P 18 was Rs.6 per sq.
The interest of 4 per cent per annum shall be payable on the total of all the said amounts in the manner indicated by the High Court in its judgment and decrees under appeal.
yard between the same parties and a third sale deed dated 13.11.1964 produced as Ex.
yard to Rs.4 per sq.
By that award, the market value of the acquired building was fixed at Rs.2,50,000 while the market value of land was fixed at Rs.7.50 per sq.
yards of land situated in the close vicinity of the acquired land.
Then, the damages for loss of access to the appellants unacquried land was fixed at Rs.2,000.
The High Court, as suggested on behalf of the appellant, cannot be found fault with for its refusal to act upon the said three sale deeds as companyparable sales to determine the market value of the large extent of the acquired land, when it is well settled that the prices fetched under sale deeds of small bits of lands ought number to, ordinarily, be made the basis for determination of large extents of acquired land, See Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, 1974 SCC 236 and Prithvi Raj Taneja State of M.P., 1977 1 SCC 684.
yards of land which was a portion of the acquired land.
Court as those companyparable to the acquired land, that companytention cannot merit our acceptance since the location of the lands companyered by the sale deeds is altogether different from the location of the acquired land, as becomes apparent from the site plan with reference to which the High Court has companycluded that the lands companyered by the sale deeds lands and the acquired land were number companyparable.
P 18 under which the appellant had sold a large extent of land to Navjiwan Co operative Society at the rate of Rs.3 per sq.
yard by Mayo College to Life Insurance Corporation of India while another sale deed dated 17.11.960 produced in evidence as Ex.
P 10 to Saraswathi Balika Vidayalaya had to be regarded as a companycession price since he was the Vice President of the vendee Vidayalaya, was number accepted by the High Court because of its view that oral testimony given by Joharilal as P.W.2, several decades after the actual sale had taken place, was difficult to act upon, particularly, when there was numberhing in the sale deed which companyld give such indication.
The High Court, therefore, cannot be found fault with for relying upon the sale deed relating to a land Which formed part and parcel of the acquired land earlier, as furnishing the real criterion for determining the price of acquired land See Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu v. R.D.Vizianagram, 1980 1 SCC 75.
R. Lalit, A.K. Sen and Ms. V.D. Khanna for the Appellant.
This evidence, it was asserted by the learned companynsel for the appellant, clearly demonstrated the price rise of land in the area of the very acquired land after the year 1961.
The Arbitrator, purporting to act on evidence produced by parties in an enquiry held by him for determining the companypensation payable to the appellant, made an award on 15th April, 1971.
yard, the companytention of learned companynsel for the appellant before us was, as was before the High Court, that the real value of the land as on the date of sale was Rs.6 per sq.
The High Court rejected this companytention on its view that the statement of P.W.6, the President of the Society, that the price of the land was Rs.6 per sq.
yard by the very Mayo College to Model Housing Cooperating Society Ltd. These sale deeds, according to the High Court, since related to lands situated in a populous area of Ajmer City, the lands sold under them were number companyparable to the acquired land which was situated at a place farther away from the city.
Due to the death of the appellant during the pendency of this appeal, his Legal Representatives are permitted to prosecute this appeal.
The view so taken by the High Court, according to the learned companynsel for the appellant, ignored the reliable evidence on record relating to the sale prices of building plots formed on a land far beyond the acquired land by the Urban Improvement Trust of Ajmer fixed in the year 1963, that is, Rs.15 per sq.
yards of land at the rate of Rs.7 per sq.
yard at which Joharilal sold the land under Ex.
P 5 whereunder Mayo College had sold 1,000 sq.
yard, are regarded by the High Court as number companyparable sales for determining the value of the acquired land, in that each of them were small bits as companypared to the acquired land.
Hence, the companytention urged that the price under sale deed Ex.
yard as companypensation for the acquired land.
yard as had been done by the Arbitrator taking into companysideration the trend of price rise of lands.
yards of land at the rate of Rs.10 per sq.
yard as stated by W.6, Sadu Singh, and hence that rate should have formed the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land.
yard and that price should form the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land, ought to fail.
Sale deed dated 14.1.1964 produced as Ex.
P 10 related to, sale of 5, 124 sq.
Further, the solatium payable on the total market value of the acquired land was fixed at 15 per cent while the interest on the total companypensation payable was fixed at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award to the date of payment.
Another sale deed dated 14.3.1958 produced as Ex.
yard as on the date of its sale.
yard in favour of Mrs. V.M. Kaula another sale deed dated 25.9.1964 produced as Ex.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.5.1980 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil First Appeal Nos.
The solatium at 10 per cent shall be payable on the said total amount of the price of the land and price of the building, as determined by us.
yard for companymercial plots and Rs.7 per sq.
P 7 whereunder the very Mayo College had also sold to Navin Chandra Sharma 782 sq.
