Article on Valuation under Land Acquisition Act 2013

Submitted by:

A. Mohammed Ibrahim. B.Arch, MIBC, FIV, FICA.

Kadayanallur-Tamil Nadu.

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NwbikGl5KaNYuBhUaIC0wF6ADOuT0iRs/view?usp=sharing

Print Page

What is method for valuation of mesne profits?

 It is settled law that while ascertaining mesne profit the
test to be applied is, not what the landlord has lost or would have
earned by letting out or using the property himself but the test is
what the wrongful occupant had actually received or might withordinary diligence have received therefrom. (Umayun Dhanrajgir Vs.
Ezra   Aboody 2008 (6) Bom. C.R. 862
,     Kesardeo   Vs.   Nathmal   Kisanlal   Goenka 1964  Indian Law Reports 364
,
Smt.Purificacao Fernandes Vs. Hugo Vicente de PerpetuoAIR 1985 BOMBAY 202
 and Fateh
Chand Vs. Balkishan Dass AIR 1963 SC 1405
).
22 How to measure mesne profit or the methods of valuation
have   been   summarized   in   Umayun   Dhanrajgir   Vs.   Ezra   Aboody
(supra).  Paragraph­31 of the said judgment reads as under :­
“31.   Having   taken   survey   of   the   various   cases   and
methods of valuation, it can be broadly summarised as
under :­
(i) The claim for `Mesne Profit  remains floating till
the   decree   of   possession   is   passed   in   favour   of   the
plaintiff, which can also be termed as royalty ;
(ii) The measure of Mesne Profits is the value for the
use of the premises and not necessarily the value of the
property ;
(iii) Value for use will be determined by :­

(a) What that value will be in the hands of the person
in wrongful possession ;
(b)   comparables,   if   available   and   applicable   in   real
sense ;
(c)   finding out the prevailing rate of rental at which
the wrongful person ought to have found equivalent

accommodation.”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.790 OF 2012
IN
MISC. APPEAL NO.158 OF 2011
IN
MISC. NOTICE NO.909 OF 1993
IN
L.E.SUIT NO.291/338 OF 1983

Mridangraj Hiralal Suchak  alias Barfiwalla, V/s. Bank of Baroda )

CORAM: K.R.SHRIRAM, J.
DATED  : 18TH  MARCH 2015
Citation; 2015(4) MHLJ 282 Bom

Print Page

How to carry on valuation of land which is in possession of tenant under land acquisition Act?

Let us assume the value of a property which is not subject to any lease is Rs.Ten lakhs. If that property was subject to a lease and if the possession was with the lessee, a purchaser will offer only Rs.Five lakhs as he will be purchasing a property with an encumbrance and will not be getting physical possession. But when the property subject to a lease is acquired, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, what is acquired is not only the landlord's right, title and interest, but also the lessee's right and interest. In other words the property with all rights, free from 1

encumbrances is acquired and the compensation is determined and paid for the property as one free from encumbrances. The rights of lessor as well as lessee are extinguished. Therefore compensation payable will be the entire market value that is Rs.Ten lakhs which may be shared by the lessors and lessee at the rate of Rs.Five lakhs each or such other ratio as may be determined with reference to the extent of their respective rights. The Land Acquisition Officer issue notice to all persons interested and hears them before making the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. 

Mere fact that sanction had to be obtained from Mamlatdar for sale of such land would not depress price of land, nor affect its potential for being developed as residential or industrial use 

Supreme Court of India

Rajendra ... vs Dy.Collector & Anr on 11 October, 2011

Citation: AIR2012SC228, 2012(1)ALLMR404, 2012 (90) ALR 18, 2011(6)BomCR309, 2012(2)MhLj484, 2012(2)MhLJ484(SC), 2012 115 RD280, 2011(11)SCALE754, [2011]11SCR817

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory for plaintiff to give full description of suit property?

No care was taken by the Plaintiff to cure the

defect of wrong valuation and vagueness
in description of
the suit property despite the fact that specific written objections
were taken by the defendant. The Plaintiff could have valued
the Suit separately for the purposes of the Court fees and
jurisdiction of the Court as contemplated under the
Suit
Valuation Act and mentioning the relevant provision of the
Bombay Court fees Act. Valuation for the purposes of the Court

fees and for the purposes of the jurisdiction may also be the

same. But when the plaintiff in substance wanted to claim the
declaration as to the right , title as Owner of the immovable
residential property situated at Matunga, prime area in City of
Mumbai capable being valued in terms of money preferably by

the Government ready reckoner price and was duty bound to
state the market price of the property by reasonably estimating
the suit for the purposes of valuation of the Suit and for
jurisdiction of the Court and ought to have made payment of
ad valorem court fees stating the relevant provisions briefly for
benefit of the ministerial officer of the Court for to file the
plaint. . This was not done even till plaint was rejected by the
Court and not even till this appellate stage. The plaintiff must
be vigilant to give description of the immovable suit property
with its full description including boundaries thereof as
required in Order 7 rule 3 of the civil procedure code, as
amended in state of Maharashtra and cannot suppress the

market value of the Suit property from the court, as required to

be stated for the purposes of valuation of the suit for the
purpose of jurisdiction of the court as also for payment of the
Court fees. 

APPELLATE SIDE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

FIRST APPEAL NO. 729 OF 2013

Kishorbhai Premchand Shah  V  HIRJI BHOJRAJ & SONS

CORAM:-A. P. BHANGALE, J.
DATED : 2/9/2013
Citation;2014(2) MHLJ187 Bom

Print Page