A.S. KRISHNAMURTHI Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SAIDAPET, CHINGLEPUT DISTRICT
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Revenue Divisional Officer, Saidapet, Chingleput District
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) JUDGMENT :
1. (3 -12 -1969): For setting up the Industrial Estate, Guindy, certain plots of land on the outskirts of the City but in Alandur Village were acquired by issuing a notification dated October 12, 1960 under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant owns a build -up bungalow and the extent of the land owned by him and in a portion of which the superstructure is built is 14 centers or 2 grounds and 1080 sq. ft. approximately. This is comprised in S. No. 32/2. The appellant in the court below claimed that the property acquired should be evaluated on the rental basis, and even so in this Court he maintains that on such basis he would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 25,884 -21, as against Rs. 18,498 -69 awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and confirmed by the Court on reference under Section 18 of the Act.
(2.) TWO alternative contentions, however, have been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. According to the memo of valuation which rests upon the rental basis system, learned counsel would say that he would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 25, 884 -21. Pressing however the alternative argument that even if the property were to be valued differently, namely, as land and the building thereon, the value of Rs. 1100/ - per ground adopted by the Court below is inadequate.
As regards the first contention, we do not agree that this property should be evaluated on the rental basis because on or before the date of acquisition, the property was not let out and was occupied by the owner and it would be very difficult to find in the absence of evidence the market rent for the premises in question, when at the required time the property was not actually let out. As adoption of a monthly rental value on the basis of the prevailing rents after the date of notification would not be safe or proper, we refrain from accepting the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the property should be evaluated on the rental basis system.
(3.) THERE is however considerable force in the argument of Mr. V. V. Raghavan, learned counsel for the appellant, that the land has been valued at a considerably low price. The lie of the land is just on the outskirts of the City. It is admitted that a road only separates this property from the rest of the City. In fact, it formed part of a colony knows as Ganapathi Nagar colony which consisted of plots acquired and 14 other plots on the other side of the side of the road were acquired for the very same public purpose, but under a notification dated October 15, 1958. The cases which were the subject -matter of the said acquisition proceedings ultimately ended by a decision of this Court in Appeals Nos. 600 and 601 of 1961. in which a Division Bench of this Court was of the view that the market value of the land on the other side of the road would be Rs. 2,000/ - per ground on October 15, 1958. Basing his claim on the value so fixed by this Court in the appeals referred to above learned counsel would say that the value as fixed by the court below is inadequate and low.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.