Whether suit for perpetual or mandatory injunction is to be valued as per market value of immovable property involved in it?

 The High Court has not even considered the overall circumstances of the present case where the Plaintiff has valued the reliefs of mandatory and prohibitory injunction at the nominal Rs. 250 but, at the same time, has also valued the suit with reference to the claim of damages at Rs. 1 lakh and had paid the Court fees accordingly. It is apparent on the face of the record that despite unquestionable principle of law that such a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction is not required to be valued at the market value of the property, the High Court has relied only upon the market value of the property to hold the valuation of the present suit to be "arbitrary". Such a conclusion of the High Court neither stands in conformity with law nor with the frame and the nature of the present suit. {Para 10}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4577 of 2022 

Decided On: 16.06.2022

 Bharat Bhushan Gupta   Vs.  Pratap Narain Verma and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath, JJ.

Author: Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0783/2022,2022 ALL SCR 1485

Print Page

How to ascertain market value of land under land acquisition Act?

In the case of Suresh Kumar v. T. I. Trust(supra) the Apex Court
has stated that market value should be correctly determined and there should be
neither unjust enrichment on the part of acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part
of owner. The market value must be determined by reference to the price which a
willing vendor might reasonably expect from willing purchaser. The land is not to
be valued merely by reference to the use to which it has been put on the date of
notification but also with reference to the use to which it is reasonably capable of
being put in the future.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
FIRST APPEAL NO. 138 OF 2003
 Deputy Collector(Rev)
 and Land Acquisition
 Office, Panaji-Goa.

versus
Rajendra Vassudev Deshprabhu,
 (Dead) through L.Rs.

 CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE &
 N. A. BRITTO, JJ.
 DATE : 14TH OCTOBER, 2008.
 Citation:2009(3) MHLJ 530

Print Page

When post notification sale deed can be taken in to consideration for determining market value of acquired under land acquisition?

It is true that the sale transaction in respect of the said
sale deed dated 25.07.2007 was post notification. But the gap
was very small being about 5 months, since the date of last
publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the L. A., Act
was 11.12.2006. In the case of “Balchandra Anant Wagle and
others” (supra), this Court relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Chimanlal
Hargovinddas v/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona”
reported in [A.I.R. 1988 SC 1652] wherein it has been held
that even post notification instances can be taken into13
account: (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine, and (3)
the acquisition itself had not motivated the purchaser to pay
a higher price on account of resultant improvement in the
development prospects. In the present case, there was
nothing on record to suggest that the purchaser of the sale
deed dated 25.07.2007 was motivated in the manner as
above. Therefore, said sale deed dated 25.07.2007 was rightly
considered by the learned Reference Court. The said sale
deed plot was in very close proximity with the acquired land
distance wise as well as nature wise and was also very close
to the date of notification.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.
FIRST APPEALS NO. 223 OF 2009, 229 OF 2009 AND 232 OF
2009.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2009.
Goa Industrial Development
Corporation 
Versus
Maria Tereza N. Quadros


CORAM :- U. V. BAKRE, J.
 DATE : 2nd December, 2014.
Citation:2016 (3) ALLMR810

Print Page

What compensation can be granted if acquired land is at distance from national highway in land acquisition case?

In the case of the appellants herein, it is an admitted
position that the properties do not abut the national highway.
Admittedly, it is situated about 375 yards away from the national
highway and it appears that there is only the narrow Nahan Kothi
Road connecting the properties of the appellants to the national
highway. Therefore, it will not be just and proper to award land
value of Rs.250/- per square yard, which is granted to the
property in adjoining village. Having regard to the factual and
legal position obtained above, we are of the considered view that
the just and fair compensation in the case of appellants would be
Rs. 200/- per square yard.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2714-2721/2012
ASHOK KUMAR & ANR. ETC. Appellants(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1527/2016
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12495/2015)
Citation:(2016) 4 SCC 544
KURIAN, J.:

Print Page

Whether authorities under Stamp Act are bound by rates mentioned in Ready Reckoner?

 It would also be apposite to refer to the Judgments cited by
the learned Government Pleader in support of his contentions that the
rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner are guidelines to the registering
authority   for   the   imposition   of   stamp   duty.     The   Judgment   of   the
Division   Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of  Solapur   Promoters   and
Builders Association (supra)  was concerning the development charges
which are to be levied under Chapter VI­A of the Maharashtra Regional
Town Planning Act.  The imposition of charges at flat rate regardless of
location of land was challenged on the ground that it was violative of
Article   14   of   the   Constitution   of   India.     In   support   of   the   said
contention, reliance was sought to be placed on the rates mentioned in
the annual statement of rates published by the State Government i.e.

