Back
2011 (2) UAD 11
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Asok Kumar Ganguly and Swatanter Kumar
Civil Appeal Nos. 7496-7497 of 2005
TRISHALA JAIN & ANR. – Appellants
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. – Respondents
With Civil Appeal Nos. 7498-7499 of 2005
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. – Appellants
Versus
TRISHALA JAIN & ANR. – Respondents
With Civil Appeal No. 1122 of 2011
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. – Appellants
Versus
JITENDRA KUMAR ETC. – Respondents
With Civil Appeal Nos. 3613 of 2008
SMT. KRISHNA DEVI & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. – Respondents
Decided on : 05.05.2011
(Paras 9, 10)
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Secs. 23, 24 — Fair market value of the acquired land under the Act — Determination of — Certified copies as reliable evidence without examining parties to the documents — Admissible in evidence and can be relied upon if they are genuine instances and not rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land.
(Para 17)
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Secs. 23, 24 — Determination of fair market value of acquired land — Principle of deduction to such determined market value — Application thereof is quite consistent — However, extent of deduction has varied very widely depending on facts and circumstances of a given case — Normally the rule is that deduction is to be applied on account of carrying out development activities, like providing roads or civic amenities such as electricity, water etc. when the land is acquired for construction of residential, commercial or institutional projects — Same can also be applied where sale instances (examplars) relate to smaller pieces of land and in comparison the acquisition relates to a large tract of land — In addition thereto, deduction can also be applied on account of wastage of land — Extent of such deduction on account of expenses of development of sites could vary from 10% to 86.33% depending on nature of the land, its situation, the purpose and stage of development.
(Paras 9, 18 to 25)
(D) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Secs. 23, 24 — Determination of fair market value of acquired land — Principle of guesstimate for determination of amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under the Act — Application of — Fixing of compensation with exactitude or arithematical accuracy — Depending on facts and circumstances of the case, court may have to take recourse to some guesswork while determining fair market value of the land and consequential amount of compensation required to be paid to persons interested in acquired land. (Para 26)
(E) Terms and expressions — Expressions 'guess', 'calculations', 'guesstimate', 'conjectures' — Concepts of — Applicability of — Scope of — Enumerated. (Paras 26 to 33, 43, 44)
¼v½ Hkwfe vf/kxzg.k vf/kfu;e] 1894] /kkjk 23] 24 & vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe ds mfpr cktkjh ewY; dk fu/kkZj.k & cSfYVax i)fr dks ykxw djus ds fo'ks"k Hkwfe vf/kxzg.k vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k dks fujLr djus dh lanHkZ U;k;ky; o mPp U;k;ky; ds fu"d'kks± dks pqukSrh uk nh tkus ds dkj.k mUgsa fo{kqC/k ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼izLrj 9] 10½
¼c½ Hkwfe vf/kxzg.k vf/kfu;e] 1894] /kkjk 23] 24 & vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe ds mfpr cktkjh ewY; ds fu/kkZj.k dh dk;Zokgh esa vfHkys[kksa dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi;k¡ mu vfHkys[kksa dks i{kdkjksa dks ijhf{kr fd;s fcuk lk{; esa xzká gS rFkk mu ij fo'okl fd;k tk ldrk gS ;fn os vlyh gSa rFkk muesa dksbZ gsjk Qsjh Hkwfe ds vfèkxzg.k dh izR;k'k esa ugha dh xbZ gSA ¼izLrj 17½
¼l½ Hkwfe vf/kxzg.k vf/kfu;e] 1894] /kkjk 23] 24 & vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe ds mfpr cktkjh ewY; ls dVkSrh djus dk fl)kUr i;kZIr :i ls mfpr gS ;|fi mldh ek=k izR;sd ekeys ds rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vuqlkj dkQh fHké gS & lk/kkj.kr; fu;e ;g gS fd dVkSrh lM+dsa o vU; lqfo/kkvksa tSls fctyh] ikuh vkfn tc fd Hkwfe vkoklh;] O;olkf;d ;k laLFkkxr ifj;kstukvksa ds fy;s vf/kxzfgr dh tk jgh gS] ds fodkl fd;k tkus gsrq dh tkrh gS & og rc Hkh ykxw dh tkrh gS tc foØ; izek.k Hkwfe ds NksVs VqdM+ksa ds gks tc fd vf/kxzg.k Hkwfe ds cM+s {ks= dk fd;k tk jgk gS & dVkSrh Hkwfe ds vip; ds dkj.k Hkh dh tk ldrh gS & dVkSrh dh ek=k LFky ds fodkl djus esa vkus okys O;; ds vuqlkj] Hkwfe dh izÑfr] fLFkfr m/ks'k Lrj ij fuHkZj djrs gq,] 10 izfr'kr ls ysdj 86-33 izfr'kr rd gks ldrh gSA ¼izLrj 9] 18 ls 25½
