IMPORTANT CASE LAWS ON PRINCIPLES OF

VALUATION OF REAL ESTATE

Syllabus Review – On Line Class

By .Er.K.Sundarapandian,MRICS
IIV -RVF

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 1

 (1) R.C.Cooper Vs. Union of India, (1970) AIR SC 564

• IN BANK NATIONALISATION CASE, THE SUPREME COURT HAS

EXPLAINED “PROPERTY’’ MEANS THE “HIGHEST RIGHT” A MAN
CAN HAVE TO ANYTHING, BEING THAT RIGHT WHICH ONE HAS TO
LANDS OR TENEMENTS, GOODS OR CHATTELS WHICH DOES NOT
DEPEND ON ANOTHER’S COURTESY:
• IT INCLUDES OWNERSHIP, STATES AND INTERESTS IN CORPOREAL
THINGS, AND ALSO RIGHTS SUCH AS TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS,
PATENTS AND EVEN RIGHTS IN PERSONA CAPABLE OF TRANSFER
OR TRANSMISSION, SUCH AS DEBTS, AND SIGNIFIES A BENEFICIAL
RIGHT TO OR A THING CONSIDERED AS HAVING A MONEY. ‘
’VALUE, ESPECIALLY WITH REFERENCE TO TRANSFER OR
SUCCESSION, AND TO THEIR CAPACITY OF BEING INJURED”. THUS
THE COURT HAS INCLUDED ALL TYPES OF PROPERTY VIZ.
TANGIBLE.

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 2

 Judgment

• The Honble Supreme Court has in

case of R.C. Cooper Vs. Union of India reported as AIR 1970 SC 564 noted
that as per the dictionary meaning "compensation" means anything given
to make things equal in value: anything given as an equivalent, to make
amends for loss or damage. This principle has also been recognized by the
Honble Supreme Court in the case of N.B. Jeejeebhoy Vs. Assistant
Collector, Thana Prant, Thana reported as AIR 1965 SCC 1096 has in
relation to article 31 of the constitution Appeal No. 210 of 2017 & IA No.
05 of 2018 Page 17 of 75 of India wherein it was held that the expression
"compensation" in Art. 31(2) of the Constitution means "just equivalent" of
what the owner has been deprived of. Compensation is a comprehensive
term and is aimed at restoring a party to the same position as if no injury
was caused to him, as held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of
Yadava Kumar Vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and
Anr., reported as (2010) 10 SCC 341 and judgments in case of Secy,
Irrigation Department, Govt. of Orissa Vs. GC Roy reported as (1992) 1
SCCC 508 (CB) and Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta Vs. Engineers-
De-Space-Age reported as (1996) 1 SCC 516.

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 3

(2) SORAB TALATI vs JOSHEPH MICHEM APPEAL 101 OF 1949 - VOL.- 2
OF SOC – PAGE 162 (BOMBAY)
(INVEST THEORY OF RENT)

• SMALL CAUSES COURT OF BOMBAY, LAID DOWN PRINCIPLES OF

RENT FIXATION (STANDARD RENT). THE COURT APPROVED OF
INVESTMENT THEORY IN PREFERENCE TO COMPARABLE RENT
THEORY TO FIX STANDARD RENT OF THE RENT CONTROLLED
PREMISES. THE COURT CONSIDERED RETURN OR YIELD FROM GILT
EDGED SECURITY AS THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING FAIR RETURN
TO THE LANDLORD ON HIS INVESTMENTS IN LAND AND
BUILDINGS. COMPARING FORMS OF SOUND INVESTMENTS VIZ.
GOVT. SECURITY AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, THE COURT
UPHELD FOLLOWING RETURNS AS FAIR RETURNS TO LANDLORD
ON HIS CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN LAND AND BUILDINGS.

