Land costs must be the same within a village

Written by Indu Bhan | Indu Bhan | Updated: Jan 9 2013, 05:55am hrs
Auction purchasers need not pay full amount on the spot Upholding the Delhi High Courts judgment that approved the sale of a prime property in the case of Ram Karan Gupta vs J S Exim Ltd, the Supreme Court said that when an auction is for large amounts, running into crores of rupees, nobody can expect the auction purchaser to pay the amount in cash on the fall of the hammer.

It said that the facts (in this case) would reveal that the auction purchaser had paid R2.40 crore, may not be in cash, but by way of drafts and the balance amount, i.e. 75 % of the bid amount, was also paid within the stipulated period. Consequently, in our view, the auction purchaser had complied with the provisions of Order 21 Rules 84 and 85 of the Civil Procedure Code.

According to the apex court, the term immediately is required to be construed as meaning with all reasonable speed, considering the circumstances of the case.

Insurers to first pay victim then claim amount due

The Supreme Court in the case of stated Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Saju P Paul has held that an insurance company must first pay the compensation to a road accident victim and then it may recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle in a third party insurance case. Whether such an arrangement is permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 has been already referred to a larger bench five years ago.

In this case, Saju, who sustained permanent disability, was travelling in a goods vehicle as a spare driver. Saju was awarded a compensation of R3 lakh by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in 2002. Even the Kerala High Court ruled in favour of the claimant. Taking cognisance of the peculiar facts of the case, the apex court allowed the victim to withdraw the money and the insurance company was allowed to recover it from the owner of the vehicle. Earlier, it had asked the company to deposit the compensation money in a fixed deposit. The insurance company had argued that Saju was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and therefore the risk was not covered by the policy.

Govt must be fair in compensation

The Supreme Court in the case of Salaha Begum vs Special Land Acquisition Officer has held that the state government cannot discriminate owners of land in calculating compensation. In this case, land belonging to Salaha and others in Srirampuram village, Mysore Taluk was acquired by the state government in 1995 for R65,000 per acre. While the reference court determined the compensation at the rate of R1 lakh per acre, the Karnataka High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to R1.7 lakh per acre. On further appeal, the Supreme Court granted the rate of R2.2 lakh per acre with 10% benefit for two years, as an adjacent land was sold two years earlier at that rate.

The apex court said that the HC committed a serious error as once it accepted a sale deed of 1993, where compensation was paid at the rate of R2.2 per acre, there could be no justification for awarding less compensation to Salaha and others.