¼n½ Hkwfe vf/kxzg.k vf/kfu;e] 1894] /kkjk 23] 24 & vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe ds mfpr cktkjh ewY; dk fu/kkZj.k & vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe ds izfrdj dh /kujkf'k fu/kkZfjr djus esa vuqekurk ds fl)kUr dk ykxw gksuk & izfrdj dk ;Fkkor ;k xf.kr lEcU/kh ;FkkFkZrk ds vuqlkj fuf'pr djus esa izR;sd ekeys ds vius rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fuHkZj djrs gq, U;k;ky; dks vuqeku dk lgkjk ysuk iM+ ldrk gSA ¼izLrj 26½
¼;½ 'kCn o vfHkO;fDr & vfHkO;fDr 'guess' ¼vuqeku½( 'calculations' ¼ifjdyu½( 'guestimate', 'conjectures' dh ifjdYiuk ds ykxw gksus dh lhek@foLrkj & vafdrA ¼izLrj 26 ls 33 o 43] 44½
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of the afore-noticed six Civil Appeals as they arise from different judgments of the High Court of Uttaranchal but are result of a common Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the ‘Act’) and thus are based upon similar facts and documentary and oral evidence.
FACTS:
C. A. Nos.7496-7497 of 2005 and 7498-7499 of 2005
2. On 30th January, 1992, the Government of Uttar Pradesh (now the State of Uttaranchal) issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquiring some land for a public purpose, namely the construction of Government Polytechnic Institute in the District of Dehradun. This Notification came to be published in the Official Gazette on 22nd February, 1992. On 18th April 1992, declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued which was published in the Official Gazette on 12th May, 1992 identifying the land admeasuring 12.85 acres for acquisition for the said purpose in village Sewala Kalan, Pargana Kendriya Doon, District Dehradun, out of which lands admeasuring 4.58 acres and 3.031 acres belonged to the first and the second claimant respectively. In furtherance to this Notification, possession of the acquired land was taken on 7th July, 1992. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (in short the ‘SLAO’) pronounced his award on 8th June, 1993. While determining compensation the SLAO applied belting system to the acquired land and assessed the first market value of the firstbelt admeasuring 0.56 acres at the rate of Rs. 978,223.40 per acre, second belt admeasuring 1.38 acres the rate of Rs. 6,52,452.27 per acre and for the third belt admeasuring 10.91 acres at the rate of Rs. 4,39,362.70 per acre. However, the claimants being dissatisfied with the award of the SLAO, filed applications under Section 18 the Act which in turn came to be referred to the Court of competent jurisdiction (herein after referred to as the ‘Reference Court’).
3. The Reference Court, in LA Case No. 386 of 1993, considered the list of 140 sale instances attached with the award of the SLAO. It noticed that the SLAO had relied on sale instance at serial no. 43 related to land admeasuring 0.094 acre for a total consideration of Rs. 92,000 and assessed the market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 9,78,723 per acre before applying the belting system. This sale deed was executed on 10th June, 1991 and the land was from the revenue estate of the same village but at some distance from the acquired land. The Reference Court also noticed the evidence of DW 1, Ram Singh, who had stated that ITBP quarters are located to the north of the acquired land; and to the east of ITBP Colony, is a 20 feet wide passage which ends on the acquired land. A high tension line of 1100 K.V. also runs near the acquired land. This witness admitted that the land, in question was full of residential potentialities. Reliance was also placed upon the statements of PW7 and PW8 in regard to the urbanization of the surrounding areas and the potential of the land in question for building construction and residential purposes.
4. Out of those 140 sale instances, sale instance at serial Nos. 109 and 110 are stated to be the sale deeds executed on 26th November, 1991 and 27th November, 1991, which were heavily relied upon by the Reference Court. The Reference Court vide its judgment-cum-award dated 12th May, 1995 held application of belting system improper as entire land was acquired for one purpose, i.e. construction of Government Polytechnic Institute. It determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 6,40,000 per bigha and after applying 20% deduction, enhanced compensation to flat rate of Rs. 5,12,000 per bigha along with other statutory benefits.
5. The State, aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation awarded to the claimants by the Reference Court, preferred appeals being First Appeal Nos. 920-921 of 2001, before the concerned H
SupremeToday
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
