SATISH & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

SATISH & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

All comparable sale deeds must be examined in determining compensation under Section 23. Building potentiality is a relevant factor. The High Court's approach in relying solely on one sale deed and ignoring others was incorrect; market value of both groups of cases should be determined at Rs.115/- per square yard.

Parties
Appellant: Satish & Ors.; Respondent: State of U.P. & Ors.; Respondent: National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.; Advocate: Raju Ramachandran; Advocate: Kailash Vasudev; Advocate: Ranjit Kumar; Advocate: Geetanjali Mohan; Advocate: Jamshed Bey; Advocate: Parmanand Gaur; Advocate: Ankur Saigal; Advocate: Bina Gupta; Advocate: Gaurav Singh Binu Tamta; Advocate: Mukti Chowdhary; Advocate: Shantanu Krishnan; Advocate: R.K. Gupta; Advocate: Manoj Kr. Dwivedi; Advocate: Gunnam Venkateswara Rao; Advocate: Naresh K. Sharma; Advocate: Kamlendra Mishra (NP); Advocate: Ashok K. Srivastava (NP)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Compensation Determination, Market Value of Land, Building Potentiality, Valuation Methods
Land Acquisition Compensation Law Compensation Determination Market Value of Land Building Potentiality Valuation Methods

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satish & Ors.

Appellant

State of U.P. & Ors.

Respondent

National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.

Respondent

Raju Ramachandran

Advocate

Kailash Vasudev

Advocate

Ranjit Kumar

Advocate

Geetanjali Mohan

Advocate

Jamshed Bey

Advocate

Parmanand Gaur

Advocate

Ankur Saigal

Advocate

Bina Gupta

Advocate

Gaurav Singh Binu Tamta

Advocate

Mukti Chowdhary

Advocate

Shantanu Krishnan

Advocate

R.K. Gupta

Advocate

Manoj Kr. Dwivedi

Advocate

Gunnam Venkateswara Rao

Advocate

Naresh K. Sharma

Advocate

Kamlendra Mishra (NP)

Advocate

Ashok K. Srivastava (NP)

Advocate

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should the market value of acquired land be determined for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act?
  2. 2 Are factors such as building potentiality, nature, and location of land relevant in compensation determination?
  3. 3 Was the High Court correct in relying on a single sale deed and disregarding other comparable sale deeds?

Ratio Decidendi

All comparable sale deeds must be examined in determining compensation under Section 23. Building potentiality is a relevant factor. The High Court's approach in relying solely on one sale deed and ignoring others was incorrect; market value of both groups of cases should be determined at Rs.115/- per square yard.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Market value of acquired land to be determined at Rs.115 per square yard for both groups.
  • National Thermal Power Corporation to pay compensation promptly as determined by High Court.