Case: Mirza Nausherwan Khan &amp; Anr Vs. The Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad

with his appeal under a certificate which he secured under Art. 133 (1) (a) before the recent amendment. We mention this because we are unable to discern any substantial question of law of general importance in counsels submission or the points outlined in the memorandum of appeal which merits the consideration of this Court.6. Merely because the claim is large the judgment need not be long and, although the appellant tried to spread the canvas wide, we regard the points deserving of consideration as falling within a narrow compass. The burden of the song has been that Hyderabad has, for historical reason, become a great city and that the land acquired has precious potential value which has not entered the judicial computation at the lesser levels. (By way of aside one may say that socio-economic development of a City may enhance the value of space without any the littlest contribution by its owner and it is, in one sense, unfair that society should pay to an individual a higher price not because he has earned it but because of other development factors. Of course, we are concerned with the Land Acquisition Act as it is and this thought therefore need not be pursued). Counsel has also urged that the land and the building taken together had personality of its own and therefore a special value, missed by the courts below, should be ascribed and the methodology of breaking up the totality into building and lands separately and sub-dividing the land into two portions on the principle of belting was all wrong. It was also urged before us that the multiple of 27 for purposes of capitalisation, adopted by the High Court was inadequate and that the owner was entitled to capitalisation by multiplication 33 1/3 times.7. We find that the High Court has carefully considered all available points, indeed stretching them in favour of the appellant, where that was warranted by the facts. The potential value of the land was quite within the ken of the Judge who heard the appeal and weighed with the Court in the assessment made. However, the High Court noted that no evidence whatever was placed on record in substantiation of any big potential value based on the unique feature of the land. On the other than, the totality of factors was duly considered by the High Court when it observed:"Having regard to the physical features of the property, its situation in an important locality and the price paid for a small extent of level ground acquired for the Telephone Exchange which is at a distance of about half a mile from the property acquired, we hold that the compensation awarded by the Court below at Rs. 20/- per square yard for the 2042 square yards constituting the 50 wide belt and at Rs. 10/- per square yard for the rest is fair and reasonable.We see no error in this evaluation.8. It is true that the Court has adopted a higher value for a strip 50 feet wide adjoing the road, based on the principle of belting. There is no doubt that when we deal with value of an extensive plot of land in a City the strip that adjoins an important road will have a higher value than what is in the rear, for obvious reasons of potential user or commercial exploitation. While no general principle can be laid down in these matters, local circumstances guide the Courts. The ruling in Mohini Mohan v. Province of Bengal, AIR 1951 Cal 246 and the principle, with its limitations set out in Kunjukrishna v. State, AIR 1953 Trav-Co 177 are suficient to bring out our point. Indeed, the objection to divide the plot for purposes of differential valuation has not been taken at the proper level. On the contrary, it has been adopted originally at the instance of the appellant himself, before the Collector, and we are satisfied that such an approach has operted to his benefit and not detriment. The Court has taken note of the well-established distinction between the value of a tiny plot as being no measure when a large area is acquired. The terrain, in this case, appears to have been uneven with difference in levels to the extent of 27 feet and boulders here and there making building operations expensive in the initial preparation of the site. We conclude by saying that practically every relevant factor placed on record has received fair consideration before the High Court.9. The next question is whether the multiple adopted for capitalisation has been prejudicially low. Exhibit A-7, the notification produced by the appellant, itself shows that around the middle of 1957 the rate of interest allowed on Government Securities at the relevant time ranged between 3 1/4% and 4 %. The Court accepted 3 1/4% as interest on giltedged securities instead of 4%, thus giving some advantage to the appellant and there is no warrant for the contention that the interest on Government bonds was 3% at the relevant time. The appellant apparently has sought to mis-read Ex. A-7. We are satisfied with the valuation of the rented portion of the house adopted by the High Court as correct.10. Shri Pillai argued in vain for an augmentation of the value on the potential user of the plot for a Cinema House. This story has been factually disbelieved by the Courts below and we cannot reopen the matter. We must also remember that the Court below has been indulgent enough to adopt a multiple of 27 despite the fact that the buildings acquired are over 30 years old. Nor does it come with grace from the appellant to contend against the belting method since he himself had asked for its application before the Collector and the trial Court.11. We are thus satisfied that there is no law, no fact, which comes to the rescue of the appellant and his appeal, virtually against concurrent findings of fact, therefore, deserves to be, and is hereby, dismissed with costs.12.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]5. It is thus clear that from the Collector to the Civil Court and on to the High Court, there has been an escalation in the amount of compensation and hopefully, the owner has reached this Court with his appeal under a certificate which he secured under Art. 133 (1) (a) before the recent amendment. We mention this because we are unable to discern any substantial question of law of general importance in counsels submission or the points outlined in the memorandum of appeal which merits the consideration of this Court.6. Merely because the claim is large the judgment need not be long and, although the appellant tried to spread the canvas wide, we regard the points deserving of consideration as falling within a narrow compass. The burden of the song has been that Hyderabad has, for historical reason, become a great city and that the land acquired has precious potential value which has not entered the judicial computation at the lesser levels. (By way of aside one may say that socio-economic development of a City may enhance the value of space without any the littlest contribution by its owner and it is, in one sense, unfair that society should pay to an individual a higher price not because he has earned it but because of other development factors. Of course, we are concerned with the Land Acquisition Act as it is and this thought therefore need not be pursued). Counsel has also urged that the land and the building taken together had personality of its own and therefore a special value, missed by the courts below, should be ascribed and the methodology of breaking up the totality into building and lands separately and sub-dividing the land into two portions on the principle of belting was all wrong. It was also urged before us that the multiple of 27 for purposes of capitalisation, adopted by the High Court was inadequate and that the owner was entitled to capitalisation by multiplication 33 1/3 times.7. We find that the High Court has carefully considered all available points, indeed stretching them in favour of the appellant, where that was warranted by the facts. The potential value of the land was quite within the ken of the Judge who heard the appeal and weighed with the Court in the assessment made. However, the High Court noted that no evidence whatever was placed on record in substantiation of any big potential value based on the unique feature of the land.It is true that the Court has adopted a higher value for a strip 50 feet wide adjoing the road, based on the principle of belting. There is no doubt that when we deal with value of an extensive plot of land in a City the strip that adjoins an important road will have a higher value than what is in the rear, for obvious reasons of potential user or commercial exploitation. While no general principle can be laid down in these matters, local circumstances guide the Courts.Shri Pillai argued in vain for an augmentation of the value on the potential user of the plot for a Cinema House. This story has been factually disbelieved by the Courts below and we cannot reopen the matter. We must also remember that the Court below has been indulgent enough to adopt a multiple of 27 despite the fact that the buildings acquired are over 30 years old. Nor does it come with grace from the appellant to contend against the belting method since he himself had asked for its application before the Collector and the trial Court.11. We are thus satisfied that there is no law, no fact, which comes to the rescue of the appellant and his appeal, virtually against concurrent findings of fact, therefore, deserves to be, and is hereby, dismissed with costs.