Skip to content


Aziz Pasha Vs. The Assistant Commissioner - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMFA 1010/2014
Judge
AppellantAziz Pasha
RespondentThe Assistant Commissioner
Excerpt:
.....been acquired for construction of k.s.r.t.c. bus stand. it is well settled in law that where the land acquired is surrounded by developed areas and is utilized for one purpose, the question of application of belting system does not arise. [see: trishila jain and others supra].. thus, the trial court in the fact situation of the case grossly erred in applying the belting system.16. the trial court has determined the market value of the property by placing reliance on ex.p4, which is a valuation fixed by the sub registrar for the purposes of stamp duty. ex.p4 cannot be made basis for determination of market value of the property as the aforesaid document has been issued for the purposes of computing the stamp duty under the indian stamp act. it is trite law that guideline 23 market value.....
Judgment:

R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE20H DAY OF FEBRUARY2020PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI M.F.A. NO.1010 OF2014C/W M.F.A.NO.2050/2014 (LAC) AZIZ PASHA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. M.F.A. NO.1010 OF2014BETWEEN :

1. d) a) b) c) NOOR PASHA S/O LATE AZIZ PASHA AGED37YEARS. AHAMMED PASHA S/O LATE AZIZ PASHA AGED35YEARS. BIBI AYESHA D/O LATE AZIZ PASHA AGED28YEARS. BIBI SARA D/O LATE AZIZ PASHA AGED27YEARS. ABDUL RAKHEEB AHAMMED S/O LATE ABDUL AZIZ SAAB AGED46YEARS. e) IMRAN PASHA S/O LATE AZIZ PASHA AGED25YEARS. SHAKEELA KALEEM W/O LATE KALEEM PASHA AGED59YEARS.

2. 3.

4. MOHAMMED MUYEEDULLA S/O LATE REHMAN SHARIF AGED41YEARS.

5. MALIK PASHA6 NAVEED PASHA W/O LATE ANWAR PASHA AGED30YEARS. S/O LATE MOHAMOOD PASHA AGED31YEARS. 2 ALL ARE R/AT. BEHIND NEW KSRTC STATION B.M. ROAD, HUNSUR-571105. 2 TO6ARE R/AT. HOUSE NO.1611 BAZAAR ROAD, HUNSUR TOWN-571105.... APPELLANT

S (By Sri. PADMANABHA V. MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Sri. H.H. KALADGI, ADV.) AND:

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HUNSUR-571105. 3 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC MYSORE RURAL DIVISION MYSORE-560027.
... RESPONDENT

S (By Sri. P.D. SURANA, ADV., FOR R2 Sri. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1) - - - AND SEEKING FURTHER THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION541) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED611.2013 PASSED IN LAC NO.80/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION U/S18OF THE L.A. ACT ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. M.F.A.NO.2050/2014BETWEEN :

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MYSORE RURAL DIVISION MYSORE REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER CENTRAL OFFICES, KSRTC K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560027.... APPELLANT

(By Sri. P.D. SURANA, ADV.) AND:

1.

2. SRI. AZIZ PASHA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE HUNSUR SUB DIVISION HUNSUR-571105. 4 a) b) c) d) NOOR PASHA S/O LATE AZIZ PASHA. AHAMMED PASHA S/O LATE AZIZ PASHA. BIBI AYESHA D/O LATE AZIZ PASHA. BIBI SARA D/O LATE AZIZ PASHA. ALL ARE R/AT. BEHIND NEW KSRTC STATION B.M. ROAD, HUNSUR-571105. 3.

4.

5. MOHAMMED MAHIDULLA6 MALIK PASHA7 S/O LATE MAHAMAMED PASHA. NAVEED PASHA S/O LATE ANWAR PASHA. RESPONDENTS3TO7ARE R/AT. HOUSE NO.1611 BAZAAR ROAD, HUNSUR TOWN-571105. SMT. SHAKEELA KALEEM W/O LATE KALEEM PASHA. ABDUL RAKHEEB AHAMMED S/O LATE ABDUL AZIZ SAB. S/O LATE REHMAN SHARIFF. (By Sri. PADMANABHA V. MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Sri. H.H. KALADGI, ADV., FOR R2(a-d), R3 TO R7 Sri. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1)
... RESPONDENT