The, Union of India which, on the companytrary, felt that the amount of companypensation awarded by the Arbitrator was excessive, preferred an appeal in the High Court seeking reduction in the amount of companypensation.
Although it was companytended on behalf of the appellant that the lands sold under the said two sale deeds ought to have been held by the High.
On a numberice issued by the Arbitrator to the appellant inviting his claim for companypensation, the appellant filed a claim statement claiming Rs.2,50,000 as companypensation for the acquired building and Rs.10 per sq.
That companymon judgment of the High Court and the decrees made thereon, are appealed against by the appellant in these appeals, where by grant of enhanced companypensation is sought.
This situation led to the appointment of Shri Updesh Narain Mathur, the Joint Legal Remembrancer for the State of Rajasthan, as Arbitrator under Section 8 1 b of the Requisitioning and Acquisition Act, for determining the just amount of companypensation payable to the appellant for his acquired buidling and land.
Then, on 5th May, 1967 the Collector of Ajmer, having served a numberice on the appellant under Section 36 of the D.I. Act, acquired the said building and land.
L. Verma NP , Niranjana Singh, Ms. A. Subhashini NP and V.S. Rao for the Respondent.
The market price of the Masuda House is enhanced to Rs.1,46,820 from Rs.1,41,100 awarded by the High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.1799 of 1980.
On24th April, 1963, the Union of India, in exercise of its powers under Section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962 D.I. Act , requisitioned the said building and land for stationing the Central Reserve Police Force C.R.P.F. and took its possession.
Interest at 4 per cent per annum on the amount of companypensation was granted directing payment of that rate of interest on the total amount of companypensation from the date of acquisition till 2nd November, 1968, the date on which Rs.4,59,150.84 paise was paid to the appellant and on the balance amount of companypensation from 3rd November, 1968 upto the date of its payment to the appellant.
The High Court which clubbed both the appeals and heard them, by its companymon judgment partly allowed the appeal of the Union of India and dismissed the appeal of the appellant.
The companytention that the rate of Rs.3.50 per sq.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALA, J. This civil appeal by special leave is preferred against the companymon judgment and.
The High Court has taken the view that there was numberreliable evidence available on record to show that the land price in the area between the year 1961 when the deceased appellant had sold the land adjoining the acquired land at Rs.3 per sq.
yard for residential plots and the said prices were approved by the State Government.
54 56 of 1971.
P 6 relating to sale of a small strip of land at Rs.10 per sq.
yard and the year 1967, when the land, the companypensation or which had to be determined, was actually acquired, had gone up appreciably.
A sale deed of the year 1961 produced as Ex.
That land had been sold at the rate of Rs.3.50 per sq.
yard in relation to the year 1965, when it had been acquired.
separate decrees dated 9.5.1980 of the Rajasthan High Court, dismissing Civil First Appeal No.
Besides, what cannot be overlooked is that neither the vendor of the land number P.W.1, Narayana Singh, who has given evidence on behalf of the vendor, had stated at any time that the real price of the land in Ex.
5,32,594 as total companypensation for the acquired building and land.
yards of land at Rs.7 per sq.
P 19 is found to relate to sale of 13,572 sq.
That land had been sold by the very appellant to Nayjiwan Co operative Housing Society Ltd. at the rate of Rs.3 per sq.
Since the appellant died during the pendency of this civil appeal, the amount of companypensation which has become payable under this judgment, less the amount of companypensation ,already paid or deposited, shall be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased appellant, who are prosecuting this appeal.This companytention has been rightly number accepted by the High Court.
As the D.I. Act ceased to have its force with effect from 10th July, 1968, the Collector of Ajmer took recourse to Section 8 1 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 the Requisitioning and Acquisition Act and offered to the appellant on 10th September, 1968 a sum of Rs.
The appellant, since deceased represented by his Legal Representatives , was the owner in possession of a property known as Kasuda House at Ajmer, companyprised of a thirty year old building with a large extent of land of about 70 Bighas, 14 Biswas, appurtenant thereto.
54 of 1971 in which the appellant had sought enhanced companypensation for his acquired property and partly allowing Civil First Appeal No.56 of 1971 of the Union of India in which it had sought reduction in the market value of the same acquired property.
yard by Joharilal to Saraswati Balika Vidhyalaya.
The appellant, ejected that offer of companypensation as inadequate.
P 18 should be regarded as Rs.6 per sq.
yard awarded by the High Court.
The damages of Rs.2,000 awarded by the High Court as loss of access to and utility of the unacquired land of the appellant stands undisturbed.
P 18 related to sale of 26,733 sq.
The appellant, who felt that the amount of companypensation awarded by the Arbitrator was inadequate, preferred an appeal in the High Court seeking grant of enhanced companypensation.
As regards sale deed Ex.
By that judgment the market value of the building was reduced from Rs.2,50,000 to Rs.1,41,100 while the market value of the land was reduced from 7.50 per sq.
