TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 1292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f these appeals is a Notification dated 14th July, 1982 issued by the Union of India expressing its intention to acquire the land in the said village 2. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award on 10th August, 1983 categorizing the acquired lands in three categories, i.e. 'A', 'B' and 'C' and fixed the market value thereof at the rate of Rs. 5,800/- per; Rs. 4,800/- per bigha; and Rs. 2,400/- per bigha respectively. 3. The awardees not being satisfied with the said award filed applications for reference before the District Collector. References having been made, the Reference Court vide its Award dated 22nd July, 1987 assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at Rs. 9,750/- per bigha. 4. Still ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... No. 891 of 1987 has been produced, which reads as under: Before the Lok Adalat, the parties agreed that the market price of the acquired land is Rs. 22,000/- per bigha. In view of the settlement made before the Lok Adalat, we fix the market price of the land at Rs. 22,000/- per bigha. The appellant shall be entitled to increased compensation under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by 1984 Act. The appellant shall also be entitled to solatium at 30% per annum and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter till payment. The Supreme Court has already decided the matter regarding the payment of interest and, therefore, the question of award of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing trees. 12. It is also well settled that for the purpose of determination of price of acquired land, the courts would be well advised to consider the positive and negative factors, as has been laid down by this Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789, i.e.: 13. This Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 1, on the question of determination of market value opined: 24. While determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, the market value therefore indisputably has to be ascertained. There exist different modes there for. 25. The best method, as is well known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... v. Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhaubal Deb the Patna High Court reiterated the presumption that the lessor retains all the rights in mines and quarries. It also noticed the decision of the House of Lords in Great Western Rly. Co. v. Carpalla United China Clay Co. Ltd. where in a grant reserving minerals was held to exclude a deposit of china clay despite the fact that the same was found near the surface. It was also held that: 8. In V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal R. Officer the law is stated in the following terms: It is now a well-established principle of law that the land abutting the national highway will fetch far more higher price than the land lying interior. This Court furthermore op....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt in fixing the land value. Moreover, the land acquired was agricultural land and it was acquired for the purpose of an irrigation project. There is nothing on record to show that the land had any commercial value or future potentialities. We do not think that the land value fixed is too low to be interfered with by this Court. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789, this Court opined: 24. The purpose for which acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining the market value. In Basavva v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer deduction to the extent of 65% was made towards development charges. In Basant Kumar v. Union of India (1996) 11 SCC 542 , this Court held that even if the entire l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n has been/ could be raised that the High Court in passing the impugned judgment failed to take into consideration the well settled legal principles. 16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. The High Court based its decision on its earlier common judgment arising out of the same notification. The lead judgment was delivered in the case of Jia Ram and Ors. v. Union of India R.F.A. No. 500 of 1987. We have not been informed whether any appeal has been preferred against that judgment and if so, what was the result thereof. In absence of that information, we are of the opinion that the appellants should not be treated differently from Jia Ram (supra) who might not have preferred any appeal and have acc....