Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2001 (1) TMI 1024

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rate of compensation determined at Rs. 58/- by the referring Court, by its judgment and Award dated 14th October, 1998. The question raised in these appeals filed by the claimants is : Whether the High Court was justified in further reducing the market value of the land in question by Rs. 10/- on the facts and circumstances of this case? 3. The question raised in the State appeals is to the following effect : Whether High Court was right in relying upon Ex. 16 instead of placing reliance on Ex. 46, if it erred, has it not committing an error in not further reducing the rate of compensation to be one fixed by it. 4. As both two sets of appeals raise the questions which are inter-linked, hence are being dispose of by mean .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... town. The acquisition of land under Ex. 16 is under Section 4 through notification dated 3rd January, 1991 while acquisition in the present case is later, through notification dated 1st August, 1991. The rate of land under Ex.16, which became final is Rs. 64/- per sq. mtr. The Reference Court, after considering Ex. 16 and taking it into considerations fixed the rate of compensation at Rs. 58/- per sq.mtr. Aggrieved by this the State filed appeals before the High Court. The High Court, as aforesaid, reduced the rate of compensation by Rs. 10/- per sq, mtr. thus fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 48/- per sq. mtr. Aggrieved by this the claimants preferred the present aforesaid appeals, while the State preferred the appeals for the fur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he approximate rate of compensation would come to Rs. 23/- per sq. mtr. It is not necessary to dwell on this, as we find the reliance on Exh. 46, has been rejected both the Referring Court and also by the High Court based on good reasoning. The submission on behalf of State was also for fixation of market value based on yield method which was rejected by both the said Courts. The High Court for this relied on Special Land Acquisition Officer v. P. Veerabhadrappa [1985]154ITR190(SC) , to hold yield method can be referred only when there is no other evidence in the form of sale transaction or opinion of experts available. In the present case, the claimants had adduced sufficient evidence describing nature and situation of the acquired lands t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uired lands in the present case, some deduction will have to be made. At the same time, because of distance between the village site and the acquired lands, which was more than the distance between the village site and acquired lands of award Exh. 16, some deduction shall also have to be made. In our opinion, if the deduction of large area and small area coupled with further deduction for distance is made in the present case, then it would be reasonable to deduct 25% from the market price arrived at in respect of the acquired lands of award Exh. 16. 12. As we have said above the High Court fell into error by reducing the quantum of compensation on this basis. The reduction has been made for two reasons, one that the present acquisition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n behalf of the State to find difference between the two. In view of this, the inference drawn by the High Court for reducing the compensation by Rs. 10/- per sq. mtr. cannot be sustained. 13. For the aforesaid reason, we find, so far the appeals by the claimants has merit. The judgment and order of the High Court to the extent it reduced the compensation rate by Rs. 10/- per sq. mtr. is set aside and the findings recorded by the Referring Court is upheld. On the other hand, in view of the findings recorded hereinbefore for the same reasons the appeal filed by the State has no merit and are hereby dismissed, cost on the parties. 14. The interim order is hereby discharged. The state will now proceed to pay the compensation to the claim .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates