1995 JTR(SC) 761
1995 AIR(SC) 2481 ; 1995 AIR(SCW) 3655 ; 1995 3 CCC(SC) 255 ; 1995 3 CurCC(SC) 255 ; 1997 10 JT 566 ; 1995 3 RRR 531 ; 1995 4 Scale 631 ; 1995 5 SCC 426 ; 1995 Supp2 SCR 376 ; 1995 2 UJ 621 ; 1995 KHC 919
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.
K. Vasundara Devi, Appellant
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO), Respondent.
Civil Appeal Nos. 6808-10 with 6811-12 and 6813 of 1995, (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 12910-12 of 1993 writ 2215-16 and 17792 of 1994 (CC-23768)
Decided on 27-7-1995.
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.23
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 23, and the notification published in the State Gazette on August 29, 1980, authorized the acquisition of 46 acres 6 gunthas of land in Miryalaguda for planned development by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, with possession taken on December 10, 1980 and an award made on August 18, 1983 determining compensation at Rs.65,000 per acre, later enhanced on appeal and challenged in these appeals under the Act's compensation fixation and developmental charges deduction provisions.
(B) The High Court applied the principle from Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, that when market value is determined using sales of small land extents, a sufficient deduction must be made for developmental charges, and this Court upheld the 40% deduction as reasonable under the twin tests test, distinguishing cases involving undeveloped land where uniform deductions were applied.
Facts of the case:
Land comprising 46 acres 6 gunthas was acquired in Miryalaguda town in Nalgonda District of A.P. for housing development, an award determined compensation at Rs.65,000 per acre with one third deducted for developmental charges, which was enhanced on reference to Rs.1,20,000 per acre with one fourth deducted, and the High Court further adjusted the developmental charges deduction to 40% while upholding the market value based on small extent sales deeds.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was correct in deducting 40% towards developmental charges instead of a uniform one third, and whether the appeal against the enhanced compensation and deduction is maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where market value is determined using genuine and reliable sales deeds of small extents, sufficient deduction must be made to arrive at a just and fair market value for the large land acquisition, and the 40% deduction with reference to smaller sales deeds under the housing scheme was proper, warranting dismissal of the appeals under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed with no costs.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 23, and the notification published in the State Gazette on August 29, 1980, authorized the acquisition of 46 acres 6 gunthas of land in Miryalaguda for planned development by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, with possession taken on December 10, 1980 and an award made on August 18, 1983 determining compensation at Rs.65,000 per acre, later enhanced on appeal and challenged in these appeals under the Act's compensation fixation and developmental charges deduction provisions.
(B) The High Court applied the principle from Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, that when market value is determined using sales of small land extents, a sufficient deduction must be made for developmental charges, and this Court upheld the 40% deduction as reasonable under the twin tests test, distinguishing cases involving undeveloped land where uniform deductions were applied.
Facts of the case:
Land comprising 46 acres 6 gunthas was acquired in Miryalaguda town in Nalgonda District of A.P. for housing development, an award determined compensation at Rs.65,000 per acre with one third deducted for developmental charges, which was enhanced on reference to Rs.1,20,000 per acre with one fourth deducted, and the High Court further adjusted the developmental charges deduction to 40% while upholding the market value based on small extent sales deeds.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was correct in deducting 40% towards developmental charges instead of a uniform one third, and whether the appeal against the enhanced compensation and deduction is maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where market value is determined using genuine and reliable sales deeds of small extents, sufficient deduction must be made to arrive at a just and fair market value for the large land acquisition, and the 40% deduction with reference to smaller sales deeds under the housing scheme was proper, warranting dismissal of the appeals under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed with no costs.
D.R.K.Reddy, G.Prabhakar, G.Prakash, K.Madhava Reddy
JUDGMENT
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are disposed of by common judgment since common question of law arises in this appeal. Notification u/S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) was published in the State Gazette on August 29, 1980 acquiring an extent of 46 acres 6 gunthas of land in Miryalaguda town in Nalgonda Dist. of A. P. for planned development by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board. Possession thereof was taken on December 10, 1980 and the award was made on August 18, 1983 determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per acre and deducted 1/3rd towards developmental charges and fixed the compensation at Rs.43,000/- per acre with statutory benefits. On reference, the Subordinate Judge Suryapet in O.P. No. 20/84 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre and deducted 1/4th towards developmental charges together with statutory benefits. On appeal to the High Court, while upholding the market value of the lands at Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre, it had deducted 40% of the value of the land developmental charges and also that fixation of the market value was based on exhibit X-1 to X-3 sale deed of small extent of one guntha each. Thus, these appeals by special leave against the judgment and decree of the High Court in A.S.No. 1833/85 December 15, 1992 and batch.
3. Shri K. Madhava Reddy, the learned senior counsel for the appellant placing reliance on Vijay Kumar Moti Lal v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 2 SCC 719 and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Vishakapatnam v. Smt. A. Mangala Gowri, (1991) 4 SCC 218 contended that this Court had upheld deduction of uniform rate of 1/3rd is required for developmental charges. The High Court, therefore, was not right in deducting 40% of value towards developmental charges. We think that the contention is not well founded. The High Court has noticed in its judgment thus :
"However, as the sales under Exs. X-1 to X-3 are for very small extents when compared to the lands under acquisition and the acquisition is meant for the housing scheme of housing board, necessary deduction will have to be given for developmental charges and also for taking into consideration the sales which are for smaller plots while considering the fixation of market value for the lands under acquisition which are in a large extent."
4. In view of this finding, the High Court had taken into consideration not only the requirements towards developmental charges but also when reliance is placed by the Court in Ex. X-1 to X-3, admittedly smaller extents of one guntha each which had fetched a market value at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/-, necessary deduction need to be given. Taking these two factors into consideration, ultimately it deducted 40%, though loosely termed as "towards developmental charges". This Court in Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943, has applied the twin tests and held that 50% of the deduction should be made when the sale transaction relate to smaller extent of the lands were found to be genuine and relied on to determine the market value of a large track of land and 50% deduction was found to be reasonable in that case. The State did not file appeal against enhanced compensation or deduction.
5. In Bhawathula Samanna v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Vishakapatnam Municipality, AIR 1992 SC 2298, this Court had held that since lands are in developed area, no deduction towards developmental charges be made. In Vijay Kumar Moti Lals, (AIR 1981 SC 1632), and Mangal Gauri, (1992 AIR SCW 319), cases (supra), the only question was regarding deduction for developmental charges. Sales relating to smaller pieces of land when found to be germane Gujarat High Court deducted 60% of the value, this Court in M/s. Hasanali Khanbhai and Sons v. State of Gujarat, (C.A.No.3263/79) dated July 26, 1995, upheld the deduction of 60% by the High Court.When genuine and reliable sale deeds of small extents were considered to determine market value, the same will not form sole basis to determine market value of large track of lands. Sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the just and fair market value of large track of land. In that view of the law, we are of the considered opinion that ratio in the cases in which it was dealt with only about deduction of developmental charges of undeveloped large extent of land does not render any assistance in deciding the principle followed by the High Court in this matter. In view of the judgment of this Court in Administrator General of West Bengals case, (AIR 1988 SC 943) (supra) and all subsequent decisions, we do not think that it is a proper case for interference.
6. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation: AIR 1995 SC 2481