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 4

 SORAB TALATI vs JOSHEPH MICHEM APPEAL 101 OF 1949 - VOL.- 2
OF SOC – PAGE 162 (BOMBAY)
(INVEST THEORY OF RENT) Cont--

• A) 1.50% RETURN I .E. MORE THAN THE AVERAGE YIELD ON

LONG TERM GOVERNMENT SECURITY WAS APPROVED AS
FAIR RETURN ON LAND INVESTMENT AND
• B) 2.50 % RETURN MORE THAN THE AVERAGE YIELD ON
LONG TERM GOVERNMENT SECURITY WAS APPROVED AS
FAIR RETURN ON INVESTMENT IN BUILDINGS.
• C) FOR LEASEHOLD PROPERTIES, 1% EXTRA YIELD ON BOTH
TYPES OF INVESTMENT WAS CONSIDERED FAIR, TO
ACCOUNT FOREXTRA RISK OF INVESTING CAPITAL.

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 5

 (3) CWT Vs. P.N. Sikand (1977) 107 ITR 922 (SC)

• The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon a decision of

the Supreme Court in CWT v. P. N. Sikand [1977] 107 ITR 922.
In that case, the question of law was as to how the value of a
leasehold interest in immovable property, in which the lessor
had a right to share the price in case of sale, was to be valued
under the W.T. Act. It was held that the lessee being the
assessee, the interest belonging to him alone could be the
subject-matter of valuation. Whatever interest the lessor had
in the sale consideration was liable to be deducted so as to
arrive at the correct value of the lessee's interest in the
property.
3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 6
 CWT Vs. P.N. Sikand (1977) 107 ITR 922 (SC)

• In this case, no question of making deduction by way of

necessary expenses attachable to the event of sale was
considered. The point emphasised by their Lordships was that
in the case of an asset, which is owned by more than one
person, the value of the assessee's interest alone is liable to
be taken as the value of the asset in the hands of the
assessee. This case is clearly distinguishable, because in the
present case, the assessee is the exclusive and sole owner of
the unquoted shares. No one else is entitled to share in the
sale proceeds in case they "are sold.

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 7

 (4) WENGER & CO. vs DVO (1978) 115 ITR 648 DELHI HC
(COMBINATION OF METHODS)

• DELHI HIGH COURT, HELD, “DVO ADOPTED TWO METHODS TO

VALUE THE PROPERTY. FOR OWNER OCCUPIED PORTION, DVO
CALCULATED VALUE ON THE BASIS OF WHAT WERE THE RATES
PREVALENT FOR SALE OF COMMERCIAL FLATS IN CONNAUGHT
PLACE EXTENSION AREA. FOR THE TENANTED PORTION HE
CAPITALISED THE RENTAL VALUE.
• IT IS WELL-KNOWN FACT THAT GIVING POSSESSION OF
BUILDINGS, THOUGH PREVIOUSLY RENTED OUT, FETCHES BETTER
MARKET PRICE. IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT THE
HYPOTHETICAL PURCHASER WOULD LET OUT SELF-OCCUPIED
PORTIONS WHICH HE BUYS FROM HYPOTHETICAL SELLER OR
WOULD LET OUT SUCH PORTIONS IN THE CONDITION IN WHICH
HE BUYS THEM.
• THE METHOD ADOPTED BY DISTRICT V.O. AND HIS APPROACH IS
NOT ONLY ACCEPTABLE BUT ALSO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PRINCIPLES OF EVALUATION. “

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 8

 (5) JAWAJI NAGNATHAN vs REV. DIV. OFFICER (1994) SCC - 4 PAGE
595 SC THE COURT HELD, “IT IS THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT

• THE BASIC VALUATION REGISTER PREPARED AND

MAINTAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTING STAMP
DUTY HAS NO STATUTORY BASE OR FORCE. IT CANNOT
FORM A FOUNDATION TO DETERMINE THE MARKET VALUE
MENTIONED THERE UNDER IN INSTRUMENT BROUGHT FOR
REGISTRATION.
• EVIDENCE OF BONAFIDE SALES BETWEEN WILLING PRUDENT
VENDOR AND PRUDENT VENDEE OF THE LAND ACQUIRED
OR SITUATED NEAR ABOUT THAT LAND POSSESSING SAME
OR SIMILARADVANTAGEOUS FEATURES WOULD FURNISH
BASIS TO DETERMINE MARKET VALUE.

