1996 JTR(SC) 1976
1997 AIR(SC) 1791 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 1060 ; 1997 1 AllCJ 588 ; 1998 33 AllLR 337 ; 1997 1 CLT(SC) 249 ; 1997 1 ICC 799 ; 1996 11 JT 254 ; 1995 3 LLJ 290 ; 1996 9 Scale 28002 ; 1997 2 SCC 637 ; 1996 Supp9 SCR 171 ; 1997 KHC 1621 ; 1997 1 Supreme 206
1997(1) Supreme 206
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Shimla Development Authority & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Smt. Santosh Sharma & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No.15550 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10752 of 1991)
Decided on 22-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : H.K. Puri, Advocate for Naresh Kr. Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Deduction of 40% of compensation towards development charges is an application of correct principle which calls for no interference.
Act
Referred
:GENERAL CLAUSES ACT : S.27
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.23
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read in conjunction with the General Clauses Act, Section 27, governs the procedure for acquisition of land and deemed service of notices where actual receipt is not established. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and notification under Section 4(1) authorise publication and fixation of compensation, which may be enhanced on reference and subject to controlled deductions for development charges as validated under Section 4(1). The impugned judgment applies these provisions to validate the notified acquisition at Patti Rihana I and II and Kasumpti Junga, the enhancement of compensation, and the permissible 40% deduction for development.
(B) Key legal principles include: deemed service of notice when actual service is unproven, statutory authority for publication of notification, power of the District Judge to enhance compensation, appellate review limited to correcting errors, and acceptance of a consistent judicial ratio capping development charge deductions at 40% where location and development justify it.
Facts of the case:
Notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 23.1.1986 for land at Patti Rihana I and II and Kasumpti Junga in District Shimla. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 40,000 per bigha, which was enhanced by the District Judge to Rs. 1,00,000. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the enhanced compensation after deducting 40% as development charges. Attempted service of notice in July 1991 remained unacknowledged, with no response received from the respondents.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly applied the principle of compensation enhancement and the permissible 40% deduction for development. The appellate courts findings on location-based development needs and proportionate deductions were within reasonable bounds and attract no interference. No material illegality or error was found.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in confirming the compensation after a 40% deduction for development charges and whether the deemed service of notice was valid in the absence of actual receipt.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where notice is demonstrably unacknowledged, deemed service is valid under procedural law; compensation enhancement by the District Judge is subject to appellate review with a consistent judicial ratio approving up to 40% deduction for development based on location and necessity, and such deduction was reasonably applied in this case.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed, the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 with a 40% development charge deduction is confirmed, and the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 189 stands.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read in conjunction with the General Clauses Act, Section 27, governs the procedure for acquisition of land and deemed service of notices where actual receipt is not established. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and notification under Section 4(1) authorise publication and fixation of compensation, which may be enhanced on reference and subject to controlled deductions for development charges as validated under Section 4(1). The impugned judgment applies these provisions to validate the notified acquisition at Patti Rihana I and II and Kasumpti Junga, the enhancement of compensation, and the permissible 40% deduction for development.
(B) Key legal principles include: deemed service of notice when actual service is unproven, statutory authority for publication of notification, power of the District Judge to enhance compensation, appellate review limited to correcting errors, and acceptance of a consistent judicial ratio capping development charge deductions at 40% where location and development justify it.
Facts of the case:
Notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 23.1.1986 for land at Patti Rihana I and II and Kasumpti Junga in District Shimla. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 40,000 per bigha, which was enhanced by the District Judge to Rs. 1,00,000. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the enhanced compensation after deducting 40% as development charges. Attempted service of notice in July 1991 remained unacknowledged, with no response received from the respondents.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly applied the principle of compensation enhancement and the permissible 40% deduction for development. The appellate courts findings on location-based development needs and proportionate deductions were within reasonable bounds and attract no interference. No material illegality or error was found.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in confirming the compensation after a 40% deduction for development charges and whether the deemed service of notice was valid in the absence of actual receipt.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where notice is demonstrably unacknowledged, deemed service is valid under procedural law; compensation enhancement by the District Judge is subject to appellate review with a consistent judicial ratio approving up to 40% deduction for development based on location and necessity, and such deduction was reasonably applied in this case.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed, the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 with a 40% development charge deduction is confirmed, and the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 189 stands.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Notice was sent to the respondents as early as on July 25, 1991 but neither the unserved notice nor the acknowledgement cards have so been far received from the respondents. So notice must be deemed to have been served on them.
3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 23.1.1986 acquiring land situated at Patti Rihana I and II and Kasumpti Junga of Tehsil & District Shimla. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per bigha. On reference, the District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- On appeal, the High Court after deducting 40% of the compensation awarded towards development charges, has confirmed the same in the impugned judgment. Shri H.K. Puri, learned counsel for the appellants contended that in several judgment, this Court has confirmed deduction upto 40% of the compensation towards development charges and that, therefore, the same ratio would be maintained in all the cases. In some cases this Court has pointed out that depending upon the location of the land and development needed, deduction between 30% to 40% was proper and was approved. In this case the Division Bench has accepted thus :
"I am of the view a deduction of the 40% would be reasonable."
4. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has correctly applied the principle and we find no ground to interfere with it.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
*******