SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KAIRA Vs. JAYANTILAL RATILAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sale instances relied upon by the claimant are definitely that of small pieces of land but simply on that count it cannot be said that they are not comparable sale instances. In this case the land sought to be acquired is a residential one. and it is a part of a bungalow. It is situated very near to the bus stand and it is in the heart of the town itself. It is not a case of agricultural land being acquired and then to be converted to non-agricultural use and a substantial portion thereof to be kept apart for the purposes of road etc. The land which is being acquired is a fully developed land and it forms part of a bungalow and therefore these sale instances are required to be taken into consideration as comparable sale instances.

(2.) The three sale instances which have been produced and sought to be relied upon are of the land which is situated in nearby locality. The price ranges from Rs. 36/- to Rs. 51/- per square metre. The respondent original claimant has claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square metre. Having regard to the transactions that have taken place in the proximity of time, round about the date of notification, after making some marginal deduction for the largeness of the area under acquisition Rs. 30/- per square metre would be the proper price to be determined as the market price of the land on the date of acquisition. In this case, only marginal deduction would be possible because of the fact that the land acquired is also a residential one. It did form part of a bungalow. It is not an agricultural land for which conversion and development costs may hats to be incurred. Therefore after deducting Some marginal amount, even if we take the price of Rs. 36/- per Square metre which is the lowest amongst the sale instances produced then Rs. 30/- per square metre would be the proper market price for the purposes of determination of compensation on the date of notification.

(3.) As regards severance charges, there is no other evidence except that of the claimant. He has not pointed out as to how he is likely to suffer this much expenses and how he would be affected on account of this severance. Hence, as far as severance charges are concerned, no enhancement is called for. Appeal dismissed.