TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether compensation for requisitioned lands under the Defence of India law could be confined to symbolic rent or limited only to the fully developed building sites in the northern block; (ii) whether the board was entitled to compensation for the round-about, the excavation area, the lake and the park, and on what basis; (iii) whether the compensation awarded by the arbitrator was excessive.
Issue (i): Whether compensation for requisitioned lands under the Defence of India law could be confined to symbolic rent or limited only to the fully developed building sites in the northern block.
Analysis: Requisition was treated as the acquisition of an interest in land for a temporary or uncertain period, and compensation was held payable under Section 19 of the Defence of India Act, 1939 read with Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935. The measure of compensation was held to be the market value of the interest acquired, adapted to the nature of requisition, and not a merely nominal amount. The contention that vacant or partly developed land yielded no compensable loss was rejected, because value had to be assessed with reference to the rights available to the owner and the most advantageous use to which the land could lawfully be put.
Conclusion: Symbolic compensation was rejected, and compensation was held payable for all requisitioned interests capable of value.
Issue (ii): Whether the board was entitled to compensation for the round-about, the excavation area, the lake and the park, and on what basis.
Analysis: Lands held by the board for improvement purposes were examined according to the statutory powers conferred by the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911. The developed and undeveloped building sites, the round-about, and the excavation area were held to remain capable of beneficial use, including sale, lease or letting, and therefore compensation was payable on the basis of fair rent. For the lake, the court held that the board could lawfully let it on lease or otherwise derive value from it until it was again required for excavation, so compensation was also payable. The park stood on a different footing because it had been acquired for the express purpose of an open space for ventilation and recreation; the power of alienation under Section 81 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 was taken away by necessary implication in respect of that land. Even so, the loss of possession through requisition was compensable, and restrictions existing at the time of acquisition were disregarded in fixing compensation, which was assessed on the basis of building-site value. For fair rent, the court preferred broader and more reliable evidence over isolated lease instances and accepted the 5 per cent basis for most lands, while reducing the compensation for the watery portion of the lake to 1.25 per cent of estimated price.
Conclusion: Compensation was upheld for the round-about, excavation area, lake and park, with the park valued on a building-site basis and the watery portion of the lake reduced.
Issue (iii): Whether the compensation awarded by the arbitrator was excessive.
Analysis: The court compared lease transactions, market indications and prior agreements in the same locality and scheme, and found that the arbitrator's general 5 per cent basis was not excessive. However, the additional amount for occupier's share of municipal taxes was disallowed, and the valuation for the watery portion of the lake was reduced because the evidence justified a lower rate.
Conclusion: The award was not excessive in substance, subject to the stated reductions.
Final Conclusion: The arbitrator's award substantially survived, with only limited downward variation on the municipal-tax component and the compensation for the watery portion of the lake, and the appeals failed in the main.
Ratio Decidendi: Compensation for requisitioned property is to be assessed on the value of the interest lawfully taken and not on a merely nominal basis, and restrictions on user or alienation existing at the time of acquisition may be ignored where they do not legally destroy the compensable value of that interest.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
