Similarly the Ext.
Rejecting the companytention that the agreements were spurious, the High Court observed that the very fact that applications were made for diversion and for sanction of lay out plan went to show that the owner was interested in the development in the land and in selling it after dividing it into plots.
8 of 1970 to the Compensation Tribunal under Section 72 3 of the Act.
A part of land of Ref.
The appellant made refer ence, No.
1,84,293.
Regarding nature of the land the Tribunal numbered that the claimants in most of the references asserted that the ac quired land should be valued as urban house site because of alleged potential value and had claimed companypensation between the Rs.3 to Rs.
10,000 for loss of business and earnings, his total claim amounting to Rs.
If those lands were the urban developed house site lands, their prices would have reflected the same.
D 2 made in the sale deed of 1962 selling only to 12.50 sqr.
amounting to Rs.11,997.00 for the well Rs.3,108 and for the trees Rs.815 and for companypulsory acqui sition 15 amounting to Rs.2,400.
Thus the Tribunal by its award dated 25th November, 1972 awarded a total sum of Rs.1,20,060 inclusive of interest as companypensation to the appellant, as against his claim at the rate of Rs.20,000 per acre for the land, Rs.20,000 for the building, Rs.5,000 for the well, Rs.2,500 for the trees and Rs.
1.88 to 2.34 per sqr.
The High Court also numbericed that the land abutted to roads, namely, Berasia road and P.G.B.T. College road and the claimant had a house on the land and that the claimant had stated that he had obtained water and electricity companynection from the Corporation and the electricity Board.
12,000 per acre and the total area being 12.62 acres the total companypensation inclusive of that allowed for the house etc.
1 of 1970.
to Rs.
The price fetched for smaller extent of land similarly situated with the same kind of advantages and drawbacks can also be applied to a large area valued plot wise instead of block wise.
1 per sqr.
13,39,560.
78 of 1974.
The vendor and the respective vend ees were examined It should be numbered that the Exts.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.10.1980 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.
D 1 to D 6 which pertained to small plots of lands out of land in reference No.
This tarred road was companystructed by the Trust after acquisition of the lands.
By Ext.
The market value on the basis of Ext.
Kumharpura was numbered to be two to three furlongs away from the acquired land.
78 of 1974, the High Court maintained the award in respect of the Build ing, well and the trees, but enhanced the companypensation in respect of the land determining the market value at Rs.
P 1, P 2, P 3 and P 8 and the sale deeds Exts.
As 50 of the land at least had to be left out for roads etc so the market rate of 3 annas per sqr.
The High Court did number say that these Exts.
On 25.3.1966 Notifi cation under Section 71 of the Act was issued vesting the land in the Trust.
for Rs.260 which worked out to Rs.8712 per acre.
were agreements to sell and number sales.
Dissatis fied, the appellant obtained leave and filed this appeal.
It goes on all sides of village Jamalpura, which is surrounded on all sides by the lands of Ref.
In the instant case relying on Exts.
were rejected.
The High Court also numbered that there was numberhing to show that the agreements were prepared only to be used later as evidence of market value.
and the agreements mentioned that 4 annas per sqr.
The lowest rate of price in these agreements was 14 annas per sqr.
into companysideration.
However, poten tial value was number separately companysidered.
The respective purchasers and the vendors were examined.
On appeal, being Misc.
1 per sqr.
P 5, P 6 and P 32 small parcels of land, at Kumharpura were sold.
Just before the gate, a tarred road bifurcates on the right hand side and it enters the acquired land of Swatantra Kumar Ref.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The High Court rightly held that the Exts.
The High Court also companysidered the sale deeds Exts.
was applied for the entire unde veloped land.
On both sides of this road, there is the thickly habited locality of Shahjahanabad, till about two furlongs.
7.60 acres of land out of 12.62 acres had been diverted and the land was even.
This charge was to be paid by the purchaser.
The Tribunal awarded companypensation at the rate of Rs.6,000 per acre Rs.0.28 Paise per sqr.
ranged from Rs.
In January 1961 application was also made to the Town Planning Authority for sanction of the lay out plan but in the meantime the land was numberified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act sometimes in 1962 and Phool Chand Gupta tried to extricate his land from acquisition which, however, did number materialise and, as already numbered, on 30.4.65 the instant numberification to ac quire under Section 68 of the Act was issued.
It was further agreed that the vendees would pay development charges at the rate of 4 annas per sqr.
