Case: State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Swarup and Others

to a willing seller. So far as the sale deeds Exts. 1 and 2 are concerned, it is clear from the evidence that the purchaser could not have taken into account the benefit of the constructions when they offered to purchase at the prices agreed upon and incorporated in the sale-deeds. It seems that Dr. Nigam was keen to sell these plots, so that he could not expect any compensation for those constructions. In the circumstances, we cannot hold that the High Court committed any error in not deducting the price of the constructions when calculating the rate at which land was sold under these two sale-deeds. for the appellant referred us to two decisions In re South Eastern Railway Company v. London County Council, ((1915) 2 Ch D 252.) and Cedars RapidsManufacturing and Power Company v. Locoste and Others, ((1914) AC 569.) where it was held that when compensation is to be paid for compulsory acquisition, the price to the determined is that which the owner, whose land is acquired, would expect to be given to him. Relying on these cases, it was urged that, even when calculating the price of the exemplars Exts. 1 and 2, the price which Dr. Nigam expected should be taken into account and not the price which the purchasers in the two sale-deeds may have been expected to pay willingly. On the face of it, these two cases are not at all applicable for the principle sought to be supported on their basis. It is true that, when somebody is deprived of his land by compulsory acquisition, he must be paid the compensation by determining the value of the land to him, but that does not mean that, in calculating the market price, the value to the seller alone must be taken into account even in the case of a voluntary sale. Market value can only be properly ascertained by finding out what a willing purchaser would pay and what a willing seller would accept. The High Court, therefore, in adopting the principle and holding that the cost of constructions in the case of sales by Dr. Nigam must be ignored, did not commit any error. The High Court reduced the average rate worked out on the basis of the sale-deeds at Rs. 3.27 to Rs. 3/- on the basis that, after demolition of the constructions, the broken bricks available may represent benefit to such an extent as would cover price of that land at Rs. 27 per sq. ft. This decision, if at all, is favorable to the appellant inasmuch as it ignores the fact that, in order to get those broken bricks for use, the purchasers would have to spend money on labour required to dig out the existing constructions. In any case, the appellant can make no grievance at all that the High Court has ignored any deduction which should legitimately have been made in working out the rate.6. On the second point, we are unable to find any force in either of the two submissions made on behalf of the appellant. The argument was raised in the High Court as well as in this Court on the assumption that the land, which is being acquired, has a very large area, so that a number of roads, etc may have to be laid out in this land. In fact, the total area being acquired, as mentioned earlier is 84, 092 sq. ft. which is less than two acres. In order to develop land having an area of less than two acres, there can be no need for laying out extensive roads and lanes or a park. It is true that the Municipal Engineer, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, stated that, in case this area had been allowed to be developed privately, the Municipal Corporation would have required that a park should also be laid out; but we are unable to accept this statement from him, because, in a small area of less than two acres, only a few houses can be built and there would hardly be any need for leaving land for a park in order to avoid congestion. Of course, each house constructed may have to leave some open land within its compound when the land is divided into smaller plots for construction of separate houses. The roads and lanes also would not be required to be very extensive. In these circumstances, one road cutting across the first belt will surely be sufficient to enable traffic to go to the sub-plots in the second belt and, if that road be 20 ft. wide, it would only cover an area of 1, 000 sq. ft. out of the land comprised in the first belt. It may also be noticed that, according to the only map available on the record, the land acquired has not only Murtaza Hussain Road on one side of it, but it also has a â€˜kachhaâ€™ road on another side, viz to the north of it. Access to the land in the second belt would also be, therefore, available by converting that â€˜kachhaâ€™ road into a proper â€˜puccaâ€™ road, so that extra land will not be needed for construction of many roads or lanes. In the circumstances, we cannot say that he High Court committed any error in holding that an area of only 1, 000 sq. ft. out of the first belt and 25 per cent, of the land in the second belt should be left out for construction of roads, lanes, etc. We are also unable to accept that there is no principle which requires that, in calculating the market price of the land, account must be taken of the actual expenditure which will be incurred on construction of roads and lanes. That will be part of the development later which will naturally enhance the price of the land. Consequently, none of the points raised on behalf of the appellant for challenging the decree passed by the High Court has any force.