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 9

 (6) Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. SLAO, Pune
AIR 1988 SC 1652

• THE FOLLOWING FACTORS MUST BE ETCHED ON THE

MENTAL
• SCREEN:
• (1) A REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT IS NOT AN APPEAL AGAINST THE AWARD
UNLESS THE SAME MATERIAL IS PRODUCED AND PROVED
BEFORE THE COURT.
• (2) SO ALSO THE AWARD OF THE LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER IS NOT TO BE TREATED AS A JUDGMENT OF THE
TRIAL COURT OPEN OR EXPOSED TO CHALLENGE BEFORE
THE COURT HEARING THE REFERENCE.

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 10

 (6) Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. SLAO, Pune
AIR 1988 SC 1652 Cont----

• CONTINUED…. .
• (3) THE COURT HAS TO TREAT THE REFERENCE AS AN
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING BEFORE IT AND DETERMINE THE
MARKET VALUE.
• (4) THE CLAIMANT (PLAINTIFF) HAS TO SHOW THAT THE
PRICE OFFERED FOR HIS LAND IN THE AWARD IS
INADEQUATE ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIALS PRODUCED
IN THE COURT.
• (5) THE MARKET VALUE OF LAND UNDER ACQUISITION HAS
TO BE DETERMINED AS ON THE CRUCIAL DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE NOTIFICATION UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT (DATES OF NOTIFICATIONS UNDER
SECS. 6 AND 9 ARE IRRELEVANT).
3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 11
 (6) Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. SLAO, Pune
AIR 1988 SC 1652 Cont----

• CONTINUED…. .
• (8) ONLY GENUINE INSTANCES HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT. (SOME TIMES INSTANCES ARE RIGGED UP IN
ANTICIPATION OF ACQUISITION OF LAND).
• (9) EVEN POST NOTIFICATION INSTANCES CAN BE TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT (1) IF THEY ARE VERY PROXIMATE, (2)
GENUINE AND (3) THE ACQUISITION ITSELF HAS NOT
MOTIVATED THE PURCHASER TO PAY A HIGHER PRICE ON
ACCOUNT DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS.
• (10) THE MOST COMPARABLE INSTANCES OUT OF THE
GENUINE INSTANCES HAVE TO BE IDENTIFIED ON THE
FOLLOWING ONSIDERATIONS: (I) PROXIMITY FROM TIME
ANGLE (I I) PROXIMITY FROM SITUATION ANGLE.
3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 12
 (6) Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. SLAO, Pune
AIR 1988 SC 1652 Cont----

• CONTINUED…. .
• (11) HAVING IDENTIFIED THE INSTANCES WHICH PROVIDE
INDEX OF MARKET VALUE, PRICE REFLECTED THEREIN MAY
BE TAKEN AS THE NORM AND MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND
UNDER ACQUISITION MAY BE DEDUCED BY MAKING
SUITABLE ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE PLUS AND MINUS
FACTORS VIS-A-VIS LAND UNDER ACQUISITION BY PLACING
THE TWO IN JUXTAPOSITION.
• (12) A BALANCE-SHEET OF PLUS AND MINUS FACTORS MAY
BE DRAWN FOR THIS PURPOSE AND THE RELEVANT FACTORS
MAY BE EVALUATED IN TERMS OF PRICE VARIATION AS A
PRUDENT PURCHASER WOULD DO
3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 13
 (6) Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. SLAO, Pune
AIR 1988 SC 1652 Cont----

• CONTINUED…. .
• (13) MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND UNDER ACQUISITION HAS
• THERE AFTER TO BE DEDUCED BY LOADING THE PRICE
REFLECTED IN THE INSTANCE TAKEN AS NORM FOR PLUS
FACTORS AND UNLOADING IT FOR MINUS FACTORS
• (14) THE EXERCISE INDICATED IN CLAUSES COMPARISON
FACTORS: - PLUS FACTORS MINUS FACTORS
1. SMALLNESS OF SIZE - OR - LARGENESS OF AREA.
2. ROAD PROXIMITY - OR - INTERIOR FROM THE ROAD.
• CONTINUED…. .

