REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2213 OF 2001

CHARAN DASS (DEAD) BY L.Rs. … APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. … RESPONDENT (S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2214 OF 2001

KISHAN SINGH … APPELLANT

VERSUS

HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING BOARD & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2215 OF 2001

BASTI RAM … APPELLANT

VERSUS

HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING BOARD & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2216-2220 OF 2001

DEVKI NAND … APPELLANT

HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING BOARD & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2221-2227 OF 2001

JAI KISHAN & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2228 OF 2001

HARPAL & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING BOARD & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2090-2101 OF 2004

SHONKIA (DEAD) BY L.Rs. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

D.K. JAIN, J.

This  batch  of  appeals  arises  from the  final  judgment  and  

order dated 7th June, 1999 rendered by the High Court of Himachal  

Pradesh at Shimla in twenty Regular First  Appeals as also final  

judgment and order dated 14th August, 2003 delivered  by the said  

2

High Court in twelve cognate Regular First Appeals wherein the  

former order has been relied upon. By the impugned order, while  

allowing the appeal preferred by the Himachal Pradesh Housing  

Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Housing Board”),  the High  

Court has reduced the amount of compensation awarded by the  

District  Judge  in  Reference  under  Section  18  of  the  Land  

Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”).  

2. Material facts common to all the appeals and relevant for the  

purpose of disposal of these appeals, are as follows:

The  State  of  Himachal  Pradesh,  respondent  No.2  in  Civil  

Appeal No.2213 of 2001, intended to acquire land of the appellants  

at Shoghi, about 12 K.M. from the capital of the State at Shimla,  

for  construction  of  a  Housing  Board  Colony.  Accordingly,  a  

Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued and published in  

the Himachal Pradesh Gazette on 6th November, 1990. The quality  

of the lands involved in the acquisition fell in different categories.  

The Land  Acquisition  Collector,  respondent  No.3  herein,  by  his  

Award dated 3rd August, 1994 assessed the market value of the  

acquired land and announced his Award by which compensation at  

the  rate  of  Rs.32,073/-  per  Bigha  in  respect  of  Bakhal  Awal,  

Rs.24,288/- per Bigha for Bakhal Doem and Rs.7,785/- per Bigha  

3

for  Ghasani  Banjar  Kadeem  was  awarded  to  the  appellants-

landowners.

3. Not  being  satisfied,  the  appellants  filed  Reference  

Applications before the District  Judge under Section 18 of  

the Act claiming compensation at Rs.22,00,000/- per Bigha,  

inter alia, on the ground that the market value of the acquired  

land was much more than what was awarded by respondent  

No.3.  Vide  his  order  dated  22nd June,  1996,  the  District  

Judge found the evidence adduced by the appellants (Exts.  

PW2/B and PW2/A) to be reliable.  However, he found the  

exemplars filed by the Housing Board (RW3/A and RX), to  

be irrelevant for ascertaining the market value of the lands.  

Accordingly, he determined the market value of the acquired  

land at Rs.2 lakh per Bigha for all kinds of lands irrespective  

of  their  quality  and  classification.  In  addition  thereto,  the  

District Judge awarded Statutory interest and solatium to the  

appellants. Similarly, vide his order dated 22nd March, 1997,  

the District Judge again found the evidence adduced by the  

appellants  in  the  form  of  two  sale  deeds  to  be  reliable.  

Accordingly,  relying  on  his  earlier  order  dated  22nd June,  

4

1996 (Ex.PZ),  he awarded the same compensation to  the  

appellants.

4. Being  aggrieved  with  the  amount  of  compensation  

determined  by  the  District  Judge,  the  Housing  Board  

preferred  Regular  First  Appeals  to  the  High  Court  under  

Section 54 of the Act, praying for setting aside the judgments  

of the District Judge dated 22nd June, 1996 and 22nd March,  

1997. The challenge to the said judgments was on diverse  

grounds, including that the two sale deeds relied upon by the  

District  Judge  pertained  to  two  very  small  pieces  of  land  

having  a  double  storied  shop;  one  sale  instance  was  in  

respect  of  one  biswa  of  land  sold  four  months  after  

Notification  under  Section  4  in  the  present  case;  the  

evidence  of  Gursaran,  one  of  the  claimants,  who  had  

appeared to prove the sale deed in respect of the land with a  

double  storied  shop  lacked  truthfulness  and  in  some  

references the compensation awarded was in excess of the  

land owned by the claimants.

