- (1.) K. N. Singh, J. This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Nainital, awarding a sum of Rs. 15,856. 56 P. as compensation to the appellants.
(2.) SUKHNANDAN Prasad, deceased, was the owner of a grove having an area of 3 acres situate within the Municipal limits of Kashipur in District Nainital. On 7-2-1961, a Notification under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued for acquiring an area of 0. 459 acres (20,000 S. Ft.) out of the grove of SUKHNANDAN Prasad for the construction of building and staff quarters of the Post and Telegraph Department. SUKHNANDAN Prasad died whereupon his heirs, the appellants filed objection under S. 5-A of the Act resisting the acquisition proceedings on the ground that a number of samadhis existed on the land in question. The objectors filed a writ petition also in this court, under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the acquisition, but the writ petition was dismissed by this Court. Thereafter the land acquisition proceedings were completed. The Special Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on 24-3-1965, awarding the claimants a sum of Rupees 3109-73 P. as compensation for the land, Rs. 439-00 for the trees and Rs. 106-56 P. for the boundary wall. In all the claimants were awarded a sum of Rupees 3655-29 P. as compensation. On the claimants' application under S. 18 of the Act reference was made to the District Judge for determining the compensation. Before the District Judge the appellants claimed Rs. 30,000/- for the land, Rupees 4600-00 for the trees and Rs. 1500-00 for the costs of the construction existing on the land, Rs. 5525-00 for reduction in value of the adjoining land and Rupees 8750-00 for the potential value of the land. In all the claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 49,875-00 as compensation. The District Judge awarded Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for the land, Rs. 750-00 for the trees standing on the land and Rs. 106-56 P. for the boundary wall. In all the District Judge awarded a sum of Rs. 15,856-56 p. as compensation to the appellants. As they were not satisfied with the compensation awarded to them they have preferred this appeal against the judgment of the District Judge. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the District Judge failed to determine the market value of the land correctly and the compensation awarded is wholly inadequate. He further urged that the land was situated in the heart of the Municipal area and it had value of potential building site, the District Judge should have awarded compensation treating the land as potential building site. S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lays down that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under the Act, the Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under S. 4 (1) of the Act. For determining the market value several factors have to be considered. The possibility of the use of the land in near future with all its advantages has to be taken into account in determining the market value. In Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatnam (AIR 1939 PC 98), the Privy Council held: "for the land is not to he valued merely by reference to the use to which it is being put at the time at which its value has to be determined. . . . . . . . but also by reference to the uses to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the future. It is possibilities of the land and not its realized possibilities that must be taken into consideration". In Raghubans Narain Singh v. U. P. Government, AIR 1967 SC 465, the Supreme Court held (para 5) : "market value on the basis of which compensation is payable under S. 23 of the Act means the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for a property having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages, and its potential possibilities when laid out in its most advantageous manner, excluding any advantages due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purposes for which the property is compulsorily acquired. "
(3.) IN Collector, Raigarh v. Dr. Hari Singh Thakur (AIR 1979 SC 472) the Supreme Court while considering the question of potential value of the land acquired observed as under (para 5):- "the question as to whether a land has potential value as a building site or not is primarily one of fact depending upon several factors such as its condition and situation, the user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put, its suitability for building purposes, its proximity to residential. commercial industrial areas and educational, cultural or medical institutions, existing amenities like water, electricity and drainage and the possibility of their future extension, whether the nearby town is a developing or a prospering town with prospects of development schemes and the presence or absence of pressure of building activity towards the land acquired in the neighbourhood thereof". Market value of the land in dispute is to be determined in the background of the principles laid down by the Privy Council and the Supreme Court. In the instant case there is no dispute that the land is situate within the municipal limit. It abuts on the main road of the town of Kashipur. Exhibit 1 is the site plan prepared by Roop Chand, P. W 1. On a perusal of the same we find that on the south of the land there are a number of shops which face station road. On its west there is a road and across the road there is the vegetable market of Kashipur and thereafter there is a Dharamshala and adjoining to the vegetable market there is a school run by the Nagar Palika, Kashipur. There area number of other shops in the locality. On the southern side across the road there are 35 shops constructed by the Municipal Board, Kashipur. There are three school buildings on the eastern side of the land in dispute. On the northern end of the plot in dispute there are a number of shops which abut on cinema road. Mithilesh Kumar, D. W. 4, in his deposition stated that the land in dispute is surrounded by houses and shops, Tehsil building and schools. Mithilesh Kumar, who is one of the appellants stated that prior to the issue of the notification under S. 4 (1) of the Act, he had submitted a plan to the Municipal Board for construction of 26 shops on the land in dispute which had been approved by the Municipal Board but before he could construct those shops the land acquisition proceedings were taken. The evidence on record clearly shows that the land is situated in the heart of the city in commercial area, having potential of building site. In fact the appellants had already submitted plan for construction of shops for letting out on rent. There is no escape from the conclusion that the land in dispute was a potential building site.;