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 14

 (6) Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. SLAO, Pune
AIR 1988 SC 1652 Cont----

• CONTINUED…. .
• 3. ROAD FRONTAGE – OR - NARROW STRIP OF LAND
• 4. REGULAR SHAPE – OR – UNSHAPED LAND
• 5. DEVELOPED AREA NEARNESS – OR - REMOTENESS
• 6. LAND LEVEL – OR - LOWER LEVEL REQUIRING THE
DEPRESSED PORTION TO BE FILLED UP
• 7.SOME SPECIAL DISADVANTAGEOUS ACQUISITION FACTOR
WHICH WOULD DETER A PURCHASER.
• 7.SPECIAL VALUE FOR AN OWNER OF AN ADJOINING
PROPERTY TO WHOM IT MAY HAVE SOME VERY SPECIAL
ADVANTAGE.
• CONTINUED…. .
3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 15
 (6) Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. SLAO, Pune
AIR 1988 SC 1652 Cont----

• CONTINUED…. .
• (15) THE EVALUATION OF THESE FACTORS OF COURSE
DEPENDS ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. THERE CANNOT BE
ANY HARD AND FAST OR RIGID RULE. COMMON SENSE IS
THE BEST AND MOST RELIABLE GUIDE. FOR INSTANCE, A
BUILDING PLOT OF LAND SAY 500 TO 1000 SQ. YDS CANNOT
BE COMPARED WITH A LARGE TRACT OF LAND OF 1000 SQ.
YDS OR MORE. FIRSTLY WHILE A SMALLER PLOT IS WITHIN
THE REACH OF MANY, A LARGE BLOCK OF LAND WILL HAVE
TO BE DEVELOPED BY PREPARING A LAY OUT, PROVIDING
ROADS, OPEN SPACE, PLOTTING SMALLER PLOTS, WAITING
FOR PURCHASERS (MEANWHILE THE INVESTED MONEY WILL
BE BLOCKED UP) AND THE HAZARDS OF AN ENTREPRENEUR.
• CONTINUED…. .
3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 16
 (6) Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. SLAO, Pune
AIR 1988 SC 1652 Cont----

• CONTINUED…. .
• THE FACTORS CAN BE DISCOUNTED BY MAKING A DEDUCTION OF
AN ALLOWANCE AT AN APPROPRIATE RATE RANGING APPROX.
BETWEEN 20% TO 50% FOR LAND REQUIRED TO BE SET APART
FOR PLOTTING SMALL PLOTS. DISCOUNTING WILL TO ALSO
DEPEND ON WHETHER A RURAL AREA OR URBAN AREA, UILDING
• ACTIVITY IS PICKING UP, AND WAITING PERIOD DURING WHICH
ENTREPRENEUR’S CAPITAL WOULD BE LOOKED UP, WILL BE
LONGER OR SHORTER AND THE ATTENDANT HAZARDS.
• (16) EVERY CASE MUST BE DEALT WITH ON ITS OWN FACTS
PATTERN BEARING IN MIND ALL THESE FACTORS AS A PRUDENT
PURCHASER OF LAND IN WHICH POSITION THE JUDGE MUST
PLACE HIMSELF.
3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 17
 (7)

(7) CED Vs. Radhadevi Jalan (1968) 67 ITR 761 (Cal)

• In the case of CED v. Radha Devi Jalan [1968] 67 ITR 761

(Cal), the Hon'ble High Court observed (at page 770) :
• "Lastly, in the case of buildings which are in the possession
of tenants and the tenants cannot either be evicted or the
rent payable by them enhanced except in accordance with
the provisions of the Rent Control Act, the only appropriate
method of valuation is to capitalize the annual rent by
certain number of years' purchase. The method of valuing
the land and the building separately and adding up the
values would be improper in such cases, because that
would ignore the impact of the Rent Control Act on the
value of the land and the building."

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 18

 (8) CIT Vs. Ashima Sinha (1979) 116 ITR 26 (Cal)

• The method indicated in Parks' Valuation at p. 37 clearly applies to such

facts and, in our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly applied the "yield or
rental method" for the valuation in the instant case.
• We entirely agree with the principles laid down in Radha Devi Jalan
[1968] 67 ITR 761 (Cal) and find that the Tribunal has correctly applied
the same in the instant case. If a statutory control is imposed on a
commodity, restricting the price, or transfer, or distribution of the same
then, in our opinion, the commodity ceases to be a commercial
commodity as understood in common parlance and becomes a
controlled commodity and its effective value is its controlled value and
not an imaginary commercial value. If the State chooses to impose
statutory control in respect of terms and conditions for tenancies in
properties and such control is statutorily enforced then during the
subsistence of such control such properties would necessarily have a
value which is controlled. The State cannot then turn round and say that
for other purposes the properties would have a notional commercial
value. To hold otherwise would be to ignore the realities.

