Hirabai v. LAO-cum-Asstt. Commr., (2010) 10 SCC 492
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
S. 23 - Compensation - Acquisition of irrigated and dry lands - Capitalisation method - When may be applied -
Enhancement of compensation by High Court by capitalisation method of valuation - Validity - Held, there was no direct
documentary evidence which could prove and establish or act as a guide in determining market value of acquired lands -
Therefore, High Court fell back upon capitalisation method of valuation and relied on government document published by
Directorate of Economics and Statistics which pertained to relevant year of acquisition - High Court accepted main
statistics therein for arriving at market value of land - On basis thereof, High Court came to the finding market value on
capitalisation method would come to Rs 75,600 for acquired sugarcane-growing irrigated lands - For determination of
market value for dry lands, High Court relied upon earlier decision of Division Bench wherein market value of irrigated
lands would be taken as about one-and-half times the value of dry lands - No interference with findings of High Court
fixing market value of sugarcane-growing irrigated lands at Rs 75,600 per acre, and dry lands at Rs 38,000 per acre -
Appeals dismissed,
S. 23 - Compensation - Evidence of comparable sales - When admissible - Held, such lands situated about 2 to 3 km
away - No definite evidence regarding nature and quality of such lands - Hence, not comparable with acquired lands,
S. 23 - Compensation - Reliance upon certificate of Assistant Director of Agriculture suggesting value of land - Held, not
safe to rely on such a certificate issued by a government officer without its author being examined regarding veracity of
certificate and its contents,
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
S. 23 - Compensation - Comparable instance - Irrigated lands - Reliance upon amount awarded by LAO for sugarcanegrowing
lands in consent award - Held, consent award not binding on parties in present case,
Print Page
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
S. 23 - Compensation - Acquisition of irrigated and dry lands - Capitalisation method - When may be applied -
Enhancement of compensation by High Court by capitalisation method of valuation - Validity - Held, there was no direct
documentary evidence which could prove and establish or act as a guide in determining market value of acquired lands -
Therefore, High Court fell back upon capitalisation method of valuation and relied on government document published by
Directorate of Economics and Statistics which pertained to relevant year of acquisition - High Court accepted main
statistics therein for arriving at market value of land - On basis thereof, High Court came to the finding market value on
capitalisation method would come to Rs 75,600 for acquired sugarcane-growing irrigated lands - For determination of
market value for dry lands, High Court relied upon earlier decision of Division Bench wherein market value of irrigated
lands would be taken as about one-and-half times the value of dry lands - No interference with findings of High Court
fixing market value of sugarcane-growing irrigated lands at Rs 75,600 per acre, and dry lands at Rs 38,000 per acre -
Appeals dismissed,
S. 23 - Compensation - Evidence of comparable sales - When admissible - Held, such lands situated about 2 to 3 km
away - No definite evidence regarding nature and quality of such lands - Hence, not comparable with acquired lands,
S. 23 - Compensation - Reliance upon certificate of Assistant Director of Agriculture suggesting value of land - Held, not
safe to rely on such a certificate issued by a government officer without its author being examined regarding veracity of
certificate and its contents,
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
S. 23 - Compensation - Comparable instance - Irrigated lands - Reliance upon amount awarded by LAO for sugarcanegrowing
lands in consent award - Held, consent award not binding on parties in present case,
No comments:
Post a Comment