S - - - 5 THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION541) OF LA ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED611.2013 PASSED IN LAC NO.80/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HUNSUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE M.F.As. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT M.F.A.No.1010/2014 has been filed by the land owners whereas M.F.A.NO.2050/2014 has been filed by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short) under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.11.2013, passed by the reference Court. In order to appreciate the appellants challenge to the impugned judgment, few facts need mention, which are stated infra:

2. The appellants in M.F.A.NO.1010/2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants for short) were owners of land bearing Sy.No.12 measuring 4 acres and 43 guntas situate at Dodda-Hunsur, Kasaba Hobli, Hunsur Taluk. 6 The aforesaid land was required by appellants in M.F.A.NO.2050/2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents for short) for the purpose of construction of new bus stand. Thereupon a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 14.08.2003. The State Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 14.03.2005, by which market value of the land of the appellants was assessed at Rs.60,000/- per acre. The possession of the land in question was taken on 05.04.2005. The appellants thereafter sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference court vide judgment dated 06.11.2013 enhanced the compensation in LAC No.80/2011 in respect of land measuring 1 acre to Rs.27,87,904/- and in respect of land measuring 3 acres and 33 guntas the compensation was enhanced to Rs.19,16,684/-. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire lands of the appellants measuring 4 acres 33 guntas was acquired and was utilized for the purposes of construction of the bus stand. Therefore, the trial 7 court grossly erred in dividing the property in question into two and applying belting system for the purpose of assessing the market value. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in TRISHALA JAIN AND ANR. VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR. AIR2011SC2458and CHAKAS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, AIR2011SCW5795It is further submitted that on the basis of the guideline value, the market value of the property in question ought to have been fixed at Rs.160/- per square feet. It has also been submitted that deduction towards development charges in a well developed area has to be only to the extent of 10 percent. It is contended that from the perusal of the judgment of the trial court itself, it is evident that the land in question in a developed area surrounded by various government offices and business establishments. The respondent No.2 in his evidence has further submitted that the property is situate in a business area. It is also pointed out that the market value of the property is much more than the market value prescribed in the guideline and in this connection, reference has been made to Ex.P1 viz., an exchange deed executed between 8 appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 under which the respondent has valued the site measuring 60x40 feet for a consideration of Rs.10 Lakhs. Therefore, the market value as per Ex.P1 works out to Rs.430/- per square feet. It is also pointed out that the property covered under the exchange deed Ex.P1 forms part of the same survey number of Dodda- Hunsuru Village, which is acquired by respondent No.2.

4. It is also pointed out that appellants had placed reliance on Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 i.e., the sale deeds executed in the year 1997 i.e., prior to issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the trial court committed an error in not considering the same that it was executed after the date of issuance of the preliminary notification. Our attention has also been invited to Notification dated 06.09.2011, which deals with the estimation of guideline market value of immovable properties and buildings and provides in respect of properties, which are situate adjacent to National Highways and State Highways, 50% and 25% of the prescribed value shall be levied while assessing the market value of the property. It is submitted that the lands 9 in question are situate on State Highway. It is also pointed out that there are 267 various types of trees were situation on the land in question, however, no compensation has been awarded in respect of the trees either by the special Land Acquisition Officer or by the reference court. Reference in this connection ahs been made to Ex.R2 and R3 which clearly show that the trees are valued by the forest department at Rs.2,00,476/- and the market value of the trees is definitely much higher than the valuation made by the forest officer and therefore, the appellants claim lumpsum amount of Rs.10 Lakhs towards compensation of trees. Lastly it is urged that the appellants have filed an interlocutory application in which they have expressed their willingness that in case, the court enhances the compensation beyond Rs.160/- per square feet, they are ready and wiling to pay the deficit amount of court fee on the amount of compensation which may be fixed by this court. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in RANVIR SINGH AND ANOHER VS. UNION OF INDIA, AIR2005SC34671), LAL CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., AIR2010SC10170(1), PITAMBAR HEMLAL BADGUJAR (DEAD) BY LRS AND OTHERS VS. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHULE AND ANOTHER, AIR1996SC3117 5. He has further placed reliance on VITTHALBHAI BAKOBHAI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS ETC VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CAPITAL PROJECT AND ANOTHER, AIR1996SC3150 K.S.SHIVADEVAMMA AND OTHERS VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER, (1996) 2 SCC62 RAMANLAL DEOCHAND SHAH VS. STATE OF MAHASHTRA AND ANR., AIR2013SC3452 CHANDRASHEKAR (D) BY LRS AND ORS. VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. VS. BASAPPA (D) BY LRS AND ORS. VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, GULBARGA AND ANR., AIR2012SC4466. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that reliance on behalf of the appellants on the notification dated 06.09.2011 is 11 misconceived inasmuch as the aforesaid guideline market value, apply to the properties and buildings in the jurisdiction of Bangalore (Rural) District only and admittedly the land is not situate in Bangalore (Rural) District. It is further submitted that no sale deed was produced by the appellants in respect of the property adjoining to the land in question and the entire case of the appellants is based on Ex.P4 dated 07.01.2012 i.e., the endorsement made by the sub- Registrar, in which it is stated that market value of the land in Hunsur Town in Ward No.23 for the year 2003-04 was Rs.110/- per square feet for residential site and Rs.160/- for commercial site. It is also submitted that the lands in question are not situate in Ward No.23 and the guideline market value cannot be made the basis for determining the market value of the land, which are maintained for the purpose of detection of undervaluation and collection of proper stamp duty. It is also pointed out that guideline market value as contained in Ex.P4 has not been assessed by statutorily appointed expert committee. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in RANVIR SINGH AND12ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA, AIR2005SC3467AND LALCHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., AIR2010SC170 It is also urged that Hunsur Town is a small town and had a population of 43900 in the year 2001.

