Ahsanul Hoda v. State of Bihar, (2013) 14 SCC 59
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Ss. 23, 18 and 54 - Compensation - Determining factors - Cumulative increase in market value - Consideration of - High
Court fixed compensation lower than that fixed by Reference Court - High Court though took into consideration earlier
sale deeds of neighbouring areas of small plots, did not take into consideration developmental increase in value of land
since past 23 yrs with regard to large area that has been acquired - High Court also did not grant damages for standing
crops - High Court determined compensation at rate of Rs 100 per decimal as against Rs 250 per decimal fixed by
Reference Court as the two lands are non-comparable - Reiterated, cumulative increase of 10% to 15% is permissible
with reference to acquisitions in 1990 while in decades preceding 1990s quantum of increase can be taken around 8-
10% p.a.,
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
S. 23 - Compensation - Market Value - Acquisition of large tract of land - Exemplars of small plots - Determining factors -
Larger area if to be compared with smaller area - Validity - Reiterated, it is necessary to make appropriate deduction
towards development cost while determining value of large extent of agricultural land with reference to value of small
residential plot in the vicinity which may not be less than 20% to 25% - Held, courts can rely on sale deeds of smaller
residential plots while determining market value of larger agricultural land - Held, in the instant case, Reference Court
was justified in fixing Rs 250 per decimal after deduction of 37% in relation to sale deeds of smaller plots and thereafter
allowing 10% increase in value of land - High Court was wrong in disregarding sale deeds and wrongly failed to consider
increase in value of land and deduction of 75% is not in accordance with law and it arrived at a finding of Rs 100 per
decimal on mere presumptions and surmises - On appreciation of evidence, held, High Court also committed error in
considering smaller plots as homestead land instead of agricultural land and as to non-existence of standing crop - Order
passed by High Court set aside and that of Reference Court restored,
Print Page
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Ss. 23, 18 and 54 - Compensation - Determining factors - Cumulative increase in market value - Consideration of - High
Court fixed compensation lower than that fixed by Reference Court - High Court though took into consideration earlier
sale deeds of neighbouring areas of small plots, did not take into consideration developmental increase in value of land
since past 23 yrs with regard to large area that has been acquired - High Court also did not grant damages for standing
crops - High Court determined compensation at rate of Rs 100 per decimal as against Rs 250 per decimal fixed by
Reference Court as the two lands are non-comparable - Reiterated, cumulative increase of 10% to 15% is permissible
with reference to acquisitions in 1990 while in decades preceding 1990s quantum of increase can be taken around 8-
10% p.a.,
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
S. 23 - Compensation - Market Value - Acquisition of large tract of land - Exemplars of small plots - Determining factors -
Larger area if to be compared with smaller area - Validity - Reiterated, it is necessary to make appropriate deduction
towards development cost while determining value of large extent of agricultural land with reference to value of small
residential plot in the vicinity which may not be less than 20% to 25% - Held, courts can rely on sale deeds of smaller
residential plots while determining market value of larger agricultural land - Held, in the instant case, Reference Court
was justified in fixing Rs 250 per decimal after deduction of 37% in relation to sale deeds of smaller plots and thereafter
allowing 10% increase in value of land - High Court was wrong in disregarding sale deeds and wrongly failed to consider
increase in value of land and deduction of 75% is not in accordance with law and it arrived at a finding of Rs 100 per
decimal on mere presumptions and surmises - On appreciation of evidence, held, High Court also committed error in
considering smaller plots as homestead land instead of agricultural land and as to non-existence of standing crop - Order
passed by High Court set aside and that of Reference Court restored,
No comments:
Post a Comment