TMI Blog1977 (1) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication under s. 4 read with Sub-s. (1) of s. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the Government Gazette stating that this land was needed by the State Government for implementation of Seoni Water Supply Scheme. The declaration under s. 6 of the Act was published on December 18, 1963, and notices under s. 9 of the Act were issued by the Collector on December 28, 1963. In response to that notice, the appellants filed a claim that they were willing to accept compensation in respect of this land at the rate of ₹ 1500/- per acre, as the lands adjoining this land and situated in a lesser advantageous position are sold at this rate . The Collector made his award on August 17, 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, and consequently, the incompetent appeal fired by the Collector should have been dismissed summarily on this preliminary ground without entering upon the merits. This objection was raised before the High Court, also. The High Court fully considered it against the background of this case, and found no substance in it. In the interests of justice we are not disposed to interfere with that finding. On merits, we find, in agreement with the High Court, that the District Judge was palpably wrong inasmuch as he awarded compensation at a rate far higher than what had been claimed by the appellants themselves, pursuant to the notice under s. 9 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge acted contrary to the legislative mandate conta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in R.N. Singh v.U.P. Government([1967] 1 S.C.R 489). In our opinion, there is evidence on the record which unmistakably shows that from the view-point of a willing purchaser, at the relevant time, this land had potential value as building sites. Firstly, it was admitted even by Gokul Prasad who was examined by the Respondents as their Witness No. 1, that in front of the land in question there are buildings which are being used as the office of the Range Officer and as residential quarters for the employees of that Department. Adjoining the Range Office is the house of Dewan Najaf Ali in which the Additional District Judge was residing. The witness further admitted that the land in dispute abutts on Seoni-Chhindwara Road. Dadu Yoge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of that area at the rate of ₹ 500/- per acre. It is significant to note that this piece of 6.16 acres was also a part of Khasra No. 47/1, out of which Khasra, the land, admeasuring 7.35 acres, is in question. This circumstance unerringly indicates that the land in question was suitable for being used as building sites, and had for that purpose, a potential value substantially in excess of ₹ 500/- per acre. The High Court has not at all discussed this evidence. It is difficult to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that the appellant had paid ₹ 500/- per acre as diversion charges for the adjacent land, merely as speculative business in the hope of making money in the remote future. No prudent pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the progress and how far the said activity has extended and within what time, whether buildings have been put up on lands purchased for building purposes, what is the distance between the built-in-land and the land acquired and similar other questions will have to be answered. It is the over-all picture drawn on the said relevant circumstances that affords the solution. What has been extracted above are broad guidelines and not immutable absolutes. The essence of the whole thing is in the sentence which has been underlined. It shows that in the ultimate analysis, the question, whether or not a land has potential value as building site, is primarily one of fact. in the present case, the circumstance that the appellants had voluntaril ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
