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

PETITIONER: SHIMLA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS,

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. SANTOSH SHARMA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      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.      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  between 30%  to 40% was proper and was  approved. In  this  case  the  Division  Bench  hes accepted thus:      "I am  of the  view a  deduction of      the 40% would be reasonable."      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,