Explore a significant legal case revolving around the determination of market value in land acquisition matters. The court’s thorough analysis and considerations provide valuable insights into the process of setting fair compensation for landowners. Dive into the complexities of market value determination in the context of property acquisition disputes.
Facts
- In the proceedings before the Reference Court, 18 cases were taken up for composite consideration, including the appellant’s land.
- The High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed a judgment on 15.07.2009 in RFA No.1586/2005, which was included in a common judgment with other analogous appeals.
- The consideration for enhancement was referred to the Reference Court, Mansa, after it was found that the market value had not been appropriately fixed by the LAO.
- The Reference Court categorized the lands under acquisition into three lots based on their adjacency to the highway, with corresponding market values of Rs.140/-, Rs.120/-, and Rs.100/- per sq. yard.
- The Market Committee, Bhikhi, District Mansa, who was the beneficiary of the acquisition, filed appeals before the High Court, challenging the determination of the market value set by the Reference Court.
- The Reference Court considered sale deeds dated 31.05.1995 and 03.06.1996 as sale exemplars, and after due process under Section 5-A of the L.A. Act, the declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act was notified on 24.12.1993.
- Certain landowners, including the appellants, sought further enhancement of compensation through cross-appeals.
- The appellant’s land measuring 10 kanals 17 marlas beside the Highway from Bhatinda to Chandigarh was included in the total extent notified for acquisition.
- The preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 30.11.1992.
- The LAO determined the market value of different types of land, Nehri land, and Gair mumkin land, along with statutory benefits through an award dated 15.01.1996.
- The High Court discarded certain documents and highlighted the importance of sale deeds marked at Exhibits A-17 to A-27 for determining market value.
- The sale consideration under Exhibit A-22 was used as a basis, with a yearly increase of 12% and an additional sum of Rs.12/- per sq. yard to arrive at a market value of Rs.90/- per sq. yard.
- The classification of properties into three lots was deemed inappropriate as all lands had similar advantages.
- The market value of Rs.90/- per sq. yard was uniformly applied to all lands subject to acquisition under the preliminary notification dated 30.11.1992.
- The appellant land losers were aggrieved by the reduction in market value and filed an appeal.
- The High Court disagreed with the Reference Court’s reliance on sale deeds at Exhibits A-1 and A-2 as they were post-acquisition transactions.
Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC: A Critical Analysis
Arguments
- It is contended that it is common knowledge that the value of immovable property will always appreciate, requiring appropriate market value determination.
- The appellant’s land is situated adjacent to a main road with high commercial potential, justifying a higher market value.
- The Reference Court’s determined value of Rs.140/- per sq. yard was considered low and should have been enhanced instead of reduced by the High Court.
- The land in question is Gair mumkin land, eligible for higher compensation compared to Nehri land as per LAO’s determination.
- The market value determined by the High Court is considered on the lower side and may require interference.
- There is a potential need for further enhancement of the market value set by the Reference Court, or at least, restoring the award of the Reference Court.
- Counsel for the beneficiaries of the acquisition supports the High Court’s judgment.
- The sale exemplars relied upon by the Reference Court were based on transactions post the acquisition notification, which may not be suitable for determining market value.
Also Read: Validity of Debt and Enforcement of Section 138 NI Act
Analysis
- The High Court justified in discarding sale exemplars at Exhibits A-1 and A-2 as they were dated later than the preliminary notification in question.
- Different values per sq. yard were determined based on the location of properties in relation to the main road.
- Comparison of land values before and after 1992 was deemed inappropriate due to the turbulent period in Punjab prior to 1992.
- The High Court’s determination of a common market value applicable to all lands was considered justified.
- Sale exemplars of the specific property would have been appropriate if closer in time to the acquisition period.
- Dismissal of the appeal was sought by the respondent due to the appropriate nature of market value determination by the High Court.
- The High Court’s consideration of the nature and location of the property led to rejecting the Reference Court’s classification of first, second, and third lots.
- The High Court relied on sale deeds from Exhibits A-17 to A-27 and referred to specific court decisions for guidance.
- In the absence of closer sale instances to the notification date, the court used guidance from previous cases to determine appreciation percentage per year.
- Based on Exhibit A-22, a sale deed dated 04.06.1981, the court calculated the price per acre and per square yard.
- The price calculated from Exhibit A-22 was Rs.1,31,931/- per acre and Rs.34/- per sq. yard.
- An additional value of Rs.12/- per sq. yard was added as escalation due to the steep increase in prices in Punjab.
- Total market value arrived at Rs.90/- per sq. yard with statutory benefits ordered.
- Consideration of another landowner’s appeal where the same common judgment was passed.
- Dismissal of the special leave petition in limine on 29.04.2011.
- High Court’s consideration deemed in accordance with the law with no need for interference.
- Contentions raised by appellant’s senior counsel addressed through property location, potentiality, and value appreciation perspective for market value determination based on notification date.
Also Read: Enlargement on Bail in Illegal Mining Case
Decision
- Pending application disposed of.
- Appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment of the Reference Court was pending before the High Court and has been dismissed subsequently on 25.05.2015.
- The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
- No interference with the impugned judgment dated 15.07.2009 passed by the High Court in RFA No.1586/2005.
Case Title: MANMOHAN LAL GUPTA (DEAD) THR. LRS. Vs. MARKET COMMITTEE BHIKHI (2021 INSC 499)
Case Number: C.A. No.-009207-009207 / 2012