the Ready Reckoner rates.   The Division Bench held that the reliance
placed by the Petitioner in the said Petition on the Ready Reckoner
which   is   device   for   the   purpose   of   imposition   of   stamp   duty   was
misplaced as a Ready Reckoner provides guidelines to the registering
authorities for the imposition of stamp duty which is depending upon
the market value of the property.  Now coming to the Judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of  Prasadnagar Co­operative
(supra) the quashing and setting aside of the Ready Reckoner rates and
the amendment thereto in respect of the Petitioner's layout situated at
Jaitala, Nagpur was sought.   The Division Bench, whilst allowing the
Petition,   directed   the   Respondents   to   treat   the   Ready   Reckoner   as
guidelines and as a declaration of prima facie market value.
Hence,   by   the   Judgments  (supra),   this   Court   has   treated   the
Ready Reckoner as merely guidelines for the purposes of imposition of
the   stamp   duty,   as   the   same   depends   on   the   market   value   of   the
property.
18) In the instant case, as indicated above, it is an undisputed
fact that the Petitioner's property which is the subject matter of the
Indenture is situated in the “Phoenix Mills Compound” and bears CTS
Nos.1/142, 71 and 109.  The question is whether the said instrument is
to be charged on the basis of Value Zone 12/91 or Value Zone 12/91G

as contained in the Ready Reckoner.  In the said context, it is required to
be noted that by the Value Zone 12/91G all the properties of Phoenix
Mills are covered meaning thereby that the Phoenix Mills Compound is
treated as an entity by itself considering the commercial value of the
properties   situated   therein   and   is   therefore   placed   in   Value   Zone
12/91G which is to be considered whilst adjudicating the stamp duty
that is payable in respect of the instrument which is in respect of a
property   situated   therein.     Hence,   though   the   CTS   numbers   of   the
Petitioner's property are placed in Value Zone 12/91, which attracts a
lesser stamp duty, the Petitioner would be liable to pay stamp duty as
per Value Zone 12/91G as the Phoenix Mills Compound is treated as an
entity by itself and therefore, though a part of the property in the said
Phoenix Mills Compound is placed in Value Zone 12/91, the same is
obviously a mistake which has been corrected by issuance of the letter
dated 10th  January, 2012 of the Deputy Director of Town Planning,
Mumbai.
19) Insofar   as  the   adjudication   by   the   Respondent   No.  1   is
concerned, the fact is that the rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner
are guidelines to the registering authorities for the adjudication of the
stamp duty, the Respondent No. 1 or for that matter even the Collector
of Stamps would therefore not be bound by the rates mentioned in the

Ready Reckoner and even if there were not to be any correction as in
the instant case, by which correction, the CTS numbers of the Petitioner
are now included in Value Zone 12/91G, the Respondent No. 1 would
still   be   entitled   to   rely   upon   the   said   Value   Zone   12/91G   for   the
purposes of calculating the stamp duty payable on the said Indenture as
the Petitioner's property is undisputedly situated in the Phoenix Mills
Compound.   Hence, there is no question of the amendment to Value
Zone 12/91G being applied retrospectively.  It is required to be noted
that the powers of the authorities under the Stamp Act are wide enough
and cannot be fettered by the rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner.

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  JUDICATURE  AT  BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4036 OF 2013
CR Retail Malls (India) Limited
versus
Chief Controlling Revenue 
CORAM :­ R. M. SAVANT, J.

PRONOUNCED ON :­ JULY 9 , 2014
Citation: 2016(2) ALLMR 289

Print Page

Whether market value of acquired land can be determined on the basis on the basis of subsequent sale transaction?

As rightly argued by learned counsel for the respondent, the fair market value of the acquired land is required to be determined under Section 23 of the Act on the basis of the market rate of the adjacent lands similarly situated to the acquired lands prevailing on the date of acquisition or/and prior to acquisition but not subsequent to the date of acquisition. In appropriate cases, addition of 10% per annum escalation in the prices specified in the sale deeds (if filed and relied on) in relation to adjacent similarly situated lands for fixing the market value of the acquired land may be permitted. Such is, however, not the case in hand. Here is the case where firstly, no sale deeds were filed by the appellants to prove the fair market value of the acquired land and secondly, what they now want this Court to do is to take into consideration the rate of those lands which were acquired ten years after the date of acquisition in question and then reduce the value of such land by 10% every year so as to determine the fair market value of the acquired land in question. In our view, such procedure for determination is not provided in the Act.1

Supreme Court of India

Bhupal Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 1 April, 2015

Bench: Vikramajit Sen, Abhay Manohar Sapre

Citation;(2015)5 SCC801

Print Page

Whether a person who has delivered goods to other party is entitled to get market value of goods?

In Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1967 (Pilloo Dhunjishaw Sidhwa v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Poona) the Supreme Court, in its unreported judgment D/- 15-1-1970 = , laid down the law on the subject in the following terms:

"In our view the High Court was in error in holding that the plaintiff is entitled not to the invoice value of the goods, but only to "the fair price" of the goods. Under Section 70 of the Contract Act, a person lawfully delivering goods to another, and not intending to do so gratuitously, is entitled to demand that the goods delivered shall be returned, or that compensation for the goods shall be made. Compensation would normally be the market price of the goods. By refusing to return the goods, the person to whom the goods have been delivered cannot improve his position and seek to pay less than the market value of the goods. The High Court of Lahore in Secy. of State v. G. T. Sarin & Co., ILR 11 Lah 375 = (AIR 1930 Lah 364) held that a person without an enforceable contract in his favour supplying goods to a Government Department is entitled to a money equivalent of the goods delivered, assessed at the market rate prevailing on the date on which the supplies were made.

Calcutta High Court

Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 14 August, 1970

Equivalent citations: AIR 1971 Cal 150

Bench: S Deb

Print Page

When market value of acquired land can be determined on the basis of average price paid under sale transactions?

 Determination of Market Value on the basis of average price paid under sale transactions: For ascertaining the fair market value of the acquired land, High Court adopted the ‘average method’ by averaging the sale price of Exs A-7 to A-10 and calculated the rate at Rs.37,433.75 paise per sq. yard. The appellants contend that when land is being compulsorily taken away, the landholder is entitled to claim the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bonafide transaction and High Court was not justified in averaging the sale prices of four perpetual lease deeds. Appellants placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur vs. Collector (1969) 1 MLJ SC 45 and State of Punjab and Anr. vs. Hans Raj (D) by Lrs. And Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 734. In Hans Raj case (supra) it was held as under: “4. Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge of the High Court committed a grave error in working out average price paid under the sale transactions to determine the market value of the acquired land on that basis. As the method of averaging the prices fetched by sales of different lands of different kinds at different times, for fixing the market value of the acquired land, if followed, could bring about a figure of price which may not at all be regarded as the price to be fetched by sale of acquired land. One should not have, ordinarily recourse to such method. It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value.”

Referring to Hans Raj’s case in Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa And Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 710, this Court held as under:- “20. The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bonafide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sales is on account of undervaluation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently, averaging cannot be resorted to. We may refer to two decisions of this Court in this behalf.”

20. Where the lands acquired are of different type and different locations, averaging is not permissible. But where there are several sales of similar lands, more or less, at the same time, whose prices have marginal variation, averaging thereof is permissible. For the purpose of fixation of fair and reasonable market value of any type of land, abnormally high value or abnormally low value sales should be carefully discarded. If the number of sale deeds of the same locality and the same period with short intervals are available, the average price of the available number of sale deeds shall be considered as a fair and reasonable market price. Ultimately, it is in the interest of justice for the land losers to be awarded fair compensation. All attempts should be taken to award fair compensation to the extent possible on the basis of their accessibility to different kinds of roads, locational advantages etc. Four perpetual lease deeds A-7 to A-10 relied upon by the appellants are of the same locality – Vasant Kunj Residential Scheme and relate to the period ranging from September 1995 to December 1996, but they are just prior to Section 4(1) notification. In our view, the High Court was justified in taking the average of the said four exemplars and approach adopted by the High Court in averaging the sale prices of Exs A7 to A10 cannot be said to be perverse.

Supreme Court of India

Kapil Mehra & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 October, 2014

Bench: T.S. Thakur, R. Banumathi

Citation;2014 ALLSCR3728

Print Page

When Reference Court can refuse to use sale instances of highest value for fixing market price in case of land acquisition?

Vijaylakshmamma
Rao
Bahadur
v.
Collector
of
Madras) (this case is referred in the case reported as
2012 (2) Mh.L.J. 530 by the Apex Court) it is laid down
that the sale instances should be bona fide transactions.
When there are strong circumstances like found in the
present case, the Reference Court can refuse to use the
sale instances of highest value for fixing market price.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
First Appeal No.2663 of 2013

The Manager,
Sangamner Audyogik Sahakari
Vasahat Maryadit, 
Versus

The Government of Maharashtra

CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.

Judgment pronounced on :
7th July 2014.
Citation;2015(2) MHLJ 50

Print Page

Whether purchaser of land who is evicted is entitled to recover value of land on date of eviction?

