TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (7) TMI 408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published on March 8, 1956. The acquisition was a part of the total acquisition of 101 acres 33 Gunthas made for a public purpose viz. for construction of the Headquarters, Poona Rural Police Charge. The appellant was not satisfied with the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition officer in respect of his parcel of 15 Acres 7 Gunthas and applied for a reference being made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Two references were made to a Civil Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining the market value of the lands for the purpose of awarding compensation to the appellants. The Trial Court determined the market value of 2- 1/4 acres forming part of Survey Nos. 85 and 86 at ₹ 15,00 per acre. Market value in respect of the remaining 13 acres and 7 Gunthas was determined at ₹ 8692 per acre. The present dispute is confined to valuation of 13 Acres 7 Gunthas forming part of Survey No. 85. The High Court has reduced the total compensation payable in respect of the land in question from ₹ 1,14,517 computed at ₹ 8692 per acre to ₹ 63,846 (which works out at ₹ 4845.87 per acre) the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. (8) only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Some times instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land). (9) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate,(2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations: (i) proximity from time angle, (ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... attendant hazards. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own facts pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense. The problem which has surfaced in the present appeals needs to be recapitulated. The question is whether in scaling down the total compensation payable to the appellant from ₹ 1,14,517 to ₹ 63,846, the High Court has violated any principle of valuation or adopted any faulty methodology. The formula evolved by the High Court may be briefly outlined. The High Court has taken into account the market value reflected in the instances pertaining to small parcels of land cited by the parties which on the analysis of the evidence have been considered as comparable subject to factors of differentiation. The High Court has valued the land having best situation admeasuring 9 acres comprised in Survey No. 86 which abuts on the Ganeshkhand Road at ₹ 20,000 per acre. Having done so the market value reflected therein has been unloaded to account for the minus factors pertaining to the rest o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as situated in the interior. Besides, the time lag of 12 years as estimated by the High Court was excessive and unrealistic. The first two grounds are devoid of merit. It is common knowledge that when a large block of land is required to be valued, appropriate deduction has to be made for setting aside land for carving out roads, leaving open spaces, and plotting out smaller plots suitable for construction of buildings. The extent of the area required to be set apart in this connection has to be assessed by the Court having regard to shape, size and situation of the concerned block of land etc. There cannot be any hard and fast rule as to how much deduction should be made to account for this factor. It is essentially a question of fact depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. It does not involve drawing upon any principle of law. It cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in forming the opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case 25% deduction was required to be made in this connection. The High Court cannot be faulted on this score. The more serious grievance of the appellant however is that the High Court has depressed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n all the survey numbers and which do not have a frontage on the roads. A lower price will have to be provided for these plots, since the plot- holders will have to spend moneys for getting water and drainage connections which are given only upto the Municipal Roads. Then again, in our opinion, the interior plots would not be sold at all as long as any of the plots having a frontage on Pashan Road or Baner Road are sold, though once such plots have been disposed of the demand for interior plots would certainly pick up. Here again, it is impossible to be precise in fixing the value; but in our opinion the interior plots may fairly be valued at ₹ 7,000 per acre. As stated earlier, the sales of these plots would commence after all the plots having a frontage on Pashan Road and Baner Road are disposed of i.e. after 12 years, and we may say that those plots would be sold within a period of about 4 years." It is not possible to find fault with the reasoning or conclusion of the High Court. The High Court was day in and day out engaged in valuation of the lands in different parts of the state and was fully aware of the landscope. There is no yardstick by which the future can b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant's land was valued at mere ₹ 7,000 per acre which reflected an unloading by ₹ 13,000 per acre which works out at 65%. This pushing down was made to account for its situation in the interior on the premise that development would take about 12 years to reach the land under acquisition. If the appellant's land just adjoined the land valued at ₹ 20,000 per acre it would have been valued at the same figure of ₹ 20,000. It has been valued at ₹ 7,000 per acre precisely because it is so situated that development would reach the appellant's land after 12 years as estimated by the High Court. But after 12 years it would become land adjoining to developed area and not land which could be treated as in the interior. Therefore, if present value was to be ascertained it should be ascertained on the basis of present value of land which would fetch ₹ 20,000 per acre after 12 years and not present value of land which would fetch ₹ 7.000 per acre after 12 years. In fact present value of ₹ 20,000 payable at the end of 12 years at 8% would work out at ₹ 6942 (.3971 x 20,000 = 6942) See Mirarm's Table 7 at 657 of A.K. Mitr....