TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court revises land valuation for police HQ, sets compensation at Rs. 5,250 per acre.</h1> <h3>Chimanlal Hargovinddas Versus Special Land Acquisition</h3> Chimanlal Hargovinddas Versus Special Land Acquisition - 1988 AIR 1652, 1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 531, 1988 (3) SCC 751, 1988 (3) JT 106, 1988 (2) SCALE 43 Issues Involved:1. Valuation of the lands under acquisition.2. Deduction percentage for largeness of the block of land.3. Market value determination of the appellant's land.4. Depressing the market value to ascertain the 'present value.'5. Entitlement to the benefit of Central Amending Act (Act 68 of 1984).Summary of Judgment:1. Valuation of the Lands Under Acquisition:The controversy centered on the valuation of lands situated in 'Tigris Camp' within Poona city limits, acquired for constructing the Headquarters of Poona Rural Police Charge. The trial court valued the lands correctly, but the High Court revised the valuation downwards, reducing the compensation from Rs. 1,14,517 to Rs. 63,846.2. Deduction Percentage for Largeness of the Block of Land:The High Court made a deduction of 25% instead of the 20% made by the trial court to account for the largeness of the block of land. The Supreme Court found no error in this deduction, stating it was a question of fact based on the shape, size, and situation of the land.3. Market Value Determination of the Appellant's Land:The High Court valued the appellant's land at Rs. 7,000 per acre, considering its interior location and future development potential. The Supreme Court upheld this valuation, noting that the High Court had taken into account the land's situation and the estimated time for development to reach the land.4. Depressing the Market Value to Ascertain the 'Present Value':The Supreme Court found fault with the High Court's methodology of depressing the market value of Rs. 7,000 per acre to ascertain the 'present value.' The correct approach should have been to ascertain the present value of land that would fetch Rs. 20,000 per acre after 12 years. The Supreme Court modified the compensation to Rs. 5,250 per acre after a 25% deduction.5. Entitlement to the Benefit of Central Amending Act (Act 68 of 1984):The appellant's entitlement to the benefits of the Central Amending Act (Act 68 of 1984) depends on the decision of the Constitution Bench regarding the retrospective operation of the Act. The appellant will be entitled to the benefits if the Constitution Bench upholds the view expressed in Bhag Singh's case.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the High Court's order to award compensation at Rs. 5,250 per acre. There was no order regarding costs in the Supreme Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
