NDLI: Trishala Jain and Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1894 Land Acquisition Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss.23 and 24: Fair market value of the acquired land - Determination of - Land Acquisition Officer applied the belting system and categorizing the land into three different categories awarded the compensation accordingly - However, Reference Court held that the land as a whole was similarly placed and was to be used for one purpose, thus there was no question of applying the belting system and accordingly awarded uniform compensation to all the claimants - This finding of Reference Court upheld by the High Court - Correctness of this concurrent view not questioned by any of the parties before the Supreme Court - Held: The concurrent· finding recorded by the Courts below having remained unchallenged before the Supreme Court need not be interfered with. Fair market value of the acquired land - Determination of - Sale instances (exemplars) - Claimants placed reliance upon two sale instances and sought compensation on that basis - Reference Court declined to consider the two sale instances produced by the claimants - Justification of- Held: Justified - Both the seller and the purchaser in the sale instances relied upon by the claimants were either claimants in different claim petitions or belonged to the same family - The claimants had full knowledge of acquisition of/and as well as the purpose for which the said land was sought to be acquired - Circumstances and evidence clearly indicate that there was clear attempt on the part of the claimants to execute sale deeds for the purpose of hiking up land price just before acquisition to get more compensation - The said two sale instances were sham, collusive, lacked bona fides and were executed with the intention to raise the price of the land in question with the pretence of it being actual market value - Decision of Reference Court rightly upheld by the High Court.Determination of market value of acquired land - Principle of deduction inland value covered by a comparable sale instance - Applicability of -Deduction on account of expenses of development of the site - Held: Normally deduction is to be applied on account of carrying out development activities like providing roads or civic amenities such as electricity, water etc. when the land has been acquired for construction of residential, commercial or institutional projects - It shall also be applied where the sale instances (exemplars) relate· to smaller pieces of land and in comparison the acquisition relates to a large tract of land - In addition thereto, deduction can also be applied on account of wastage of/and - The cases where the acquired land itself is fully developed and has all essential amenities, before acquisition, for the purpose .for which it is acquired requiring no additional expenditure for its development, falls under the purview of cases of 'no deduction' - Furthermore, where the evidence led by the parties is of such instances where the compensation paid is comparable, i.e. exemplar lands have F all the features comparable to the proposed acquired land, including that of size, is another category of cases where principle of 'no deduction' may be applied - In the instant case, there is evidence on record to show that plotting was done only on part of the acquired land and the land is Surrounded by colonies like ITBP etc. but, there is no evidence to show that the acquired land itself is developed wind is having all the required facilities and amenities - It may be a case where less deduction may be applied but certainly it is not a case of 'no deduction' - It also cannot be believed,an the absence of specific documentary evidence, that no further development is required on the acquired land - Under the circumstances, no infirmity in the approach of the High Court in applying the principle of deduction - In the facts and circumstances of the present case, deduction of 10% from the market value on account of development charges and other possible expenditures was justifiable and called for. Determination of Compensation - Application of principle of guesstimate for determining the amount of compensation - Held: More often than not, it is not possible to fix the compensation with exactitude or arithmetic accuracy - Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may have to take recourse to some guesswork while determining the fair market value of the land and the consequential amount of compensation that is required to be paid to the persons interested in the acquired land - 'Guess' as understood in its common parlance is an estimate without any specific information while 'calculations' are always made with reference to specific data - 'Guesstimate' is an estimate based on a mixture of guesswork and calculations and it is a process in itself - 'Guesstimate' is with higher certainty than mere 'guess' or a 'conjecture' per se - However, principle of some guesswork would have hardly any application in a case of no evidence - Discretion of the court in applying guesswork to the facts of a given case is not unfettered but has to be reasonable and should have a connection to the data on record produced by the parties by way of evidence - Further, this entire exercise has to be within the limitations specified under ss. 23 and 24 of the Act and cannot be made in deterinent thereto - On facts, it is a case of acquisition of land which is situated on a reasonably good location surrounded by developed areas having civic amenities and facilities and further development activity was going on in nearby areas - The land acquired had the potential of being developed for residential or institutional purposes and the same wasacquired for construction of a Government Polytechnic Institute. Therefore, it is a case where the Court should apply. A minimal deduction·which will meet the ends of justice and would help in determining just and fair compensation for the land in question - 10% deduction from the market value of the acquired land would meet the ends of justice.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 360
Petitioner	Trishala Jain And Anr.
Respondent	State Of Uttaranchal And Anr.
SCR	[2011] 8 S.C.R. 520
Judgement Date	2011-05-05
Case Number	7496-7497

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Trishala Jain and Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Hansraj H. Jain Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition, Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Madhubai Gobarbhai & Anr.

M/s. Ahad Brothers Vs. State of M.p. and Anr

Ravinder Narain and Anr. Vs. Union of India

Ashok Kumar & Anr. Etc. Vs. State of Haryana

State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Kartar Singh (d) Through Lrs.

Spl. Land Acquisition Officer . Vs. Maharani Biswal and Ors.

Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Chakas Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.

Trishala Jain and Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Anr.

Trishala Jain and Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Hansraj H. Jain Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition, Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Madhubai Gobarbhai & Anr.

M/s. Ahad Brothers Vs. State of M.p. and Anr

Ravinder Narain and Anr. Vs. Union of India

Ashok Kumar & Anr. Etc. Vs. State of Haryana

State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Kartar Singh (d) Through Lrs.

Spl. Land Acquisition Officer . Vs. Maharani Biswal and Ors.

Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Chakas Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.

Trishala Jain and Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Anr.