Basic principle for valuation of well when land is purchased or acquired

One of the claimants was awarded by the acquisition officer Rs. 210 in respect of three wells or pits as they were described in the award. The District Judge refused to increase this amount. The claimant asked for Rs. 1,200 for the three wells, one of which, however, it appears had ceased to exist at the time of the acquisition. The claimant's son in his evidence, Exhibit 19, says : "There were three wells on the land acquired. One in S. No. 202 for which we received no compensation, The Military Authorities filled it in. We got that well built by Sakharam Ganpat for Rs. 700. I do not remember when the other wells were built but they were as well built as that in S. No. 202." Sakharam, Exhibit 42, was also called as a witness and his evidence is this: " I take contracts for digging. I know applicant. I had taken a contract to build a well for him in 1915 for Rs. 700. I built it. It was S. No. 192. I have not seen whether it still exists." No accounts of the expenditure on these wells have been produced, and I think it is quite clear that there is no reliable evidence before the Court to show even what the cost of construction was. Moreover the cost of construction would not necessarily be the amount to be awarded by way of compensation. There is no evidence to show that the outlay on these wells or pits, whatever it amounted to, was successful or profitable. We do not even know that any water was found and there is no evidence to show that any of the wells was ever used, That being so, it is clear that the claimant has not made out any case for further compensation in respect of these wells.

Bombay High Court

Ismailji Mahomedalli Bohori vs The District Deputy Collector on 31 March, 1932

Equivalent citations: (1932) 34 BOMLR 1457,

AIR1933Bom37, 

Bench: Baker, Broomfield

Baker, J.

Print Page