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

PETITIONER: SMT. BASAVVA & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. NANAVATI G.T. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (5)   580        1996 SCALE  (3)299

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                CIVIL APPEAL NO.2213 OF 1993.                          O R D E R      Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the ‘Act’] acquiring 194 acres of land [out of  which 33  acres is subject matter in these  appeals for industrial  development near  Dharwad was   published on October 30,  1981. The  Land Acquisition  Officer    awarded compensation  at  the  rate  ranging  between  Rs.8000/-  to Rs.8080/- by  his award dated August 22, 1985. On  reference the Civil  Court enhanced  the compensation  to  Rs.1.72 per sq. ft.  by judgment  and order dated October 11, 1988 which worked out  to Rs.74,953/-  per acre. On appeal by  judgment and order  made in  FMA No.575/89  and batch  the High Court reduced the  compensation to  Rs. 56,000/-  per acre.  Thus, this appeal  by the  claimants for  further increase.  It is also not  in dispute  that though  the State  wanted to file appeals against  enhancement of the compensation, this Court as dismissed their Special Leave Petitions.      Shri K.  Madhava Reddy,  learned senior counsel for the appellants contended  that 53%  deduction is  reasonable, as held  by  this  Court  but  deduction  of  65%  towards  the developmental charges  by the  High  Court  is  not  correct principle of  law. Therefore,  the High  Court has committed error of  law in  reducing the  same. He also contended that when the lands acquired are adjacent to national highway and compensation for  acquisition, though subsequent to the date of notification  in this  case, for  the lands in Kulkarni’s case which  is just  disposed of, was granted at the rate of Rs.67,200/- per  acre, the  appellants also  are entitled to the same benefit. The High Court, therefore, was in error in determining the  compensation at the rate of Rs.56,000/- per acre.  Shri   Sanghi,  learned   senior  counsel   for   the respondents resisted the contention.      Having  given  our  consideration,  the  question  that arises for  consideration is:  whether the  High  court  has

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

committed any error of law in fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.56,000/- per acre? On the principle of deductions in the  determination of  the compensation, this Court in K. Vasundara &  Revenue Divisional  Officer, LAO  [(1995) 5 SCC 426] has  considered the  entire case  law and has held that the Court,  in the  first instance,  has to consider whether sales relating  to smaller  pieces of  lands are genuine and reliable and  whether they  are  in  respect  of  comparable lands. In  the event  the Court  finds that  such sales  are genuine and reliable and the lands have comparable features, sufficient deduction  should be  made to  arrive at the just and fair  market value of large tracks of land. The time lag for real  development and the waiting period for development are also  relevant consideration  for determination  of just and adequate  compensation. Each  case depends  upon its own facts. For  deduction of  development charges, the nature of the development, conditions and nature of the land, the land required to be set apart under the building rules for roads, sewerage, electricity,  parks,  water  etc.  and  all  other relevant circumstances  involved are  to be  considered.  In this case  the facts  recorded by  the High  Court are  that Ex.P-10 sale deed is dependable sale but it is in respect of a small  plot of  land situated  at a  distance of more than k.m. It  is has  also found that the land in the area is not developed and there is no development towards that area. The High Court also noted that it takes years for development in those lands  though, the  lands are  capable to  be used for non-agricultural purpose.  On those  findings the High Court held that  the market  value under  Ex.P-10 cannot  form the sole basis  but keeping  in vies  the developments the lands are capable  to  fetch  compensation  at  the  rate  of  Rs. 56,000/- after  deducting 65%.  For  developmental  charges, that deduction between 33-1/3 to 53% was held to be valid by this Court  in several  judgments. In  Vasundara Devi’s case 63%  deduction   was  upheld.  In  view  of  the  fact  that development of  land would  have taken years, the High Court has deducted allotter 12%. Obviously, the High Court kept in view the  fact that the lands under Ex.P-10 were situated at far flung  places from the lands under acquisition and since the land  takes long  time  for  development  it  has  given additional  deduction  of  12%,  i.e.  53  +  12%  =  65  in determination of  the compensation.  On  the  basis  of  the rationale referred  to above,  the principle  adopted by the High Court cannot be said to be illegal. Thus considered, we hold that  there is no justification for interference in the finding recorded  by the  High Court  or to further increase the compensation.      The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.