2019 Supreme(All) 1708

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra, JJ.
Bulandhshahr Khurja Development Authority - Appellant
Vs.
Hamid Ali Since Deceased And Others - Respondent
First Appeal No. 13 of 2016
Decided On : 18-09-2019

Market value of property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when let out in its most advantageous manner.

Headnote:

[MAIN LEGAL POINT] Market value of property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when let out in its most advantageous manner.

Fact of the Case:

BKDA is a statutory authority constituted under Section 4 U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Act,1973"). It was constituted for planned development of the area notified in Bulandshahar and Khurja, under U.P. Act,1973. BKDA proposed to develop a residential colony and for this purpose, proposed to acquire 52.361 hectare of land at Khurja, District Bulandshahar. Accepting their proposal, State Government published notification under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17 of Act,1894 on 08.10.2004 in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary). Notice was also published in daily newspapers "Amar Ujala", and "Dainik Jagran" on 12.10.2004. A public notice was also issued on 18.10.2004. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6(1) read with Section 17 of Act,1894 was issued vide Notification dated 17.10.2005, published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) on the same day. In the local newspapers "Dainik Jagran" and "Peedit Manav", notice was published on 28.10.2005 and 01.11.2005 respectively. It was locally announced on 22.11.2005. Possession of acquired land was taken on 30.12.2005 and 25.08.2006. Acquired land included holding of claimant-land owners, Hamid Ali (now deceased and substituted by his legal heirs) and Zahid Ali, sons of Hussain Ali, being Gata No. 914 area 8080 meters (0.808 Hectare) who are respondent in this appeal.

Finding of the Court:

[16] Then, Issues 1 and 2 were taken together. It held that SLAO considered sale-deed in respect of the Plot No. 909 which is situated far away from Grand-Trunk Road and there was no proper approach for the said land. On the contrary, acquired land in dispute is situated on National Highway No. 91, i.e., Grand Trunk Road touching National Highway. Therefore, SLAO relied on a document which relates to a land totally dissimilar to the acquired land in question. Thereafter, Reference Court relied on the sale-deeds filed as Papers No. 37C1,38C1 and 39C1 and took a view that aggregate market value for the land adjacent to main road would be Rs. 2800/- per square metre. After applying deduction on account of largeness of area to the extent of 30 per cent it would come to Rs.1960/-. Hence it determined market value at the rate of Rs. 1960/- per square metre. Having said so in para 65, Reference Court, however, in para 69 of judgment has observed that claimants Land-Owners are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 1920/- per square metre and the same has been maintained in the operative part of the order. Therefore, though the finding was recorded in Para-65 that actual market value of the land comes to Rs. 1960/- per square meter, in the penultimate paragraph 69, and in the order and award, it has been mentioned Rs. 1920/- per square meter. Reference Court, therefore, answered the Reference by holding market value for the purpose of compensation at Rs. 1920/- per square meter.

Issues: (1) Whether the compensation awarded to applicants is inadequate? (2) Whether applicants are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per square metre? (3) Whether Reference is time barred? (4) Whether Reference is maintainable in the light of statement made in para 35 and 36 of written statement? (5) Any other relief?

Ratio Decidendi: [65] In Bhagwathula Samnna and others v. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, (1991) 4 SCC 506, High Court applied deduction of 33.3% observing, when large extent of land was acquired under housing scheme and exemplar is of small land, reasonable deduction can be made. Following the decision in Tribeni Devi v. Collector, Ranchi, (1972) AIR SC 1417, it was argued that High Court wrongly applied deduction; acquired land was fully developed and eminently suitable for being used as house sites and, therefore, there was no justification for making any deduction. The land was acquired for formation of road, High Court applied deduction on the ground that expenses have to be incurred for development, which was not justified. Aforesaid submission was considered by Supreme Court in the light of facts of that case. In para 7 and 11, Court said: - "7. In awarding compensation, the Court has necessarily to determine the market value of the land as on the date of the relevant notification. It is useful to consider the value paid for similar land at the material time under genuine transactions. The market value envisages the price which a willing purchaser may pay under bona fide transfer to a willing seller. The land value can differ depending upon the extent and nature of the land sold. A fully developed small plot in an important locality may fetch a higher value than a larger area in an undeveloped condition and situated in a remote locality. By comparing the price shown in the transactions all variables have to be taken into consideration. The transaction in regard to smaller property cannot, therefore, be taken as a real basis for fixing the compensation for larger tracts of property. In fixing the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, generally a deduction is given taking into consideration the expenses required for development of the larger tract to make smaller plots within that area in order to compare with the small plots dealt with under the sale transaction. 11. The principle of deduction in the land value covered by the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the just and comparable compensation. In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition, the only relevant factor. Even in the vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If smaller area within the large tract is already and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity roads, drainage, electricity, communications etc. then the principle of deduction of value for the purposes of comparison is not warranted."

Final Decision: Appeal partly allowed and judgment and award dated 06.10.2015 passed by Sri Rajat Singh Jain, Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Bulandshahar in LAR No. 4 of 2010 modified to the extent that market value of acquired land of Claimants/ Land-Owners, for the purpose of payment of compensation, shall be taken as Rs.1300/- per square meter. Other statutory dues i.e. solatium, interest etc. as awarded by Reference Court, are maintained.