Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the authority's valuation order could be sustained when it ignored the effect of absence of title deeds, cloud on title, and the need for proper adjustment while relying on sale of a smaller comparable plot.
Analysis: The property valuation had to take into account that the title deed was unavailable, since that circumstance affects market perception and creditworthiness. The authority also failed to accord due weight to the pending challenge to title and the possibility of the release deed being questioned. In relying upon a smaller nearby plot as a comparable without making any adjustment for difference in size, the authority applied an approach inconsistent with settled principles governing valuation, because smaller plots may fetch a higher rate and larger plots cannot be assumed to command the same price without appropriate adjustment.
Conclusion: The valuation order was unsustainable and was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the authority for fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing the parties, and the writ petitions were allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: In determining market value, relevant factors affecting title and comparability of sales, including absence of title deeds and differences in plot size, must be properly considered and adjusted; failure to do so vitiates the valuation.