MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Market Value Assessment Must Avoid Future Sale Transactions: Himachal Pradesh High Court Remands Land Acquisition Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has remanded a land acquisition compensation case for a fresh decision. The appeal, filed by the Collector Land Acquisition and the State, challenged the award dated 19.08.2011 by the Additional District Judge, Mandi, which had granted enhanced compensation for the acquired land. The High Court, presided over by Justice Virender Singh, directed the Reference Court to reassess the market value and compensation, adhering to the legal standards outlined in previous judgments.

The case stems from the acquisition of land owned by Ran Singh and others for the construction of the Sarori-Rissa road. The original compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was deemed insufficient by the landowners, who filed a reference petition seeking higher compensation. The Reference Court responded by granting enhanced compensation based on the commercial potential of the land.

Reference Court’s Decision: The Reference Court had granted enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 31.30 per square meter, along with solatium, additional compensation, and interest, noting that the market value of the land was not adequately assessed initially. The court’s decision was based on exemplar sale transactions and other relevant factors.

Grounds of Appeal: The appellants argued that the Reference Court’s reliance on post-notification sale transactions for determining market value was flawed. They contended that such transactions do not reflect the true value at the time of acquisition and that the awarded compensation was based on speculative assessments.

High Court’s Ruling: Justice Virender Singh, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in General Manager, OIL and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008), emphasized that market value assessment should avoid using future sale transactions. The judgment highlighted that post-acquisition developments can artificially inflate land prices, making future transactions unreliable for determining past market values.

The High Court underscored that subsequent sales should not influence the market value of acquired land. The principle is to use prior transactions as benchmarks, avoiding speculative enhancements. The judgment in Principal Secretary, PWD & others vs. Mehar Chand & others (2023) was cited, where similar issues led to a remand for fresh consideration.

Justice Virender Singh stated, “The assessment of market value should be avoided on the exemplar sale transactions, which have taken place after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act.”

The High Court’s decision to remand the case underscores the importance of adhering to established principles for market value assessment in land acquisition cases. By directing the Reference Court to reconsider the case, the judgment aims to ensure fair compensation based on reliable and legally sound methods. This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to just and equitable treatment of landowners affected by state acquisitions.

Date of Decision: May 01, 2024

Collector Land Acquisition & Another vs. Ran Singh & others

Latest Legal News