Case: Secretary, Karnataka Electricity Board Vs Assistant Commissioner, Gadag and Others. Supreme Court (India)
| Judges | B. L. Hansaria & K. Ramaswamy, JJ. |
| Issue | Land Acquisition Act, 1894 |
| Citation | 1995 (2) SCC 1, 1995 (2) CCC 10, 1995 (2) Scale 146B, 1995 (1) UJ 728, 1995 (3) JT 184, 1995 (1) RentLR 604 |
| Judgement Date | March 07, 1995 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
B. L. Hansaria, J.
-
Leave granted in both the petitions. 2. A plot of land measuring two acres was acquired by Notification dated 14.4.1988 for establishment of sub- station by the Karnataka Electricity Board, the appellant herein. The market value of the land was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 13, 000/- per acre by an award made on 21.8.1989. On reference being made, the Civil Judge, however, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10, 000/- per gunta i.e. Rs. 4 lacs per acre by an order dated 16.12.1989. On appeal being preferred before the High Court, the enhancement was sustained but with the direction to deduct 65% towards development and other charges. The Electricity Board has preferred this appeal by special leave. The land owner has also approached this Court seeking further enhancement.
-
A perusal of the order of Reference Court shows that the land owner had himself led evidence to show yield, which was found to be around Rs. 11, 000/- per acre per year. This was the g ross income; the net annual income assessed being Rs. 5, 695/-, after deducting 50 % towards cost of cultivation. The market value as per the capitalisation method was, therefore, fixed at Rs.28, 470/- per acre by deducting 50 % of the average annual yield, assuming that the claimant had exaggerated the average annual yield in his evidence; he being an interested witness.
-
The Reference Court, instead of fixing the market value at Rs.28, 470/- per acre determined as per the capitalisation method, fixed the same at Rs.4 lacs on the strength of a solitary sale deed which related to small piece of land measuring 74 feet x 17 feet, which was sold for Rs. 10, 000/- at the relevant point of time.
-
Learned counsel for the Boar d has contended that the Reference Court, as well as the High Court, erred in law in placing reliance on a solitary sale transaction and that too relatable to a very small piece of land in fixing the market value at Rs. 4 lacs. The learned counsel for the claimant, however, draws our attention to the evidence of the approved Land and Building valuer who was examined as P.W.3 and whose evidence has been dealt in para 10 of the Civil Judge's order. We have been taken through this part of the Civil Judge's order wherein mention has been made, inter alia, about the aforesaid plot of land being within the GadagBetigeri Municipal limit, which is not so, as the acquired land is situated beyond the limit of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
WP(C) 296/2015. Gauhati High Court
...in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs Uttar Pradesh Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Ors. reported in 1995 (2) SCC 1 . After examining the various provisions of the Act, the Apex Court observed that those are sufficiently indicative of the fact that the t......
-
W.P. No. 858 of 2008. Case: K. Pitchandi Vs 1. Government Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Secretary, Co-Operation Food And Consumer Protection Department, 2. Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies, 3. Special Officer, Chennai Central Co-Operative Bank Limited. High Court of Madras (India)
...Court based such claim upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P.S.R.T.C. V. U.P.PARIVAHAN NIHAM SHISKUKHS BEROZGAR SANGH reported in 1995 (2) SCC 1. as well as the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5285 to 5328 of 1996 dated 3.10.1996 in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity B......
-
W.P. Nos. 2089, 2267, 3100, 3101, 3792, 3985 and 5078 of 2009 and M.P. Nos. 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3 and 3 of 2009. Case: Dr. J. Sathiya Vijayan and Ors. Vs The Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, The Directorate of Medical Education and The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department. High Court of Madras (India)
...classification and the object sought to be achieved by the classification. 31. In UPSRTC v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh 1995 (2) SCC 1, it was held in paragraph-1 as The material resources of this country are limited. Indeed this is so for every country. The resource-crunc......
-
WP(C) 1137/2015. Gauhati High Court
...in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs Uttar Pradesh Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Ors. reported in 1995 (2) SCC 1 . After examining the various provisions of the Act, the Apex Court observed that those are sufficiently indicative of the fact that the t......
-
WP(C) 296/2015. Gauhati High Court
...in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs Uttar Pradesh Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Ors. reported in 1995 (2) SCC 1 . After examining the various provisions of the Act, the Apex Court observed that those are sufficiently indicative of the fact that the t......
-
W.P. No. 858 of 2008. Case: K. Pitchandi Vs 1. Government Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Secretary, Co-Operation Food And Consumer Protection Department, 2. Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies, 3. Special Officer, Chennai Central Co-Operative Bank Limited. High Court of Madras (India)
...Court based such claim upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P.S.R.T.C. V. U.P.PARIVAHAN NIHAM SHISKUKHS BEROZGAR SANGH reported in 1995 (2) SCC 1. as well as the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5285 to 5328 of 1996 dated 3.10.1996 in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity B......
-
W.P. Nos. 2089, 2267, 3100, 3101, 3792, 3985 and 5078 of 2009 and M.P. Nos. 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3 and 3 of 2009. Case: Dr. J. Sathiya Vijayan and Ors. Vs The Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, The Directorate of Medical Education and The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department. High Court of Madras (India)
...classification and the object sought to be achieved by the classification. 31. In UPSRTC v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh 1995 (2) SCC 1, it was held in paragraph-1 as The material resources of this country are limited. Indeed this is so for every country. The resource-crunc......
-
WP(C) 1137/2015. Gauhati High Court
...in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs Uttar Pradesh Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Ors. reported in 1995 (2) SCC 1 . After examining the various provisions of the Act, the Apex Court observed that those are sufficiently indicative of the fact that the t......