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 19

 CIT Vs. Ashima Sinha (1979) 116 ITR 26 (Cal) Cont..

• We have given careful and anxious thought to the rival submissions of the parties. In
the case of R. S. Tandon (supra) the jurisdictional High Court has considered the
question of addition of reversionary value of land in the value of property
determined through the rent capitalization method. The Revenue in the case before
the Hon able High Court justified addition of reversionary value with similar plea that
the land would revert back to the land owner. The Hon able High Court repelled this
contention and held that reversionary value of land was not a factor to be
considered while determining the fair market value of property. The Court held that
it is impossible to pull down a building which is partly occupied by tenants. The
applicability of rent control legislation makes it difficult, virtually impossible to get
rid of tenants. The Court approvingly referred to decision of Calcutta High Court in
the case of CIT vs. Ashima Sinha (1979) 116 ITR 26 (Cal) wherein it is observed that
when a property is valued on the rental basis, the resulting value is value of land and
building taken together. The value of land cannot be added again by adding the
"reversionary" value of the land because the building is very old. Reference is then
made to another decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anup Kumar
Kapur (1980) 125 ITR 684 (Cal). The Hon able High Court further referred to the
decision of Hon able Allahabad High Court in the case of CWT vs. Ram Saran Kajiwal
(1968) 68 ITR 485 (All) and concluded as under :

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 20

 (9) CIT Vs. Anupkumar Kapoor & others
(1980) 125 ITR 684 (Cal)

• The Tribunal held that there was no procedural defect in the

initiation of the said proceedings for the acquisition of the
said property. The Tribunal further held that the property
being fully tenanted, the appropriate method of valuation of
the said property would be to capitalize only the rent by a
certain number of years of purchase as laid down by this court
in CED v. Radha Devi Jalan [1968] 67 ITR 761 and the valuation
made by the Valuation Officer under the land and building
method was bad in law.

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 21

 (9)
(10) CIT Vs. Smt. Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel
(1979)118 ITR 134 (Guj)

• Lastly, even in relation to the method of valuation,

Mr. Mehta submitted that in the rental method a
multiplier rate of 8 1/3 times has been upheld and
further it has been held that the minimum valuation
beneficial to the assessee must be adopted. Reliance
was placed
on CIT v. Smt. Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel & Smt.
Kamlaben Kanjibhai Patel [1979] 118 ITR 134 (Guj),
wherein it was observed as under at p. 198 :

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 22

 Case Laws Points to Remember
• 01.Property includes ownership, estates and interests in corporeal
things and also rights such as trademarks, copyrights, patents.
• a) Sorab Talati Vs Josheph Michem
• b) Rustam C Cooper Vs Union of India
• c) Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs P. N. Sikand
• d) Wenger & Co Vs District Valuation Officer ‐ Delhi Hc

• 02.In this case, the court approved of investment theory in p

reference to comparable rent theory to fix standard rent of the
rent controlled premises. The court considered return or yield fro
m Gilt Edged security as the basis.
• a) Rustam C. Cooper Vs Union of India
• b) Sorab Talati Vs Josheph Michem
• c) Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs P. N. Sikand
• d) Wenger & Co Vs District Valuation Officer ‐ Delhi HC

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 23

 Case Laws Points to Remember
• 03.In which of the following case, the court has for the first
time approved of Investment theory of Rent fixation, by allowi
ng 1.50 percent more return than the return on gilt edged securi
ty on value of land and 2.5 percent extra yield on the cost of the
building, as fair return to the landlord on his investment in an
immovable property?
• a) Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs P. N. Sikand
• b) Sorab Talati Vs Joseph Michem
• c) Wenger & Co Vs District Valuation Officer ‐ Delhi HC
• d) Jawaji Nagnathan Vs Revenue Divisional Officer
• 04.The Doctrine of Unearned Increase was enunciated because of
a famous court judgement. Select the correct judgement.
• a) Sorab Talati Vs Josheph Michem
• b) Commissioner of Wealth Tax, New Delhi vs. Sri P.N. Sikand
• c) Wenger & Co Vs District Valuation Officer ‐ Delhi HC
• d) Jawaji Nagnathan Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 24

