When court should allow same amount of compensation in land acquisition case?

It is an admitted fact that for the land situated in Iradat Nagar, a sum of Rs.32,951/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty One only) per bigha had been awarded by the High Court by its judgment in RFA No.859/1995 [Ram Kishan (Deceased) Thru. LRs. Vs. Union of India] decided on 4th March, 2004.

It is also an admitted fact that the land of Iradat Nagar and the land, which is the subject matter of these appeals, abut each other and they all form part of one chunk of land.

 In the circumstances, we are of the view that same amount of compensation should be awarded to the present appellants in respect of their acquired land and therefore, we direct that a sum of Rs.32,951/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty One only) per bigha
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

N.D. Sharma & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

[Civil Appeal No.4943 of 2006]

[Civil Appeal Nos.4944/2006 & 282/2008]

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

Dated:13-1-2016

Citation:(2016) 6 SCC 281

Print Page

How to value fruit bearing trees in land acquisition case?

As noted, the procedure is not foreign insofar as the assessing the land value based on the comparable sale instances. The Apex Court in Airports Authority of India (supra) has accepted this principle by saying "Therefore, it would be open to the Land Acquisition Officer or the Court, either to assess the land with all its advantages and fix the market value thereof on the basis of comparable sale instances. In case where comparable sale instances are not available and where there is reliable and acceptable evidence on record of the annual income multiplied by appropriate multiplier for its capitalisation. In the case of fruit-bearing trees their net yield is to be taken into consideration, that is to say, by deducting expenses incurred for getting the yield and also the value of the timber and expenses to cut and remove the trees from the land."

Bombay High Court

State Of Maharashtra vs Deoram Fakira Palmahale And Ors. on 6 September, 2007

Equivalent citations: 2007 (6) MhLj 556

Bench: A V Mohta

Print Page