State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication

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