 Case Laws Points to Remember
• 05.The landmark judgement, Commissioner of Wealth Tax, New Delhi
Vs. Sri P.N. Sikand (1979) 107 ITR 922 (SC) states that:
• a) only the lessor has the right to the increase in value
• b)the increase in value of the leasehold interest of the property leased is
to be equally shared by both the lessor and lessee.
• c) only the lessee has the right to the increase in value
• d)the ratio of the lessor’s and lessee’s share is to be determined by negoti
ation.
• 06.For owner occupied portion, the District valuation officer calculat
ed the value on the basis of what were the rates prevalent for sale
if commercial flats in cannaught place. For the tenanted portion, he ca
pitalised the rental value. The method adopted by him is acceptable.
• a) Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs P.N. Sikand
• b) Wenger & Co Vs District Valuation Officer ‐ Delhi HC
• c) Jawaji Nagnathan Vs Revenue Divisional Officer
• d) Sorab Talati vs Josheph Michem

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 25

 Case Laws Points to Remember
07.In which of the following cases, the court approved compara
ble sales method of valuation for owner occupied portion of the bui
lding and rental method of valuation for tenanted portion of the sam
e building.
• a) Rustam C. Cooper Vs Union of India
• b) Wenger & Co Vs District Valuation Officer ‐ Delhi HC
• c) Sorab Talati Vs Josheph Michem
• d) Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs P.N. Sikand

08.Basic valuation register for the purpose of collecting stamp duty c

annot form a foundation to determine the market value
a) Commissioner Of Wealth Tax Vs P. N. Sikand
b) Jawaji Nagnathan Vs Revenue Divisional Officer
c) Chimanlal Harigovinddas Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer
d) d) Wenger & Co Vs District Valuation Officer ‐ Delhi HC

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 26

 Case Laws Points to Remember
• 09.The court cannot take into account the award passed by the SLAO
unless it is produced and proved before the court. The market value is to
be determined as on date of publication of the notification under sec
4 of LAA. Plus factors and minus factors are to be considered while dete
rmining the market value.
a) Jawaji Nagnathan Vs Revenue Divisional Officer
b) Chimanlal Harigovinddas Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer
c) Commissioner Of Wealth Tax Vs P. N. Sikand
d) Wenger & Co Vs District Valuation Officer ‐ Delhi HC 3/6
• 10.The method of valuing the land and the building separately and addin
g up the value would be improper in such cases, because that would igno
re the impact of Rent Control Act on the value of the land and building.
a) Chimanlal Harigovinddas Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer
b) Controller of Estate Duty Vs Radha Devi Jalan
c) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel
d) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Anup Kumar Kapoor and ors

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 27

 Case Laws Points to Remember
• 11.The rate of capitalisation should be not unreal and must ha
ve regard to the commercial rate of return after taking inro consi
deration the various constraints and insecurities in the propety ma
rket.
• a) Controller of Estate Duty Vs Radha Devi Jalan
• b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel
• c) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Anup Kumar Kapoor and ors.
• d) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Smt. Ashima Sinha
• 12.The valuation officer under the method adopted by him, has tak
en the value of the land twice, once in arriving at the figure by the
yield or rental method and again in applying the reversionary meth
od. This is in our view was wholly wrong.
• a) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Vimlaben Bhagwandas Patel
• b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Anup Kumar Kapoor and ors.
• c) Chimanlal Harigovinddas Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer
• d) Controller of Estate Duty Vs Radha Devi Jalan

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 28

 Case Laws Points to Remember
• 13.The court approved of Tribunal’s decision to allow 10% de
duction in value to account for sale of undivided share in the pro
perty or
In the method adopted by the valuation officer, the value of land ta
ken twice viz.
• i) the amount included in the yield method and ii) again under the r
eversionary method. This is a novel approach but in our view is err
oneous.
• a)Chimanlal Harigovinddas Vs Special Land Acquisition
Officer
• b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Smt. Ashima Sinha
• c)Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Vimlaben Bhagwandas
Patel
• d) Controller of Estate Duty Vs Radha Devi Jalan

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 29

 Case Study - END

3/10/2021 IIV -RVF MEP On Line Class 30