He referred me also to the decision in Dhanrajee Giriji Narasingh Giriji v. Tata Sons Ltd. A.I.R. 1924 Bom. 473 and to English cases relating to contracts of sale relating to immovable properties, where a vendor not being able to give a good title was directed only to return the advance with interest and not to pay the vendee the (higher) market value when the price of land had increased in the meanwhile. I do not think it necessary to go elaborately into this question, because the question is concluded, as far as I am concerned, by a decision by a Bench of this Court, reported in Dhadha Sahib v. Muhammad Sultan Sahib A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 384. The learned Judges, Abdur Rahim and Oldfield, JJ. held that in assessing damages the vendee is entitled to ask that they should be assessed at the present enhanced value of the lands. At p. 169 the learned Judges observed as, follows:

The learned District Judge is evidently wrong in saying that in assessing damages the plaintiff is not entitled to ask that they should be assessed at the present enhanced value of the lands. Surely he is entitled to full compensation, so that he might be restored pecuniarily to the same position as if he had recovered the land which defendant 1 sold to him.

2. It has been held that the rule enacted by Section 73, Contract Act, is applicable also to cases of sales of immovable property: see Nagardas Sambhagya Das v. Ahmad Khan [1897] 21 Bom. 175 and Ranchhod v. Man Mohandas [1908] 32 Bom. 165. The Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case reported in Adikesavan Naidu v. Gurunath Chetti [1917] 40 Mad. 339 applied the same principle to cases of contract for sale of immovable property by the manager of a Hindu family. That being so, the party (vendee) who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive from the party who has broken the contract (vendor) compensation for any loss or damages caused to him thereby which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach. In Nagardas Sambhagya Das v. Ahmad Khan [1897] 21 Bom. 175, the learned Chief Justice and Parsons, J., held that a purchaser evicted from his holding is entitled to recover from a vendor who has guaranteed his title the value of the land on the date of the eviction. At p. 182 their Lordships say:

It is stated by Blackburo, J., in Lock v. Furze, that the doctrine laid down in Flureau v. Thornhill, does not apply to the case of an executed contract and that is stated in Dort's "Vendors and Purchasers" to be the law. A careful perusal of the judgments in the case of Bain v. Fother gill, in which the House of Lords recognized the doctrine of Flureau v. Thomhill and established it on the broadest basis, satisfies us that it was not intended by their Lordships to extend the doctrine to cases of executed contracts to which it had not been previously applied.

3. In the Full Bench case reported in Adikesavan Naidu v. Gurunatha Chetti [1917] 40 Mad. 339 it was held that in the case of a contract to sell immovable property, the vendor was liable under Section 73, Contract Act, for damages for failure to perform the contract, and that law in India as laid down by the Contract Act as to the right to the damages for breach of contract to sell immovable property was different from that in England. I am therefore of opinion that the learned District Judge was right in assessing damages at the enhanced value of the land on the date of eviction.

Madras High Court

(Yella) Ramayya And Ors. vs (Chukkapalli) Kotayya And Ors. on 17 September, 1929

Equivalent citations: AIR 1930 Mad 748

Corum; Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.

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

How to ascertain market value of Pot kharaba land in land acquisition case?

As regards the method of taking market value of Pot

kharaba land equivalent to 50% of Jirayat land, the Division Bench of

this Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer (III), Jalgaon

and Another v. Bhagwat Vithal Sonwane [2009(4) Mh.L.J. 308) has

quoted with the approval the earlier decision of this Court in the case of

State of Maharashtra Vs Pralhad Bajrang Magar (supra) and has held

that the market value of the Pot kharaba land was equivalent to the

50% of the market value of Jirayat lands. Therefore, no interference is

called as regards the market value fixed in respect of Pot kharaba lands

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO.261 OF 2007

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.782 OF 2007

 The State of Maharashtra Vs   Shri Chandrakant Mangilal Samdadia,

CORAM : A.S. OKA & SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ

DATE: 10TH AUGUST, 2012.

Citation;2012(6) ALL M R 87 Bom,2013(1) BomCR117,2013(1) MHLJ 397

Print Page

When market value of each plot of land acquired has to be determined independently of other in land acquisition case

If 'Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land' is adopted for determining the market value of an acquired plot of land, it generally holds good for determination of the market value of several acquired plots of land if acquisition of all such plots of land is made pursuant to the same preliminary notification. But, if any of the factors, such as, location, shape, size, potentiality or tenure of one plot of acquired land widely differs from the other plot(s) of acquired land(s), then the market value of each plot of land acquired has to be determined independently of the other(s) even if all of them had been acquired pursuant to the same preliminary notification. The reason is not far to seek since the differential factors relating to different acquired plots greatly affect their value. Hence, if any salient factor of different acquired plots of land, which greatly affects their value is ignored or is not taken into consideration by the court while determining the market
value of acquired lands, it will have failed to apply the correct principle of valuation adoptable in valuation of different types of acquired lands.

Supreme Court of India

Printers House Pvt. Ltd vs Saiyadan on 14 October, 1993

Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 1160, 1994 SCC (2) 133

BENCH:

VENKATACHALA N. (J)

VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)

JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)

Print Page