7. It is also urged that from perusal of Ex.R4 i.e., an endorsement issued by Sub Registrar, Hunsur dated 04.02.2005 it is evident that the market value of the land in Dodda-Hunsuru and Chik-Hunsuru is Rs.60,000/- per acre for the year 2003-04. Reference has also been made to the development plan Ex.P6 and it has been urged that the land of the appellants even in the development plan has been described as agricultural land and there is no potential of any development. It is further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the reference court is on higher side and in the absence of any evidence on record with regard to market value of the property; the assessment of the market value of the property could not have been made by reference court by placing reliance on Ex.P4. It is also urged that court is required to sit in the arm chair of the prudent purchaser acting in normal conditions prevailing in 13 open market and to determine the market value. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to decisions of the Supreme Court in PITAMBAR HEMLAL BADGUJAR (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS VS. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHULE AND ANOTHER, AIR1996SC3117AND VITTHAL BHAI BAKORBHAI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CAPITAL PROJECT AND ANOTHER, AIR1996SC3150 8. It is further submitted that in case, the appellants would have developed a residential layout, they were required to follow the zoning regulations and would have been required to leave a minimum of 53% for the roads, parks and civic amenities etc. In any case, deduction to the extent of 53% has to be made from the market value. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in K.S.SHIVADEVAMMA AND OTHERS VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER19962 SCC62 CHANDRASHEKAR (D) BY14LRS. AND ORS. VS. LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER AND ANR. AIR2012SC446AND RAMAN LAL DEO CHAND SHAH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. AIR2013SC3452 It is further submitted that the respondents have produced 11 sale deeds, which were executed in the year 2004, from which the market value of the land can be determined and therefore, the appeal preferred by the appellants be dismissed and the appeal preferred by the respondents be remitted to the reference court with liberty to the respondents to adduce evidence.

9. By way of rejoinder, Learned Senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that no evidence has been adduced by the appellants with regard to market value of the land is not tenable inasmuch as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 have been produced by the appellants to prove the market value of the land before the trial court. It is further submitted that the land of the appellants is also situate in Ward No.23 of Hunsur town and comprehensive development plan Ex.P6 was prepared by Mysore Urban Development Authority in the 15 year 2009, which has no relevance to the fact situation of the case.

10. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding further we may advert to well settled legal principles with regard to determination of the market value of the land. The market value of the land envisages the price, which a willing purchaser must pay under bonafide transfer to a willing seller while comparing the price shown in the transaction all variables have to be taken into account. The well settled principles for ascertaining the market value of the land were referred by Supreme Court in case of CHARAN DASS (DEAD) BY LRS VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES AND OTHERS, (2010) 13 SCC398and it was held that contemporaneous transactions or the comparable sales have to be in respect of lands which are contiguous to the acquired land and are similar in nature and have similar potentiality. However, in the absence of sale deeds, the acquisition of lands made in the same village and 16 / neighboring village can be accepted as valid piece of evidence and provide a sound basis to work out the market value of the land after taking note of positive and negative factors and it has further been held that undoubtedly some element of guess work is involved in the entire exercise, yet the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate by an objective standard. In TRISHILA JAIN VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL (2011) 6 SCC47 it has been held that the court should take into account the potentiality of the acquired land apart from other relevant considerations and can apply reasonable amount of guess work to ascertain the market value to balance the equities in terms of parameters specified under Section 23 of the Act. In BHULERAM VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER, (2014) 11 SCC307it has been held that burden is on the claimant to lead evidence in support of his case and in the absence thereof the court is not under a legal obligation to determine market value merely as per prayer of the claimant. It is trite proposition that prices fixed for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracts of land as two are not comparable properties. [SEE:

