VIJAYSINGH LILADHAR NATHUMAL RAJMAL BALDOTA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER:SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are original claimants whose lands were placed under acquisition pursuant to a notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published on 8/03/1956. By the said notification a large block of undeveloped agricultural land admeasuring about 101 acres 33 gunthas was placed under acquisition for a public purpose viz. : for constructionof the 'headquarters, Poona Rural Police Charge'. Dissatisfied with the determination of market value made by the High court by its judgment dated 1/03/1972 the appellants have approached this court by way of the present appeals. Another land owner whose lands were placed under acquisition, by the identical notification for the identical purpose has also approached this court by way of Civil Appeals Nos. 2721 and 2722 (N) of 1972 which are being disposed of by a separate judgment. Since the lands belonging to the appellants were acquired under the identical notification and the appeals relating to said lands were also disposed of by the High court by the aforesaid common judgment rendered on 1/03/1972, the present appeals by special leave were heard together with the aforesaid two appeals. As the questions involved in the present two appeals are common and the reasoning which commended to the High court applies equally to the matters pertaining to the appellants, the present appeals can also be conveniently dealt with in accordance with the view taken by us in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona.

(2.) In the present appeal, the land under acquisition is comprised in Survey Nos. 85 and 86. There were two parcels of lands, one admeasuring 2 acres and 1/4 gunthas, and another admeasuring 13 acres and 17 gunthas. Insofar as the smaller parcel admeasuring 2 acres and 1/4 gunthas is concerned, the trial court has awarded Rs. 33,975. 00 by way of compensation. The High court has increased the amount awarded to the appellant from Rs. 33,975. 00 to Rs. 35,223.98. No doubt the basis of computation adopted by the High court is different from the basis adopted by the trial court. But in the ultimate result the High court has enhanced the compensation. It is not shown that the High court has undervalued the lands. No good reason is shown of interfere with the total amount of compensation awarded by the High court. The amount awarded by the High. court will accordingly remain undisturbed.

(3.) Insofar as the larger parcel admeasuring 13 acres and 17 gunthas is concerned, the High court has taken the view that this land forming a part of Survey No. 86 was situated much in the interior. Having regard to the situation, the High court was of the opinion that development would take about 12 years to reach the appellant's land. On this premise the High court has valued the land at Rs. 7,000. 00 per acre. The High court has also reached the conclusion that a deduction of 25 per cent required to be made for selling aside land for roads and open spaces etc. So far, the High court's view is unexceptionable. But having computed the compensation on these premises, the High court further directed that a further deduction should be made in order to find out the 'present value' of the total amount computed on the basis of valuation at Rs. 7,000. 00 (less 25 per cent) on the premise that this amount wouldcome to the hands of the vendor only after 12 years. In Chimanlal Hcirgovimidas case we have taken the view that the High court was perfectly justified in determining the market value at Rs. 7,000. 00, subject to deduction at 25 per cent to account for land needed for roads and open spaces etc. We have also taken the view that the High court was not justified in directing that a further deduction should be made on the basis of Miram's Tables in order to find out the 'present value' of the sum computed on the aforesaid basis on the premise that this amount would be fetched after a time lag of 12 years. It is not necessary to reiterate the same reasoning in the context of the present appeals for the reasons have been elaborately set out in Chimanlal Hargovinddas case. We must accordingly pass an order in the same terms as we passed in Chimanlal case :