acquired by the Government for the India Carbon under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per bigha. The claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per bigha and the respondent claimed @ Rs. 10.000/- per bigha. The Assistant District Judge enhanced the quantum of compensation to Rs. 4,000/- per bigha and awarded solatium at the rate of 15% on the compensation amount.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the sale transactions relied on by the claimants could not be regarded as a safe guide for determination of the market value of the acquired lands. The Court also held that the reference Court was justified in taking into consideration the potential value of the lands acquired.

Issues: 1. Whether the sale transactions relied on by the claimants were comparable sales and could be considered for determination of the market value of the acquired lands? 2. Whether the reference Court was justified in taking into consideration the potential value of the lands acquired?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. In a comparable sale transaction, the features are: (i) it must be within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, (ii) it should be a bona fide transaction; (iii) it should be a sale of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and (iv) it should possess similar advantages. 2. The potential value of the land can be taken into consideration in determining the market value of the acquired land.

Final Decision: Both the appeals were dismissed with the modification that the Collector shall pay interest on the excess amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment in the Court.

Judgement

N. IBOTOMBI SINGH, J. :- These two appeals are directed against the common Award, dated July 29, 1971 of the Assistant District Judge No. 2 at Gauhati in Misc. L.A. Cases 17 and 18 of 1969, being references under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act). Both the appeals, one by the claimant and another by the Collector, are heard together and disposed of by this common judgement.

2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are : agricultural land of 18 bighas 4 kathas covered by dag Nos. 146, 136, 131 and 130, 129

Kha

of K.P. No. 2 of village Madgharia No. 2 in Beltola Mouza in the name of late P.G. D.Ombrain, predecessor-in-interest of appellants in F.A. No. 7 of 1972 and another plot of agricultural land measuring 2 bighas 3 kathas 7 lechas revered by Dag No. 147 of K.P. Patta No. 1 of the same village and mouza, in the name of the respondent in F. A. No. 10 of 1972, were acquired by the Government of Assam for the India Carbon under the Act. Notification dated, March 25, 1967, under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act for acquisition of the aforesaid plots of land was issued and published in the Government Gazette. This was followed on August 8, 1967, by a notification under Sec. 6 of the Act. The Collector by his award made on 2-3-1968, gave compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per bigha. The claimant in Misc. L.A. Case No. 17 of 1969 claimed compensation is Rs. 15,000/- per bigha. and the respondent in Misc. L. A. Case No. 18 of 1969 claimed @ Rs. 10.000/- per bigha. Both the claimants received payment under protest. Dissatisfied with the award, the erstwhile owners approached the Collector for reference to the Court under Sec. 18 of the Act. The two reference cases above under Sec. 18 of the Act were heard together by the Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati, who by his award, dated July 29, 1971, enhanced the quantum of the compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per bigha. He also awarded solatium at the rate of 15 % on the compensation amount. The Collector was allowed two months time from July 29, 1971 to pay the excess amount, failing which the claimants would be entitled to get interest (r) Rs. 6 per cent per annum from that date till realisation. Aggrieved by the enhanced award of the Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati, both the parties, the claimants in Misc. L. A. Case No. 17 of 1969 and the Collector have come up in appeal to this Court.

3. It is well settled that the measure of compensation to be awarded to the owners of immoveable property under Section 23(1) of the Act is designed to award just and fair compensation for the acquisition. Compensation is to be awarded on the basis of the market value prevalent on the date, of the publication of the Notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act. The meaning of the expression "market value" was explained by the Supreme Court in Khajen Fijuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Civil Appeal Case No. 176 of 1962 decided on April 10, 1963 (SC)) and it was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the later case, Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 580. It was laid down as follows :-

"Under Sec. 23(1) of the Act in determining the amount of compensation the court shall take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) thereof. Decided cases have laid down that the by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably accept to obtain from a willing purchaser. For ascertaining the market rate the court can rely upon such transactions which would afford a guide to fix the price. Price paid for a land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of acquisition of the land in question would certainly be the best piece of evidence. Price paid for a land possessing advantage similar to those of the land acquired in or about the time of notification will also supply the data for assessment of compensation."

(Underlining supplied).

4. Keep











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