http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: K. VASUNDARA DEVI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (LAO)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6811-1

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/07/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 2481            1995 SCC  (5) 426  1995 SCALE  (4)631

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:           O R D E R      Leave granted.      These appeals  are disposed of by common judgment since common question  of law  arises in this appeal. Notification under 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  for  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 dated December 15, 1992 and batch.      Shri K.  Madhava Reddy,  the learned senior counsel for the appellant  placing reliance  on Vijay Kumar Moti Lal Vs. State of  Maharashtra, [(1981)  2 SCC  719] and Special Land Acquisition  Officer,  Vishakapatnam  vs.  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 :

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

    "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."      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 vs.  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  and 50%  deduction was  found to  be reasonable in that case.  The State  did not  file appeal against enhanced compensation or deduction.      In Bhagwathula Samanna and Others Vs. 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 Motil Lal’s and Mangal Gauri 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 & Sons &  Ors. 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 Bengal’s case [supra] and all subsequent decisions,  we do  not think  that it is a proper case for interference.      The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.