A.P. HOUSING BOARDversusK. MANOHAR REDDY & ORS.

                  [2010] 11 S.C.R. 1107


                  A.P. HOUSING BOARD                              A
                              V.
              K. MANOHAR REDDY & ORS.
          (Civil Appeal Nos. 4212-4223 of 2004)
                  SEPTEMBER 30, 2010
                                                                  B
        [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL
                   R. DAVE, JJ.]

      Land Acquisition Act, 1894- ss. 4, 6, 18, 54 and 23(1)(A)
- Acquisition of large tract of land - Compensation -             C
Determination of - High Court enhanced rate of market value
of the acquired land from Rs. 50 per square yard to Rs. 75
per square yard from which 113rd would be deducted - On
appeal, held: Acquired land is agricultural land, thus, would
require extensive development to be utilised as a residential     D
site - Deduction of 113rd from the awarded amount would be
an appropriate deduction towards development charges -
Sale deeds were executed in proximity to the date of
acquisition, thus, rate of market value enhanced by High Court
without giving cogent reasons, not valid and legal - Thus,        E
market value of land determined at the rate of Rs. 501- per
sq. yard as on date of notification and 113rd to be deducted
towards development charges f _m the awarded amount.

     A Notification was issued to acquire land measuring
84 acres 24 guntas. The Land Acquisition Officer passed           F
an award determining the market value of the land at the
rate of Rs. 36,000/- per acre. The civil court fixed the
market value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 50/-
per square yard; and also awarded 30% solatium on the
market value and a sum of 12% additional value in terms           G
of s. 23(1)(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High
Court held that the claimants were entitled to
compensation of Rs. 75/- per square yard for the acquired
lands, and after deducting 1/3rd from the said amount, it
                           1107                                   H
    1108     SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2010) 11 S.C.R.


A would be at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square yard, alongwith
  other benefits awarded by the civil court. Therefore, the .
  appellant filed the instant appeals.

       Allowing the appeals, the Court
B      HELD: 1.1 The land which is acquired is very ideal
  and suitably located, there being a court house and bus
  stand in proximity to the acquired land. There is also
  evidence on record indicating that the acquired land is
  abutting the main highway. Therefore, the acquired land
C has potential value to be properly used and developed
  even for housing project or to exploit it for commercial
  purposes. The acquired land, although classified as
  agricultural land, could always be converted to land of
  good quality by making investments like filling up of the
D land, providing road, sewage system and other civic
  amenities. Therefore, the land having such potential
  value could be converted to a land of good quality by
  investing money towards its development. [Para 9) [1114-
  C-E]
E
       1.2 Whatever could be deducted towards
  development charges for developing a particular plot of
  land could range between 20 per cent to 75 per cent. This
  is a very wide bracket but an appropriate deduction
  befitting the situation, location and the nature of the tand
F justifying the deduction made could be arrived at upon
  estimation of all the said factors. If the land is already
  developed and could be used as a commercial/residential
  plot, what should be deducted would be in the lower side
  whereas if development is to be made, like filling up of
G the land, providing of roads, sewage and other civic
  amenities, etc., the range of the deduction could be
  higher. [Para 17) [1121-E-F]

       1.3 Considering the facts and circumstances of the
H instant case, and the situation of the land, what could be
 A.P. HOUSING BOARD v. K. MANO HAR REDDY & 1109
                   ORS.

an appropriate deduction is 1/3rd from the awarded            A
amount towards development charges. The evidence
adduced in the instant case shows that the land is
agricultural land and, therefore, would require extensive
development to be utilised as a residential site. [Para 18]
[1121-G-H; 1122-A]                                            B

     1.4 The High Court interfered with the rate of market
value fixed by the reference court and raised it to Rs. 75/
- per square yard from Rs. 50/- per square yard as fixed
by the reference court and thereafter, deducted 1/3rd C
from the said rate towards the development charges.
However, the High Court did not given any reason, let
alone cogent reasons, for increasing the said rate from
Rs. 50/- to Rs. 75/-. Such a course was also not
permissible in view of the clear evidence which was
relied upon and exhibited by the claimants-respondents D
themselves, presented as Exhibits A1 to A9. Those were
sale deeds which were executed in proximity to the date
of acquisition and there is also evidence on record to
indicate that the proposal for acquisition of the acquired
land was initiated as on 12.10.1982. Such an increase E
without any supporting reasons could not be said to be
valid and legal. Therefore, relying on the Exhibits which
were produced by the claimants-respondents and which
are found as a reliable yardstick for determining the
valuation in the instant case, the market value of the land F
is determined at Rs. 50/- per square yard as on the date
of the notification and it is directed that 1/3rd of the
awarded amount would be deducted from the said
valuation towards development charges. The
respondents would also be entitled to the statutory G
benefits as provided for u/ss. 23(1), 28 and 34 of the Land
Acquisition Act. [Paras 19, 20] [1122-A-F]

    Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211; Gurpreet
Singh vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457 - relied on.
                                                              H
    1110     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A      Cement Corporation of India Ltd. v. Purya & Ors. (2004)
  8 SCC 270; Rishi Pal Singh and Ors. vs. Meerut
  Development Authority and Anr. (2006) 3 SCC 205;
  Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi
  (1988) 2 SCC 150; Ranvir Singh and Anr. vs .. Union of
B Indian (2005) 12 SCC 59; Union of India and Anr. vs. Ram
  Phool and Anr. (2003) 10 SCC 167; Kasturi and Ors. vs. State
  of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354; Shaji Kuriakose and Anr. vs.
  Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 650; Lal Chand
  vs. Union of India and Anr. (2009) 15 SCC 769 - referred
c to.
                        Case Law Reference:
        (2004) 8 sec 210          Referred to.        Para 10
        (2006) 3 sec 205          Referred to.        Para 11
D
        (1988) 2 sec 150          Referred to.        Para 11
        (2005) 12 sec 59          Referred to.        Para 12
        (2003) 10 sec 161         Referred to.        Para 13
E
        (2003) 1 sec 354          Referred to.        Para 14
        (2001) 1 sec 650          Referred to.        Para 15
        (2009) 15 sec 769         Referred to.        Para 16
F       (2001) 1 sec 211          Relied on.          Para 20
        (2006) 8 sec 457          Relied on.          Para 20
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CIVIL APPEAL NO.
    4212-4223 OF 2004
G
        From the Judgment & Order 08.06.20110 of the High
    Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in AN
    1301, 1261, 1282, 1302, 1320, 1361, 1362, 1932,2035,2323,of
    1998 and 145 and 514 of 1999
H
 A.P. HOUSING BOARD v. K. MANOHAR REDDY & 1111
                   ORS.

     J. Prabhakar, Manoj Saxena, Shwetank Sabharwal and            A
Dr. Kailash Chand for the Appellant.

     P.P Rao, K Maruthi Rao,K.Radha Anjani Aiyagari,
Purushottam S.T.,Utsasv Sidhu, Filza Moonis, Apeksha
Sharma, Brajesh Jha, Chandan Kumar and Pawan Kumar for
                                                                   8
the Respondent.

    The by judgment of the Court was delivered.

      DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. The present
appeals are filed by the appellant and are directed against the    c
judgment and order dated 08.06.2001 passed by the High
Court holding that the respondents-claimants are entitled to
compensation at the rate of Rs. 75/- per square yard for the
acquired lands after deducting 1/3rd from the said amount,
i.e., Rs. 25/- per square yard, along with other benefits as       D
awarded by the Civil Court.

     2. The State Government of Andhra Pradesh by issuing
a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] on 16.01.1985, which
was published in the Gazette on 17.04.1985, proposed to            E
acquire an extent of land measuring 84 acres 24 guntas of
land situated in Survey Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 108 of
Pothireddipalli village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District.
The aforesaid notification was followed by a notification under
Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer thereafter,     F
taking into consideration the sale transactions of adjoining
lands for a period of three years prior to the publication of
notification in question, passed an award determining the
market value of the land in question at Rs. 36,000/- per acre.
                                                                   G
     3. The respondent-claimants being dissatisfied with the
aforesaid award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer,
sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil
Court claiming compensation at Rs. 100/- per square yard for
the acquired land. Consequent to the said prayer, a reference
                                                                   H
    1112      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A   case was registered. The respondents-claimants examined
    eight witnesses and also produced some documents on record
    in the nature of sale deeds exhibited as A 1 to A 15. On behalf
    of the Land Acquisition Officer, documents were produced
    which were exhibited as 81 to 822.
8
       4. The District Judge, who heard the reference case, after
  considering the oral and documentary evidence produced
  before him, passed a common judgment and order dated
  29.12.1997 fixing the market va!ue of the land acquired at Rs.
  50/- per square yard and also awarded 30 per cent solatium
C on the market value and a further sum of 12 per cent additional
  market value in terms of the Section 23(1 )(A) of the Land
  Acquisition Act. The Civil Court also awarded interest at 9 per
  cent per annum for the first year and 15 per cent per annum
  thereafter.
D
       5. The respondents-claimants, still aggrieved, filed
  appeals before the High Court under Section 54 of the Act.
  The Land Acquisition Department of the Government of Andhra
  Pradesh and the appellants herein also filed appeals before
E the High Court contending inter alia that the reference court
  was not justified in determining compensation on the basis of
  square yards of land when a large extent of land measuring 84
  acres 24 guntas had been acquired. Another contention that
  was raised on behalf of the State was that the reference court
F should have at least made deduction towards development
  charges which could have been done in the range between 33
  per cent to 65 per cent since the land acquired was a large
  tract of land whereas the exemplar is small plot of land.