17. COLLECTOR OF LAKHIMPUR VS. B.C.DUTTA, AIR1971SC2015 PADMA UPPAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, AIR1977SC580. However, the prices of small developed lands can be used for determining the large tracts of land provided it is shown that the large tract of land is ripe for development after applying necessary deductions. In BRIG. SAHIB SINGH KALHA VS. AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST, AIR1982SC940 Supreme Court indicated that the extent of deduction on account of development can be to the extent of 53%, but prices fetched for small plots cannot directly be applied in case of large areas for the simple reason that former reflects the retail price and the latter the wholesale price. The aforesaid well settled legal principles have been referred to with approval in 'ADMINISTRATOR GENL. OF WEST BENGAL VS. COLLECTOR VARANASI, AIR1988SC943 K.S.SHIVADEVAMMA V. ASST. COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, (1996) 2 SCC62 ATMA SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA, (2008) 2 SCC568AND SHUBHARAM AND OTHERS VS,. STATE OF HARIYANA AND OTHERS, 2010 (1) SCC444 In MALLAPPA VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER, 18 AIR2019SC462 it has been held that in case the land in question has potentiality for non- agricultural use, the same should be taken into account with reference to sale deeds even in respect of small piece of land by making appropriate deductions. The Supreme Court has also recognized the principle that the courts can always apply reasonable amount of guess work to balance the equities to fix a just and fair market value in terms of parameters specified under Section 23 of the Act. [See: TRISHALA JAIN AND ANR. VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR., (2011) 6 SCC47AND VITHAL RAO AND ANR. VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, (2017) 8 SCC558.

11. It is equally well settled legal proposition that where there are no exemplars on record, the market value of the land has to be fixed with some element of guess work. It has further been held that the guess work has to be used with greater element of caution as it is intended to bridge the gap between calculated compensation and the actual compensation that claimants may be entitled to receive as per the facts of the given case. [See: AGRICULTURAL19PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE VS. NSK KHAJA MOTHIDEEN SAHEB (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS, 2001 (10) SCC697and TRISHILA JAIN SUPRA]..

12. The right to property is not only a constitutional or a statutory right but also a human right and human rights are considered to be in the realm of individual rights. [SEE: TUKARAM KANA JOSHI VS. MAHARASTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. (2013) 1 SCC353and BHUSAWAL MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS.NIVRUTTI RAMCHANDRA PHALAK AND OTHERS, (2015) 14 SCC327. It has also been held that if the land is required for setting up of a factory or an industry or any commercial activity, the profit from setting up of such an enterprise would be substantial and will accrue every year. Therefore, the principle of deduction in such a case does not apply. [See: ATMA SINGH (DIED) THROUGH LRS AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR., AIR2008SC709.

13. In the backdrop of well settled legal position, the facts of the case in hand may be examined. PW1 viz., Mohammed Muyeedulla in his evidence has stated that the 20 lands in question are garden lands and had many other fruit bearing and other trees, which were 400 in number. It has further been stated that the acquired land is a level land and is centrally located and the entire area has been acquired for construction of KSRTC bus stand, which is used for commercial purpose. It is also stated by the aforesaid witness that the entire surrounding of the property are commercial in nature and the land is situate in main marketing center of Hunsur Town where most of the banks, leading hotels, lodges, commercial establishments, educational institutions and government offices are located. It has also been stated that the land has potentiality of development as urban lands. However, in the cross examination aforesaid witness has admitted that the land has not converted for non agricultural purposes. RW1 viz., K.V.Nataraj, Assistant Executive Engineer, KSRTC has stated in his evidence that land was situate in a lower gradient than the main road. However, in the cross examination the aforesaid witness has admitted that in front of the bus stand there exists old BM Road and other side of the road there exists commercial complex. He has further admitted that on 21 the other side of the road rural police station is situate which is in existence for 30 years and towards western side of the acquired land office of panchayath, quarters and other government offices are situate and towards northern side of the acquired land houses, garage and masjid are situate. He has further submitted that a radius of about 2 kms from the acquired land has already been developed. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is evident that though the land in question is agricultural land yet it has great potential value for non agricultural use. The proximity of land in question to developed urbanized area, and the fact that it is situate adjacent to the State Highway has to be necessarily considered while determining the market value of the land.

