Sale Deed Invalid After Revocation of Power of Attorney: Madras High Court Supreme Court Declares WhatsApp Service of Notices Invalid Under Notices under Section 41-A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS Doctrine of Natural Justice Cannot Be Invoked to Evade Regulatory Compliance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Petition Against Consumer Forum Order Presence of Metallic Foreign Bodies in X-ray Corroborates Firearm Injury" – Patna High Court School Records Alone Insufficient to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Without Corroboration: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case Double Payment for the Same Claim Is Against Public Policy: Karnatka High Court Remits Case to Commercial Court Land Acquisition | Once the Government Funds an Acquisition, Public Purpose Cannot Be Disputed: Bombay High Court When a Man Acts in the Heat of the Moment, Law Must Recognize the Loss of Self-Control: KERALA HIGH COURT Absence of Bank Seal on Cheque Return Memo Not a Ground for Acquittal: Calcutta High Court Convicts Accused in Cheque Bounce Case Confiscation is Not Automatic: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Release of Seized Vehicle in NDPS Case False Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Can Constitute Mental Cruelty Justifying Divorce: Gujarat High Court Bail Cannot Be Granted in Cases of Commercial Drug Trafficking: Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Alleged International Drug Cartel Member Magistrate Can Rely on Victim’s Section 164 Statement Over Section 161 Statement: Allahabad High Court Upholds Closure Report in Kidnapping and Rape Case State Liable for Electrocution Injury to Minor Due to Uncovered High-Voltage Wire: J&K and Ladakh High Court Unexplained Delay of 586 Days in Filing Appeal Cannot Be Condoned as a Matter of Right: Supreme Court Sets Aside Karnataka High Court’s Order A Purchaser During Litigation Cannot Claim Superior Rights Over a Decree-Holder: Supreme Court Upholds Doctrine of Lis Pendens Violation of Natural Justice at the Initial Stage Cannot Be Cured at the Appellate Stage: Supreme Court Denial of Fair Hearing Strikes at the Very Core of Justice: Supreme Court Upholds Selection of Shiksha Karmis Merit Alone Must Prevail: Supreme Court Strikes Down Residence-Based Quota in PG Medical Courses Selective Prosecution and Missing Witnesses: Supreme Court Slams Conviction Based on Incomplete Evidence Conviction Cannot Rest on Unreliable Eyewitnesses and Mere Recovery of Weapon: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Need for Legal Recognition of Live-in Relationships:  Rajasthan High Court Calls for Mandatory Registration Judicial Discipline Demands Uniformity: Rajasthan High Court Refers Protection of Married Persons in Live-in Relationships to Special Bench

Land Valuation Must Reflect True Market Potential: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment on July 10, 2024, affirmed the enhanced compensation for land acquired for constructing a flood protection wall in Akola, Maharashtra. The ruling underscored the necessity of considering true market potential and credible evidence in land valuation, setting a significant precedent for future land acquisition cases.

The case centered around multiple appeals concerning the market value determination for lands acquired for a flood protection wall in Akola. The appellants, including Kazi Akiloddin and other landowners, contested the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), arguing for higher compensation based on the land’s non-agricultural potential and surrounding developments.

The Supreme Court meticulously evaluated the evidence, emphasizing the importance of reliable sale instances and credible testimonies. The court noted that the sale deeds produced by the appellants were between unrelated parties, reinforcing their credibility. “The evidence adduced must be scrutinized with a view to determining the true market potential of the land,” the court observed.

Importance of Proper Valuation:

Highlighting the principles of fair market valuation, the court stated, “In determining compensation, the potentialities of the land existing as on the date of the notification must be considered.” The judgment referred to previous rulings, including State of Orissa vs. Brij Lal Misra and Sardara Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector, to underline the necessity of considering the land’s potential for development.

Rejecting Suspicious Transactions:

The court dismissed the State’s argument that certain sale deeds were suspicious due to their proximity to the acquisition notification. “Transactions between unrelated parties at arm’s length should be preferred over those between related parties, especially when executed just before the acquisition notification,” the court ruled.

The Supreme Court extensively discussed the legal framework governing land acquisition and compensation. The court reiterated that market value should reflect the price a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller at arm’s length. “Market value determination is an intricate exercise requiring consideration of diverse economic criteria and surrounding developments,” the judgment stated.

Justice K.V. Viswanathan remarked, “The statutory regime must ensure that landowners are fairly compensated based on the true market potential of their land. The evidence presented must be robust, credible, and reflective of the land’s actual value.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court, highlighting the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fair compensation in land acquisition cases. This decision reinforces the importance of credible evidence and accurate market valuation, setting a crucial precedent for future cases.

Date of Decision: July 10, 2024

Kazi Akiloddin vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Similar News