5. Vide order dated 7th June, 1999, the High Court accepted the  

appeals filed by the Housing Board. Relying on the decisions  

of  this  Court  in  Special  Tehsildar  Land  Acquisition,  

5

Vishakapatnam Vs. A.  Mangala  Gowri  (Smt.)1,  Special   

Deputy  Collector  &  Anr.  Vs. Kurra  Sambasiva  Rao  &  

Ors.2 and  Manipur  Tea  Co.  Pvt.  Ltd.  Vs.  Collector  of  

Hailakandi3,  wherein broad parameters, to be kept in view  

while determining the market value of the land acquired for  

public  purpose  have  been  laid  down,  the  High  Court  

concluded  that  as  compared  to  the  sale  instances  relied  

upon by the appellants viz., Ext. PW2/B and Ext. PW2/A, the  

sale deeds filed by the Housing Board viz.,  RW3A (again  

marked as RW5A), RW4A and RX were relevant exemplars  

for  ascertaining  the  market  value  of  the  land  in  question.  

The High Court observed as follows:

“…we find on record in these cases that there are  only  three  relevant  sale  deeds  which  are  marked  Exhibits  PW2/A,  PW2/B,  RX  and  RY.   Sale  deed  Ex.PW2/B is dated 22.1.1990 in respect of which vendee  PW-Gursaran  (RW5)  has  been  examined  by  both  the  parties  who is  also  one  of  the  claimants  in  the  claim  petitions.   He purchased 2  biswas of  land from Piara  Singh on 22.1.1990 for a consideration of Rs.99,500/-.  On this land there was a double storeyed shop.  This  witness also purchased another piece of 0-1 biswas of  land through sale deed Ex.PW2/A, for a consideration of  Rs.30,000/- from Satish Balooni  and the value of this  land  comes  to  Rs.6  lacs  per  bigha.  The second  sale  deed  was  executed  after  notification  issued  on  6.11.1990 and, therefore, the market value of that sale  deed  cannot  be  taken  into  consideration  for  

1 (1991) 4 SCC 218 : AIR 1992 SC 666 2 (1997) 6 SCC 41 3 (1997) 9 SCC 673

6

determination  of  the  acquired  land.   The  three  sale  deeds relied  upon by the  appellant-Board are marked  RX,  RW3/A,  again  marked  RW5/A  and  RY  (RW4/A)  pertaining  to  the  year  1988-89 in  respect  of  sale  and  purchase of the land in Shoghi Bazar by the vendors and  vendees.  To prove sale deed Ex.RW3/A (RW5/A) RW- Gursaran  was  examined  (who  appeared  as  his  own  witness in the claim petition), the vendee purchased 1-0  bigha of land in the year 1988-89 for a consideration of  Rs.11,000/- from one Ranjit Lal. One Shiv Ram sold 0- 12 biswas of  land to  PW-Sanjiv  Goel  and his  brother  Ajay Kumar in the year 1988-89 for a consideration of  Rs.48,000/- and the said land was purchased by vendee  for the purpose  of setting up of steel industries.  PW- Prem Kumar purchased two biswas of land from Vishwa  Nath for a consideration of Rs.48,000/-,  copy of which  was  marked  Ext.  RX  and  again  RW4/A.   From  the  perusal of these sale deeds it is clear that they pertain to  1-1/2 or 2 years prior to the issue of notification under  Section 4 of the Act.  The duty of the court is to keep at  the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to  arrive at reasonable and adequate market value of the  land  and  in  that  process,  though  some  guesswork  is  involved,  and mechanical  assessment  of  the evidence  should be avoided.”

6. Inter-alia,  observing  that  there  is  sufficient  oral  and  

documentary  evidence  on  record  to  determine  the  fair,  

reasonable and adequate market value of the acquired land,  

the  High Court  finally  determined  the market  value of  the  

land as under:

“The  value  of  the  land  purchased  by  the  three  vendees,  namely,  Prem  Kumar,  Gursaran  and  Sanjiv  Goel  who  are  also  claimants  in  some  of  the  claim  petitions and the prices of the lands purchased by them  about 1-1/2 or 2 years prior to the acquisition of the land  involved  in  the  present  cases  after  calculation  and  

7

divided by three would come to Rs.1,03,667/- per bigha.  Applying  the  guesswork of  the  escalation  of  the  price  between the year 1988-89 on 6.11.1990, we determine  the market value of the acquired lands on the basis of  these sale deeds at Rs.1,50,000 per bigha.”

Thus,  according  to  the  High  Court,  the  market  value  of  the  

acquired lands as on the date of issue of Notification under Section  

4 of the Act was Rs.1,50,000/- per Bigha.  Having so determined  

the  market  value  of  the  acquired  land,  the  Court  noted  the  

evidence of Mr. A.K. Gupta, Assistant Architect (RW4) wherein he  

had deposed that only 41.4% of the total area was being used for  

construction and the remaining area was to be used for services  

like roads, pathways, green spaces etc.  On the basis of the said  

evidence,  the  High  Court  made  a  deduction  of  40%  from  the  

market  value  of  the  land  determined  by it  at  Rs.1,50,000/-  per  

Bigha. Thus, the compensation payable to the land owners for the  

land  acquired  was  determined  at  Rs.90,000/-  per  Bigha.   The  

compensation  awarded  by  the  District  Judge  was  accordingly  

modified to that extent, maintaining solatium and Statutory interest  

awarded  by  him.  The  High  Court  also  noticed  certain  

discrepancies in the judgment of the Reference Court in granting  

compensation for lands in excess of what were actually owned by  

8

the claimants.  Aggrieved by the said judgments, the appellants-

landowners are before us in these appeals.

7. Learned counsel appearing  on behalf of the appellants, led  

by Mr. Atul Sharma, challenged the finding of the High Court  

that the exemplars/sale instances filed by the appellants and  

relied  upon  by  the  District  Judge  were  not  relevant  for  

ascertaining the market value of the subject lands.  It was  

argued that since Ext. RX, adduced by way of evidence by  

the  Housing  Board,  was  not  proved,  the  High  Court  

committed a patent illegality in relying on the same. Placing  

reliance on the decisions of this Court in       Smt. Tribeni  

Devi & Ors.  Vs. Collector of Ranchi & Vice Versa4 and  

Bhagwathula Samanna & Ors. Vs. Special  Tahsildar  &  

Land  Acquisition  Officer,  Visakhapatnam  Municipality,   

Visakhapatnam5, learned counsel contended that the High  

Court  failed  to  apply  correct  principles  for  reducing  the  

market  value  of  the  land  by  40%  on  account  of  non-

availability  of  the  land for  construction  of  houses.   It  was  

asserted that the basis of deduction being the end use of the  

land and not the nature of the land or the comparable land,  

4 (1972) 1 SCC 480 5 (1991) 4 SCC 506

9

there should have been no deduction from the market value  

of the land determined by the High Court.  

8. Per  contra,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  

Housing Board, supported the view taken by the High Court.  

Controverting the stand of the appellants that sale deed (RX)  

could not be relied upon as the same had not been proved  

by the Housing Board, learned counsel submitted that in the  

light of Section 51A of the Act, a certified copy of the sale  

deed (RX), registered under the Registration Act, 1908 could  

be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded therein  

and, therefore, the High Court did not commit any illegality in  

placing reliance on it. Learned counsel also contended that  

the High Court was justified in making deduction at the rate  

of 40% by applying the principles of law laid down by this  

Court in  Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs. Vs.  

State  of  Gujarat6,  Atma  Singh  (Dead)  through  LRs.  &  

Ors.  Vs.  State  of  Haryana  &  Anr.7 and  Shimla  

Development  Authority  &   Ors.  Vs.  Santosh  Sharma  

(Smt) & Anr.8.

6 (2005) 4 SCC 789 7 (2008) 2 SCC 568 8 (1997) 2 SCC 637

10

9. Before  we enter into the merits of the rival contentions, we  

may notice a few broad principles to be kept in view while  

ascertaining the market value of the land for the purpose of  

determining  the  amount  of  compensation  payable  on  

acquisition of land for a public purpose.

10. Section  15  of  the  Act  mandates  that  in  determining  the  

amount  of  compensation,  the Collector  shall  be guided by  

the provisions contained in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act.  

Section  23  provides  that  in  determining  the  amount  of  

compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under the  

Act,  the  Court  shall,  inter  alia,  take  into  consideration  the  

market value of the land at the date of the publication of the  

Notification under Section 4 of the Act.  The Section contains  

the  list  of  positive  factors  and  Section  24  has  a  list  of  

negatives,  vis-a-vis the land under acquisition, to be taken  

into  consideration  while  determining  the  amount  of  

compensation.   As  already noted,  the  first  step  being  the  

determination of the market value of the land on the date of  

publication of Notification under sub-Section (1) of Section 4  

of  the  Act.  One  of  the  principles  for  determination  of  the  

market value of the acquired land would be the price that a  

11

willing purchaser would be willing to pay if it is sold in the  

open market at the time of issue of Notification under Section  

4 of the Act.  But finding direct evidence in this behalf is not  

an easy task and, therefore, the Court has to take recourse  

to other known methods for arriving at the market value of  

the land acquired.  One of the preferred and well accepted  

methods adopted for  ascertaining the market  value of  the  

land in acquisition cases is the sale transactions on or about  

the date of issue of Notification under Section 4 of the Act.  

But here again finding a transaction of sale on or a few days  

before the said Notification is not an easy exercise. In the  

absence of such evidence contemporaneous transactions in  

respect  of  the  lands,  which  have  similar  advantages  and  

disadvantages is considered as a good piece of evidence for  

determining the market value of the acquired land.  It needs  

little emphasis that the contemporaneous transactions or the  

comparable sales have to be in respect of lands which are  

contiguous to the acquired land and are similar in nature and  

potentiality.   Again,  in  the  absence  of  sale  deeds,  the  

judgments and awards passed in  respect  of  acquisition of  

lands, made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages  

can be accepted as valid piece of evidence and provide a  

12

sound basis to work out the market value of the land after  

suitable  adjustments  with  regard  to  positive  and  negative  

factors  enumerated  in  Sections  23  and  24  of  the  Act.  

Undoubtedly, an element of some guess work is involved in  

the entire exercise, yet the authority charged with the duty to  

award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged  

by an objective standard.

11. In Shaji Kuriakose & Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.  

& Ors.9, this Court has observed as under:

“It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales  method of valuation of land while fixing the market value  of the acquired land.  While fixing the market value of the  acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is  preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as  capitalisation  of  net  income  method  or  expert  opinion  method.  Comparable  sales  method  of  valuation  is  preferred  because  it  furnishes  the  evidence  for  determination of the market value of the acquired land at  which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land  if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue  of  notification  under  Section  4  of  the  Act.  However,  comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing  the  market  value  of  the  acquired  land  is  not  always  conclusive. There are certain factors which are required  to  be  fulfilled  and  on  fulfilment  of  those  factors  the  compensation can be awarded, according to the value of  the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter  alia are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2)  that the sale deed must have been executed at the time  proximate  to  the  date  of  issue  of  notification  under  Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale  must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the  

9 (2001) 7 SCC 650

13

land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired  land and (5) that the size of plot of the land covered by  the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these  factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale  value of the land covered by the sales be not given for  the  acquired  land.  However,  if  there  is  dissimilarity  in  regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between  land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the  court  to  proportionately  reduce  the  compensation  for  acquired  land  than  what  is  reflected  in  the  sales  depending  upon  the  disadvantages  attached  with  the  acquired land”.

12. Yet again in  Viluben Jhalejar Contractor  (supra), making  

reference to a number of cases on the point, it was observed  

as follows:

“18. One of the principles for determination of the amount  of  compensation  for  acquisition  of  land  would  be  the  willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor.  It  is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a  willing and informed buyer would offer would be different  in  the  cases  where  the  owner  is  in  possession  and  enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is  not.

19.  Market value is ordinarily the price the property may  fetch  in  the  open  market  if  sold  by  a  willing  seller  unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase.  Where  definite  material  is  not  forthcoming  either  in  the  shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or  about  the  date  of  notification  under  Section  4(1)  or  otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences  have to be considered.  

20.  The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained  with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to  be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle  as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining  the  market  value of  the  land under  acquisition,  suitable  

14

adjustment  has  to  be  made  having  regard  to  various  positive  and  negative  factors  vis-à-vis  the  land  under  acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive  and negative factors are as under:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Positive factors                                Negative Factors ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (i)   smallness of size                 (i)  largeness of area

(ii)  proximity to a road               (ii) situation in the interior                                                          at a distance from the                                                         road

(iii) frontage on a road               (iii) narrow strip of land                                                         with very small                                                         frontage compared to                                                         depth

(iv) nearness to developed       (v)   lower level requiring    area                                             the depressed portion

                                                        to be filled up

(v)   regular shape                     (v)   remoteness from                                                 developed locality

(vi)  level vis-a-vis land under    (vi)  some special        acquisition        disadvantageous

                                                     factors which would                                                          deter a purchaser (vii) special value for an owner        of an adjoining property to       whom it may have some       very special advantage”.

13. Thus,  comparable  sales  instances  of  similar  lands  in  the  

neighbourhood  at  or  about  the  date  of  Notification  under  

Section  4(1)  of  the  Act  are  considered  to  be  the  best  

evidence for  determining the market  value of  the acquired  

15

land  to  arrive  at  a  fair  estimate  of  the  amount  of  

compensation payable to a land owner.  Nevertheless, while  

ascertaining compensation, it is the duty of the Court to see  

that the compensation so determined is just and fair not only  

to the individual whose property has been acquired but also  

to the public which is to pay for it.

14. Before examining the correctness of the cases at hand,  in  

the light of the legal principles enumerated above, it would  

also be appropriate to keep in view the scope of interference  

by this Court in an award granting compensation. It is trite  

that the scope of interference in such matters is very limited  

and it is only in cases where it is found that the authorities  

below, including the High Court, have either applied wrong  

principles  or  have  omitted  to  take  into  consideration  the  

relevant  factors  affecting  valuation,  that  this  Court  would  

interfere.

15. The scope of interference by this Court was delineated by  

this Court in Thakur Kamta Prasad Singh (Dead) by LRs.   

Vs. State  of  Bihar10 wherein  it  was  held  that  there  is  an  

element  of  guesswork  inherent  in  most  cases  involving  

10 (1976) 3 SCC 772

16

determination of the market value of the acquired land. If the  

judgment  of  the  High  Court  reveals  that  it  has  taken  into  

consideration the relevant factors prescribed by the Act, in  

appeal  under  Article  133  of  the  Constitution  of  India,  its  

assessment  of  the  fair  market  value  of  the  acquired  land  

should not be disturbed.

16. The  following  observations  of  this  Court  in  Food  

Corporation  of  India  through  its  District  Manager,  

Faridkot, Punjab & Ors. Vs.  Makhan Singh &  Anr.11 are  

quite apposite:

“This Court as the last Court of appeal, will ordinarily not  interfere in an award granting compensation unless there  is something to show not merely that on the balance of  evidence it is possible to reach a different conclusion, but  that  the  judgment  cannot  be  supported  by reason  of  a  wrong application of principle or because some important  point  affecting  valuation  has  been  overlooked  or  misapplied.  Besides,  generally  speaking,  the  appellate  court interferes not when the judgment under appeal is not  right but only when it is shown to be wrong.”

17. Bearing these principles in mind, we may now advert to the  

facts of the present case.   As noted earlier,  in the instant  

cases the Reference Court had relied on Exh. PW2/A and  

PW2/B to determine the market value of the land.  Being the  

Court of First Appeal, the High Court re-evaluated the entire  11 (1992) 3 SCC 67

17

evidence and found that Exh. RW4/A, RW3/A and sale deed  

marked RX in respect of pieces of the land purchased by  

Prem Kumar,  Gursaran Singh, Sanjiv Goel  who were also  

claimants  in  some of  the  cases,  were  the  best  pieces  of  

evidence to ascertain the market value of the acquired lands.  

Accordingly, taking the same as the base and applying the  

formula  of  averages,  the  High  Court  enhanced  the  said  

average  amount  on  account  of  escalation  of  the  prices  

between the year 1980-89 as on 6th November, 1990, and  

determined  the  market  value  of  the  acquired  land  at  

Rs.1,50,000/- per Bigha.  During the course of hearing we  

required counsel for the Housing Board to place before us  

the site plan showing the actual location of the subject lands  

and the location of the plots, in respect whereof, the sale-

deeds were filed by the Housing Board as well as the land  

owners. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the  

lay out plan vis-à-vis the land in question and bearing in mind  

the  location  of  the  land,  subject-matter  of  the  said  sale-

deeds, we find it  difficult  to hold that the exemplars relied  

upon by the  High Court  are  irrelevant  for  determining  the  

market  value of  the acquired lands.  We are in agreement  

with the High Court that the location and the date of sale in  

18

the cases, relied upon by the High Court, were relevant for  

determining the market value of the acquired land.  Having  

carefully examined the relevant evidence, we are convinced  

that there is no legal or factual infirmity in the approach of the  

High Court in ascertaining the market value of the lands as  

might induce us to interfere with finding of the High Court on  

that account.  As noted above, unless some glaring infirmity  

is shown in the assessment of evidence by the High Court,  

this  Court  would  ordinarily  be  slow in  interfering  with  the  

approach of the High Court in that behalf.

18. The next  question which now survives for consideration is  

whether  the  deduction  of  40%  from  the  market  value  

determined by the High Court towards development charges  

for laying roads etc., is justified?

19. It  is well  settled that it  is not in every case that deduction  

towards development charges has to be made when a big  

chunk of land is acquired for housing colonies etc.  Where  

the acquired land falls in the midst of an already developed  

land with amenities of roads, electricity etc. deduction on this  

account may not be warranted.  At the same time, where all  

civic  and  other  amenities  are  to  be  provided  to  make  it  

19

suitable  for  building  purposes  or  under  the  local  building  

regulations  setting  apart  of  some portion  of  the  lands  for  

providing  common  facilities  is  mandatory,  an  appropriate  

deduction may be justified.

20. In  Special  Tehsildar  Land  Acquisition,  Vishakapatnam  

(supra),  following  Tribeni  Devi’s  case  (supra),  this  Court  

had observed as under:

“It is to be noted that in building regulations, setting apart  the lands for development of  roads, drainage and other  amenities  like electricity  etc.  are  condition precedent  to  approve  layout  for  building  colonies.   Therefore,  based  upon  the  situation  of  the  land  and  the  need  for  development  the  deduction  shall  be  made.   Where  acquired land is in the midst of already developed land  with  amenities  of  roads,  drainage,  electricity  etc.  then  deduction of 1/3 would not be justified.  In the rural areas  housing schemes relating to weaker sections deduction of  1/4 may be justified.”

21. In the light of the afore-noted parameters, we are of the view  

that in the instant case having regard to the relevant facts  

and circumstances of the case, including the location of the  

acquired  land,  a  deduction  of  30%  towards  development  

charges from the market value of land as arrived by the High  

Court, would meet the ends of justice.  Accordingly, we hold  

that the market value of the land for the purpose of payment  

20

of compensation to the land owners in all these appeals is to  

be assessed at Rs.1,05,000/- per  Bigha.

22. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed.  The appellants  

shall be entitled to compensation at Rs.1,05,000/- per Bigha.  

Besides,  they will  also be entitled to Statutory amounts in  

terms of Section 23(1A) of the Act; solatium at 30% on the  

market value of the land in accordance with Section 23(2) of  

the Act and interest as stipulated in Section 28 of the Act.  

23. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

…………………………………J.      (D.K. JAIN)

                         ....………………………………J.     (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 7, 2009.

21