Urban land ceiling law affects fair market value, but provisional excess declaration alone does not trigger compensation-based valuation.

Open land covered only by a provisional excess declaration under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 was not required to be valued on a compensation basis, because no acquisition or vesting under section 10(3) had taken place. The ceiling law's impact still had to be reflected in determining fair market value for wealth-tax purposes, and the departmental valuation allowing for large-size land and the ceiling restriction was accepted as reasonable. The valuation of the assessee's house and staff quarters was also left undisturbed, as no material was produced to show error in the departmental approach. The wealth-tax additions were accordingly sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether open land covered by proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 was required to be valued on the basis of compensation payable under that Act; (ii) Whether the valuation adopted for the assessee's house and staff quarters called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether open land covered by proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 was required to be valued on the basis of compensation payable under that Act.

Analysis: The land had only been provisionally declared excess, and no acquisition or vesting under section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 had taken place. Mere provisional excess declaration did not make the land liable to be valued on the compensation basis. The effect of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 had nevertheless to be considered while determining fair market value for wealth-tax purposes. The departmental valuation, which applied a substantial rebate for largeness of the land and for the effect of the ceiling law, was accepted as a reasonable estimate of market value.

Conclusion: The land was not to be valued on the compensation payable under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, and the valuation adopted by the authorities was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the valuation adopted for the assessee's house and staff quarters called for interference.

Analysis: The assessee did not seriously challenge the valuation of the house and staff quarters, and no material was shown to displace the departmental valuation or to establish any error in the approach adopted by the authorities below.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted in the valuation of the house and staff quarters.

Final Conclusion: The additions made in the wealth-tax valuation were sustained and the assessee's challenge failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A property covered only by a provisional excess declaration under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 cannot be valued on the basis of compensation unless acquisition and vesting have occurred; its fair market value must be assessed by taking the ceiling law's impact into account.

---