Abhinash Chand & Ors vs State Of H.P.& Ors
- SCC(2017) 11 SCC 394
- Neutral2016 INSC 234
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a Reference Court has awarded compensation for acquired land by averaging comparable sales without regard to documentary evidence of land value contemporaneous with or proximate to the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the court may disregard that average and rely instead on such documentary evidence, particularly where the court has acknowledged the land's potential value and the land has subsequently been included within municipal limits, warranting an enhancement beyond the Reference Court's valuation and the statutory minimum increase prescribed for the relevant period.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. An extent of 51 marlas of land was acquired by the first respondent for the purpose of Railways. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 1050 per marla against the claim of Rs.6,000/- per marla made by the appellants.
2. Dissatisfied, the appellants approached the Reference Court and taking note of the average of three exhibitables provided by the appellants, the value was fixed at Rs. 7,900/- per marla.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. R. S. Suri, learned senior counsel appearing for the Railways and the learned counsel appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh, we are of the view that the Reference Court was not justified in ignoring the document dated 10.07.1984, wherein the land value had been fixed at Rs. 9,000/- per marla. The Reference Court itself has taken note of the potential value of the land, since it is situated near to the District Hospital. We are informed that the acquired land has since been included in the Municipal limits. Since Section 4(1) notification was of the year 27.12.1985, the appellants shall also be entitled to more than 10% increase.
4. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be advanced and the statutory requirements would also be met if the land value is fixed at least at Rs. 10,000/- per marla.
5. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed by fixing the land value at Rs. 10,000/- per marla.
6. The appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits.
No costs.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi;
March 02, 2016.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free