eng
competition

Text Practice Mode

DATE 26/11/2021 TEST FOR MPHC JUNIOR JUDICIAL ASSISTANT BY ACADEMY FOR STENOGRAPHY, MORENA,DIR- BHADORIYA SIR

created Nov 26th 2021, 09:00 by mahaveer kirar


3


Rating

417 words
20 completed
00:00
Notification we find no force in the contention. It is seen that the respondents themselves had admitted during cross-examination that the lands were aggregation. They had set up a poultry farm in it and to that small extent it was being used as such. Both the reference Court and the Land Acquisition Officer found, as a fact, that the lands are agricultural lands. The High Court has noted in the judgment that some development and already taken place around the area and in the neighborhood there is a railway station, hospital and school etc. On that basis the High Court has held that the lands had the potential value for building purposes. The finding is wholly unsustainable on the basis of the evidence on record. It is seen that as on the date of the notification admittedly the land were being used for agricultural purposes and a part of the land was used for poultry purposes. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that the lands have the potentiality to be used as building sites as on the date of the notification Sale deed dated September 8, 1982 was executed just before the notification was published under Section 4 in respect of an extent of 198 square yards of land which worked out to Rs. 30/- per square yard. By no stretch of imagination of the compensation. Ex. A-4 is, therefore, rejected as no prudent purchaser would be willing to purchase vast extent of land on that basis. The feats of imagination of the Division Bench of the High court had run riot.
When Ex. A-4 is excluded from consideration, the only question the arises is whether the lands could be determined as possessing building value in hypothetical layout, as contended by Shri Venugopal Reddy. Land Acquisition Officer as was which was noted in the judgment. In view of that development this Court had laid down the criterion in determining the market value. The ratio thereof has no application to the facts in this case. The question of deduction would arise only when the lands are found to have potential value and there is evidence of development in the neighborhood. Facts as found by the reference Court and also Land Acquisition Officer clearly indicate that there was no development in the area or in the neighborhood as on the date of the notification. Under those circumstances, the High Court was wholly wrong in determining the market value treating the acquired lands as possession potential value.    

saving score / loading statistics ...