190/ 73, 136/74, 178/74, 135/75 76, the total area being 12.62 acres.
P 1, P 2, P 3, and P 8 being agreements of sale executed by Phool Chand Gupta who was father of the claimant in reference No.
There was numbererror of principle and hence there can be numbergrievance on these companynts.
D 1 to D 6 furnished a more reliable data for working out the market value.
In U.P. Government v.H.S. Gupta, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 202 where in companyputing companypensation for acquisition of an estate outside the Municipal area the High Court had given valid and weighty reasons for adopting the principle that the valuation should be on plot wise though there was certain advantages in companyputing the value at the block rate where vast area of land was acquired, this Court held that in the circumstances of that case the proper mode of valuation was plot rate basis.
Slightly ahead is the enterance porch gate of the Military lines.
The Trust disputed the claim and urged that the lands at the time of acquisition, were either agricultural or merely fallow land and they had absolutely numberurban site value.
78 of 1974, allow ing the appeal and enhancing companypensation for land acquired by the Improvement Trust, Bhopal.
1 of 1970.
Southern boundary of the land was a Nala.
2931 N of 1981.
Out of these acquired land the instant appellant owned 12.62 acres where upon stood a house, a well and some trees.
D 1 to D 6 also pertained to small plots of land out of land in refer ence No.
The whole of the acquired land including that of the appellant was within the limits of Bhopal Municipal Corporation.
So the price of developed land would be Rs.
P 1, P 2, P 3 and P 8 were agreements of sale executed on 29th July, 1961 in respect of small parcels of land wherein the vendor agreed to sell the land at that time at the rate of 14 annas per sqr.
Dr. L.M. Singhvi learned companynsel for the appellant submits, inter alia, that the house and the well were gross ly undervalued that both the Tribunal as well as the High Court misdirected themselves in treating the land as agri cultural land but number as urbanised developed land on the erroneous ground that there was numberbuilding activity of substantial nature at the time of acquisition in spite of the fact that a part of the land was already companyverted to Abadi, that both the Tribunal as well as the High Court failed to take into companysideration the potential value of the land and that evidence of sales of similar plots was number accepted on the ground that those pertained to small plots and that the High Court companymitted an error when it deducted the development charge from the agreed price instead of adding it to the agreed price while calculating the market value.
The claimants also urged that the lands were situated within Corporation limits and lands of some of the claimants were already diverted company verted .
M. Singhvi, D. Bhandari and A.K. Sanghi for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. SAIKIA, J. This Civil Appeal by special leave is from the order dated 7.10.1980 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Misc F Appeal No.
S. Krishnamurthy Iyer and S.K. Gambhir for the Respondent.
The Improvement Trust, Bhopal, hereinafter referred to as the Trust, acquired 152 acres of land of Village Jamal pura by Notification dated 30th April, 1965 issued under Section 68 of the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and took posses sion of the land sometimes in June, 1967.
The market rate according to these Exts.
for the land, Rs.5,000 for the building, Rs.3,000 for the well and Rs.815 for the trees.
P 1, P 2, P 3 and P8 and companysidering the fact that applications were made for diversion and for sanction of a lay out plan the High Court found that it went to show that the owner was interested in developing the land and in selling it by dividing it into plots.
and the market rate for unimproved land in the light of these agreements worked out to 6 annas per sqr.
Even so, from the map and juxtaposition we have numberdoubt that the acquired land had potentialities which deserved to be companynted.
In Decem ber 1960 Phool Chand Gupta applied for diversion of his land to the Sub Divisional Officer.
Thus, the High Court, rightly took into companysideration the above Exts, which pertained to a part of the acquired land of 152 acres.
There was an additional factors in the calculation.
Those sale deeds were registered in 1966 67, but the agreements to sale were entered into in 1959 62.
The High Court found that the land was bounded on three sides by three roads towards the eastern side by Berasia road towards the western side by Sultania road and towards the numberthern side by P.G.B.T. College Road.
From the award dated 25.11.1972 it appears that the acquired land was situated at Village Nissatpura, within Corporation limits of Bhopal Town and companysisting of Khasra No.
and 15 solatium worked out to Rs.
The Trust offered companypensation at the rate of Rs.950 per acre 14 paise per sq.
1/70 was developed after acquisition, and the tarred road reaches the developed plots.
Market rate thus worked out to Rs.8,000 per acre approximately.
However, the High Court awarded Rs.
8 of 1970.
12,000 per acre.
1 of 1970 while the petitioners reference was No.
