Discrepancy in Property Area Valuation

This legal case revolves around a property dispute where the court delves deep into the discrepancies in property area valuation. The focus is on the court’s meticulous legal analysis of the evidence presented, particularly concerning the correction of the estimated area of the property sold. Stay tuned to understand how the court navigates through the intricacies of property valuation in this complex legal scenario.

Facts

The Chief Settlement Commissioner found that the site plan indicated an area of 3,836.06 square yards, which prevailed over the area mentioned in the conveyance deed.
Additional area of 1,050.06 square yards was directed to be transferred to the appellants at ₹4 per square yard.
The Tax Superintendent mentioned the area of Spring Field as 10,582 square yards in a letter dated 28.03.1976.
A sale certificate issued by the Department of Rehabilitation on 05.05.1976 stated the property area as 2,786 square yards.
A conveyance deed executed on 21.08.1979 referred to an area of 3,836.06 square yards.
The appellants deposited ₹4,200.24 for the additional area without prejudice to their rights.
The year on the draft prepared on 13.08.1954 was tampered to ‘1956’.
Sale certificate dated 05.05.1976 indicated an area of 2,786 square yards.
Chief Settlement Commissioner also directed transfer of an additional area of 7,599 square yards to the appellants on payment of extra cost.
Appellants preferred a second appeal before the High Court which was dismissed on 15.06.2009.
Sale of 3,836.06 square yards was upheld.
Property ‘Spring Field’ comprised Khasra Nos. 233, 233/1, 233/3, 233/6, 233/7, and 234/4.
Appellants were directed to pay for the additional area at the reserved price of ₹4 per square yard.
Chief Settlement Commissioner allowed a review petition holding that the entire area of Spring Field was sold to late Raja Dhian Singh.
Valuation Form ‘A’ identified the property area as 2,786 square yards.
Fresh sale certificate was issued in favor of the legal heirs of Late-Raja Dhian Singh on 24.03.1976.
Appellants filed a civil suit for declaration of title and ownership of the entire property known as ‘Spring Field’.
Area initially sold to the appellants was 2,786 square yards.
The property in-question came under the compensation pool per the 1954 Act.
Review petition was filed against the order dated 25.06.1979.
Appellants continued to file representations despite having the conveyance deed for 2,786 square yards.
Rehabilitation Department invited tenders for the sale of ‘Spring Field’ in September 1954.
Letter of allotment in favor of late Raja Dhian Singh was issued on 03.02.1955.
The High Court upheld the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court.
The judgment and decree of the Trial Court was reversed.

Also Read: Land Transfer Procedure Violation Case Analysis

Analysis

The Trial Court’s judgment and decree were reversed due to the correction of the estimated area of the property to be sold.
Evidence was presented indicating that the valuation of the property was done before it was put up for sale, not after.
The amount charged from the appellants was based on the corrected area of 2,786 square yards.
The issue of tampering with dates in official records was noted by the lower Appellate Court and the High Court.
The lower Appellate Court’s finding on the valuation of the property prior to sale was crucial in determining the area actually sold to the appellants.
The Financial Commissioner thoroughly considered the issues raised in the revisions filed by both parties.
A review petition may not be maintainable as there was no clerical or arithmetical error, rather a fundamental discrepancy in the amount paid by the appellants for 2,786 square yards.
The appellants’ examples are not sufficient to support their case, as detailed documents have not been provided except for the identity number or popular name of the property.

Also Read: Limitation and Pre-emption Rights in Sale of Urban Immovable Property