EAJASEKHAEA MINOE REPEESENTED Vs. CHAIEMAN CITY IMPEOVEMENT TEUST BOAED MYSOEE CITY
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
EAJASEKHAEA, MINOE REPEESENTED BY OFFICIAL GUARDIAN SRI S.SEIEANGACHAE, PLEADEE, MYSOEE CITY
CHAIEMAN, CITY IMPEOVEMENT TEUST BOAED, MYSOEE CITY
Referred Judgements :-
GOVERNMENT OF BOMBAY V. MERWANJI MUNCHERJI
KARACHI MUNICIPALITY V. NARAINDAS
LACHMAN PRASAD V. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL
RAJAMMAL V. HEADQUARTERS DEPUTY COLLECTOR,VELLORE
RAGHUNATH DAS V. SECRETARY OF STATE
MAHESH CHANDRA SADHU VS. JOGENDRA LAL SARKAR
Click here to view full judgement.
VENKATARAMAIYA, CJ. -
(1.)Both these appeals under the Land Acquisition Act. in which parties are the same may be disposed of by one order. The only point for consideration is the amount payable as compensation. The properties are buildings situated in Mysore near Sayyaji Rao Road at the extremity of Lansdowne Buildings. One case relates to those numbered by the Municipality as 77 to 83 and the other to what bore the number 83/1. The claim regarding the latter for increasing the amount paid by the lower Court may be first dealt with. This is said to have been a residential building facing a lane behind a row of shops. The structure was old, its doors and windows were in a decayed condition and at the time of acquisition was not in occupation of any one but used as a godown. The lower court has accepted the value of this at Es. 925 but increased the value of the ground from Es. 2 to Es. 10 per square yard. This appears to be fair and appellant's counsel has not pointed out anything to hold it otherwise. E. A. No. 142 of 51-52 is therefore dismissed with costs.
(2.)The shops bearing Municipal Nos. 77 to 83 stand on a different footing. It is found that Es. 150 are realised as rent from the shops and rooms which are let out and for those retained for use of the owners only, Es. 10 were fixed as rent though Es. 20 were claimed. The learned Judge capitalised the rent by deducting from the annual realisation at this rate a quarter of it as being required for repairs and taxes and multiplying the balance by 18. He also valued the land and the building separately on the basis of estimates of cost by Engineers and struck the average between the total of these and the amount on the basis of rent.
(3.)Sri Gopivallabha lyengar on behalf of the court-guardian of the minor claimant contended that this is not a fair or appropriate assessment of the value. Section 23 requires that the first thing to be taken into account in determining compensation is the market value of the property at the time of the notification. The expression " Market value " is not defined in the Act and it has to be ascertained by the Court in each case with due regard to the conditions of the time and factors which affect transactions between a willing seller and intending buyer. In any case, the decision at best is to be regarded as approximate and not a mathematically accurate estimate.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.