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]5. So far as the first point is concerned, it appears from the evidence that the constructions that were made by Dr. Nigam could not be of much use to the purchasers. On the other hand, as the evidence of Nand Kishore Avasthi, one of the purchasers, shows, he had actually to demolish part of the constructions and had to incur extra expenditure for that purpose. Shyam Lal, who is concerned with the other, also stated that the material used in the constructions would have to be dug out when he made his constructions in the land sold under the other. In calculating the rate for purpose of an exemplar, the courts have to determine the market price which a willing purchaser would be prepared to pay to a willing seller. So far as the sale deeds Exts. 1 and 2 are concerned, it is clear from the evidence that the purchaser could not have taken into account the benefit of the constructions when they offered to purchase at the prices agreed upon and incorporated in theit was urged that, even when calculating the price of the exemplars Exts. 1 and 2, the price which Dr. Nigam expected should be taken into account and not the price which the purchasers in the twos may have been expected to pay willingly.On the face of it, these two cases are not at all applicable for the principle sought to be supported on their basis. It is true that, when somebody is deprived of his land by compulsory acquisition, he must be paid the compensation by determining the value of the land to him, but that does not mean that, in calculating the market price, the value to the seller alone must be taken into account even in the case of a voluntary sale. Market value can only be properly ascertained by finding out what a willing purchaser would pay and what a willing seller would accept. The High Court, therefore, in adopting the principle and holding that the cost of constructions in the case of sales by Dr. Nigam must be ignored, did not commit any error. The High Court reduced the average rate worked out on the basis of thes at Rs. 3.27 to Rs. 3/on the basis that, after demolition of the constructions, the broken bricks available may represent benefit to such an extent as would cover price of that land at Rs. 27 per sq. ft. This decision, if at all, is favorable to the appellant inasmuch as it ignores the fact that, in order to get those broken bricks for use, the purchasers would have to spend money on labour required to dig out the existing constructions. In any case, the appellant can make no grievance at all that the High Court has ignored any deduction which should legitimately have been made in working out the rate.6. On the second point, we are unable to find any force inr of thetwo submissions made on behalf of the appellant. The argument was raised in the High Court as well as in this Court on the assumption that the land, which is being acquired, has a very large area, so that a number of roads, etc may have to be laid out in this land. In fact, the total area being acquired, as mentioned earlier is 84, 092 sq. ft. which is less than two acres. In order to develop land having an area of less than two acres, there can be no need for laying out extensive roads and lanes or a park. It is true that the Municipal Engineer, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, stated that, in case this area had been allowed to be developed privately, the Municipal Corporation would have required that a park should also be laid out; but we are unable to accept this statement from him, because, in a small area of less than two acres, only a few houses can be built and there would hardly be any need for leaving land for a park in order to avoid congestion. Of course, each house constructed may have to leave some open land within its compound when the land is divided into smaller plots for construction of separate houses. The roads and lanes also would not be required to be very extensive. In these circumstances, one road cutting across the first belt will surely be sufficient to enable traffic to go to thes in the second belt and, if that road be 20 ft. wide, it would only cover an area of 1, 000 sq. ft. out of the land comprised in the first belt. It may also be noticed that, according to the only map available on the record, the land acquired has not only Murtaza Hussain Road on one side of it, but it also has a â€˜kachhaâ€™ road on another side, viz to the north of it. Access to the land in the second belt would also be, therefore, available by converting that â€˜kachhaâ€™ road into a proper â€˜puccaâ€™ road, so that extra land will not be needed for construction of many roads or lanes. In the circumstances, we cannot say that he High Court committed any error in holding that an area of only 1, 000 sq. ft. out of the first belt and 25 per cent, of the land in the second belt should be left out for construction of roads, lanes, etc. We are also unable to accept that there is no principle which requires that, in calculating the market price of the land, account must be taken of the actual expenditure which will be incurred on construction of roads and lanes. That will be part of the development later which will naturally enhance the price of the land. Consequently, none of the points raised on behalf of the appellant for challenging the decree passed by the High Court has any force.