TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1976 (11) TMI 90
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otification dated26th September, 1964issued under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a portion of the land of this village was acquired in 1964. The Collector, vide his award dated 12th July 1965, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,300 per bigha for category 'A' land at Rs. 1,200 per bigha land categorised as 'B' and Rs. 700 per bigha for category 'C' land. These values not being acceptable to the land owners, were agitated by them in appeal before the Addl. Judge who adjudged the value of category 'A' land at Rs.5,850 per bigha (Rs. 5,500 for land, Rs. 350 for litigation expenses) and Rs. 2,420 per bigha for category 'B' land. In doing so he did away with distinction between category 'A' land and category 'B' land and categorised 'A' & 'B' lands as 'A' land for the purpose of fixing the compensation. The judgement of the Addl. Sessions Judge was disputed by the land owners as well as the Government before the Delhi High Court. Their Lordships of the Delhi High Court confirmed the order of the Addl. Judge vide their judgement dt.19th July 1972. A further parcel of the land in village Nangal Dewat was acquired in 1966 vide notification No. F. 1(18)/66 L.A & H dated 6th December, 1966 and L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of village Manipalpur sold agricultural land measuring 11 bighas 7 biswas to Shri Mir Singh S/o. Shri Chandgi Ram for Rs. 1,20,000. (3) the value of land of this village which was acquired in 1964 had been adjudged by the Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge and Delhi High Court at Rs. 5,350 per bigha. Since then there had been a substantial appreciation in prices of land in the period of five years prior to the date of notification. (4) Keeping in view the above facts and laying stress on appellant's demand for compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000 per bigha, the W.T.O. had evaluated the lands at Rs. 40,000 per bigha. 3. The Wealth-tax Officer added that legally tax on the above assessed wealth could be recovered in full from the assessee. However, the same could be confined to a reasonable amount till the decision of the appeal by the Revenue Authorities provided the assessee furnishes adequate security in respect of the unpaid demand and made a request for the same to the concerned authority. 4. The assessee took the matter in respect of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was urged before him that the Wealth-tax Officer had erred in making the fantastic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the period between 1964 to 1970 and that there was no dispute regarding the facts that the value of 'A' category of land in 1964 was of Rs. 5,000 per bigha, for 'B' Rs. 2,400 per bigha and in 1966, it was Rs. 6,600 for 'A' category Rs. 6,300 for 'B' category and Rs. 6,000 for 'C' category of land. He further observed that the land acquisition authorities had thus conceded an increase of 33% in a 2 years period between 1964 to 1966. The price given in the award was practically the same as was fixed by the appellate authorities in 1966 and this did not take into consideration, the subsequent rise in prices of land in the village. According to the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner, it would be reasonable to estimate a 331/3% increase in the value of the land in the village Nangal Dewat during this period upto31st March, 1970. He considered that the value for A, B, & C categories will work out at Rs. 8,800 per bigha, Rs. 8,400 per bigha Rs. 8,000 per bigha respectively. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also conceded on examination the assessee's contention that his land holding then was of 154 bighas and not 157 bighas and 11 biswas as disclosed in the return. The assessee had sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tax on the basis of the compensation awarded to the assessee by the Land Acquisition Authority will be recovered and that the balance of tax relating to the disputed value of the land would be kept in abeyance until the compensation was finally settled. No doubt, it was further stated, he had called upon the assessee to furnish security for such disputed amount of tax which was to be held in abeyance. This, it was contended by the learned Departmental Representative, was an elementary step necessary to safeguard the interest of the revenue. He further stated that if the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Authority or the arbitrary value assigned by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was made the basis of the assessments and such assessments became final, the Deptt. would be left without any remedy if the compensation was subsequently increased by the Additional District Judge or the High Court, owing to bar of limitation. In the circumstances, he placed that the orders passed by the Wealth-tax Officer were just and proper and that they did not result in any injury or hardship to the assessee and should accordingly be restored. 8. On behalf of the assessee, it was s....