14. The appellants have also examined Shafiulla as PW2 who has stated that he had purchased an agricultural land measuring 1.10 guntas each of Sy.No.11 of Dodda- Hunsur Village from one Mohammed Pasha, Azeez Pasha and Kaleem Pasha vide registered sale deed dated 19.12.1997 for a consideration of Rs.1 Lakh each (Ex.P2 and Ex.P3). He has further stated in his evidence that the lands covered under 22 the sale deeds Ex.P2 and P3 are situate adjacent to the property which has been acquired for construction of the bus stand, which bears Sy.No.12.

15. Admittedly, the entire land of the appellants measuring 4 acres and 33 guntas situate at Dodda-Hunsur has been acquired for construction of K.S.R.T.C. bus stand. It is well settled in law that where the land acquired is surrounded by developed areas and is utilized for one purpose, the question of application of belting system does not arise. [See: TRISHILA JAIN AND OTHERS Supra].. Thus, the trial court in the fact situation of the case grossly erred in applying the belting system.

16. The trial court has determined the market value of the property by placing reliance on Ex.P4, which is a valuation fixed by the Sub Registrar for the purposes of stamp duty. Ex.P4 cannot be made basis for determination of market value of the property as the aforesaid document has been issued for the purposes of computing the stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act. It is trite law that guideline 23 market value can be a relevant piece of evidence only if it is assessed by statutorily appointed expert committee. In the instant case, Ex.P4 has been issued by the Sub-Registrar and has not been assessed by the statutorily expert committee and the trial court grossly erred in making the same as basis for determination of the market value of the land in question. Therefore, the market value assessed by the trial court is set aside.

17. The market value of the land has to be assessed on the basis of the material available on record. The prices of small developed lands can be used for determining the market value of large tracts of land provided it is shown that large tract of land is right for development after applying necessary deductions. However, the prices fetched for small plots cannot directly be applied in case of large areas for the simple reason that former reflects the retail price and latter the wholesale price. In the instant case, there is ample evidence on record that the land in question had the potentiality for non agricultural use and the same is surrounded by developed areas and has been acquired for 24 construction of a bus stand. Therefore, sale deeds Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, which are executed on 19.12.1997 much prior to issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act viz., 14.08.2003 can be made the basis for determining the market value of the land in question as the same is situate adjacent to land in question as lands in question bears Survey No.12, whereas lands covered under the sale deeds is in relation to land bearing Survey No.11. PW1 himself has admitted in the cross-examination that respondents have spent considerable amount for filing up pits in the acquired lands. The sale deeds Ex.P2 and P3 can be used as a guide for assessing the market value of the land in question after making appropriate deductions. Therefore, contention of respondents that there is no evidence on record to determine the market value of lands in question cannot be accepted. As per Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 the market value of the land comes to Rs.36,35,953/-. Therefore, taking into account the fact that the land of the appellants was a large chunk of land and respondents were required to spend considerable amount in, filling up the pits in the acquired lands as well as the fact that the land has been acquired for commercial purpose, we deem 25 it appropriate to deduct 40% of the amount from the aforesaid amount on account of development charges. The submission made by learned counsel for respondent that 53% of the amount has to be deducted on account of development charges is irrelevant and hypothetical as, land has been acquired for setting up of Bus Stand and not for residential layout. Some element of guess work is inherent in assessment of the market value of the land. Thus, the market value of the land of the appellants is determined at Rs.21,81,571/- per acre. In addition, the appellants shall be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act and interest under various statutory heads as are admissible to them under the Act.

18. Admittedly, the trees were planted on the land in question. From perusal of Ex.R2 and Ex.R3, it is axiomatic that value of the trees was quantified by Forest Department at Rs.2,00,476/-. However, reference court has not awarded any compensation on account of trees. Therefore, we hold that appellants and also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,476/- on account of trees. 26 In the result, the judgment passed by the trial court is modified. The appeals are disposed of. The appellants are entitled to costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE SS


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //