http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: A.S.KRISHNA AND CO. PVT. LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER(DEPUTY COLLECTOR) HYDERABAD

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/11/1991

BENCH: MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) BENCH: MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) MOHAN, S. (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR  421            1991 SCR  Supl. (2) 375  1992 SCC  (1) 141        JT 1991 (4)   530  1991 SCALE  (2)1186

ACT: Land Acquisition Act. 1894.’     S.  4 (1) Compensation--Determination  of--Deduction  of Development cost--Validity of

HEADNOTE:     Certain plots of land of the appellant were acquired  by notifications  dated  12.1.1978,  27.7.1978  and   14.6.1979 issued  under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.  The Land  Acquisition Officer by an order dated 10.6.1982  fixed the  market  value at Rs. 42,000 per acre with  5  per  cent deduction towards development cost.     In  appellant’s appeal the Civil Court fixed the  market value at Rs.200 per sq. yard with a deduction of 5 per  cent towards the development charges.     On the appeal by the land acquisition officer, the  High Court  reassessed the entire evidence and fixed  the  market value  at Rs.3 lakh per acre holding that if a deduction  of 20  per  cent was allowed, the market value  would  come  to Rs.2,40,000 per acre which worked out at Rs.50 per  sq.yard, and  accordingly  set  aside the judgment  and  decree,  and determined the market value at Rs.50 per sq.yard. Dismissing the appeals of the appellant-claimant this Court,     HELD: 1. In fixing the compensation, the High Court  did not  go by the percentage of deduction but kept in view  the market  value  of the land at the time of  the  notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. [p. 377 F]     2.  There was clear material and the High Court accepted it that price went up in the area after 1980. The  notifica- tions  were within a range of a year or two from that  time. Therefore, the valuation after 1980 was not the guideline. [ p. 377 F-G] 376     3.   In  the instant case, the Collector had  adopted  a deduction  of five per cent. The referee Court  adopted  the deduction  at 20 per cent and the High Court  rejecting  the claim of the Advocate General that deduction should be  one- third put it at one-fifth. The High Court did not go by  the percentage of deduction. The appropriate market value  fixed by  the  High Court per sq. yard was Rs 50 and if a  20  per cent deduction from out of Rs.3 lakhs per acre was accepted,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

it  worked that way. The finding of the High Court need  not be disturbed. [p. 377 E-G]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.4538-39 of 1991. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.3.1990 of the Hyderabad High Court in C.C.A. Nos. 54 & 55 of 1987. Ashok K.Gupta for the Appellant. Ms. Suruchi Agrawal and T.V.S.N.Chari for the Respondents- The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     RANGANATH MISRA, CJ. Special leave granted. By notifica- tion  dated  12th January, 1973, under Section 4(1)  of  the Land  Acquisition Act, 1894 as modifiednby  Notification  of 27th  July,  1978, 26 acres and 26 gunthas of  land  located within  the Hyderabad District was notified for  acquisition for  the Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority. A  similar notification  was published on 14th June, 1979 for  acquisi- tion  of  two  acres and 29 gunthas.  The  Land  Acquisition Officer  made  his award for both the properties  on  10  th June,  1982 fixing the market value at Rs. 42,000  per  acre with five per cent deduction towards development cost. Being dissatisfied  with  the awards passed  by  Land  Acquisition Officer, a reference was sought and made under section 18 of the Act. The Claimants demanded compensation at the rate  of Rs.  200 per square yard. The Civil Court fixed  the  market value  at Rs.200 per sq.yd. as demanded but directed  deduc- tion  of 20 per cent towards development charges.  The  Land Acquisition  Officer carried appeals against the  escalation of  compensation and the present appellants preferred  cross objections.  The High Court reassessed the  entire  evidence and came to hold.               "Today  the position of the acquired lands  is               altogether  different. It is common  knowledge               that the prices started soaring high from 1980               onwards and this part of Hyderabad, namely,               377               Gaddiannaram started developing from 1980  and               today  it is undoubtedly one of the  important               areas  in Hyderabad. But we must consider  the               position as it stood in 1978 and 1979.  Taking               all  the circumstances into account, we  think               it reasonable to fix the market value at Rs. 3               lakhs  per acre. The Civil Court had  given  a               deduction  of 20 per cent towards  development               charges.               The  learned Advocate General  contended  that               deduction  should  be enhanced to  33-1/3  per               cent. We do not think that any interference is               called  for  in  this regard.  The  lands  are               abutting  the  highway.  Evidence  shows  that               there  are  roads on three  sides.  Hence.  we               maintain  the deduction of 20 per cent and  if               so done, the market value comes to Rs.2,40,000               which works out at Rs. 50 per sq.yd. The Trial               Court  has  awarded Rs.200 per  sq.yd  with  a               deduction  of 20 per cent which comes  to  Rs.               160  per sq.yd. We are unable to  sustain  the               order  of the Court below on  any  justifiable               grounds. We accordingly set aside the judgment               and  decree and determine the market value  at               the rate of Rs.50 per sq.yd  ......  "     It  is against this deduction in compensation  that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

claimants have come to this court in appeal.     The Collector had adopted a deduction of five per  cent. The  referee court adopted the deduction at 20 per cent  and the  High Court rejecting the claim of the Advocate  General that  deduction should be one-third put it at one-fifth.  We find  that  the High Court did not go by the  percentage  of deduction. In fact, according to the High Court and particu- larly as the portion we have extracted above would show  the appropriate market value per square yard was Rs. 50 and if a 20  per cent deduction from out of Rs. 3 lakhs per acre  was accepted,  it worked out that way. The Judgment of the  High Court  gives us the impression that in fixing the  compensa- tion. the High Court did not go by the percentage of  deduc- tion  but kept in view the market value of the land  at  the time  of  the notification under section 4(1)  of  the  Act. There  is clear material and the High Court has accepted  it that price went up in the area after 1980. The notifications are  within a range of a year or two from that time.  There- fore, the valuation after 1980 is not the guideline.  Having looked into the material accepted by the High Court, we  are not  in  a position to disturb the finding recorded  by  the High Court. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. R.P.                                                 Appeals dismissed. 378