       6. Contention of the respondents on the other hand in
G their appeals was that similarly situated lands were sold for
  Rs. 200/- per square yards to Rs. 300/- per square yards and,
  therefore, the valuation fixed by the reference court should be
  enhanced.

H       7. The aforesaid appeals were heard by the High Court
 A.P. HOUSING BOARD v. K. MANOHAR REDDY & 1113
      ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

and by a common judgment and order dated 08.06.2001 the              A
Court, taking into consideration the generality of the situation
and the proximity of the land in question to industrial
establishments and its potentiality, held that the claimants were
entitled to compensation of Rs. 75/- per square yard for the
acquired lands and then deducted 1/3rd from the said amount,         B
which is Rs. 25/- per square yard, and consequently held that
the respondents-claimants would be entitled for payment of
compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square yard with
other benefits as awarded by the Civil Court. Being aggrieved
by the aforesaid judgment and order, the Andhra Pradesh              c
Housing Board has filed the present appeals on which we
have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

     8. The evidence adducea by the witnesses and the
doc1Jments relied upon and referred to by the courts below
were also placed before us which we have carefully scrutinized.      D
Out of the 15 exhibits, viz., Exhibits A 1 to A 15, which are sale
deeds produced and exhibited by the respondents-claimants
before the reference court, what is really relevant for our
purpose are Exhibits A 1 to A9, as they pertain to lands situated
at Survey No. 8 which are similar to the land which was sought       E
to be acquired under the notification in question. The aforesaid
sale deeds were executed apriori the date of the notification
issued under Section 4( 1) of the Act. Exhibits A 1 to A5 relate
to transactions of sales of land in Survey No. 8 at the rate of
Rs. 50/- per square yard, Exhibits A6 & A? relate to transaction     F
of sales of land in Survey No. 13 at the rate of Rs. 60/- per
square yard and Exhibit A9 relates to transaction of sale of
land in Survey No. 4 at the rate of Rs. 48.30 per square yard.
Another important aspect which is to be noted at this stage is
that the proposal for acquisition of this land was initiated on      G
12.10.1982. In light of the said fact, one of the contentions of
the appellants was that the aforesaid purchase of property
under all the sale deeds were made in anticipation of
acquisition of land thereby showing inflated rate of sale.
                                                                     H
    1114     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A       9. It is true that all the aforesaid Exhibits which are
  produced by the respondents-claimants were executed after
  12 .10 .1982 when the aforesaid proposal for acquisition was
  initiated. It is also clear from the evidence on record that J.
  Subbiah [PW-3] who was examined in the reference case is
B also the claimant No. 7 and was a signatory to Exhibit A9 and
  is also related to Deva Sahayam [PW-2] who was the vendor.
  Similarly, Narayana Goud [PW-5] purchased the land from PW-
  2 in respect of Exhibit A3 whereias PW-5 is signatory in sale
  deeds, viz., Exhibits A1 and A2. But, the fact remains that the
c land which is acquired is very ideal and suitably located, there
  being a court house and bus stand in proximity to the acquired
  land. There is also evidence on record indicating that the
  acquired land is abutting the main highway. Therefore, the
  acquired land has potential value to be properly used and
  developed even for housing project or to exploit it for
0
  commercial purposes. The acquired land, although classified
  as agricultural land, could always be converted to land of good
  quality by making investments like filling up of the land,
  providing road, sewage system and other civic amenities. The
E land in question having such potential value could, therefore,
  be converted to a land of good quality by investing money
  towards its development.

       10. This Court while dealing with the admissibility of the
  sale deed in the case of Cement Corporation of India Ltd. v.
F Purya & Ors. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 270 at paragraph 28
  held that even the vendor or vendee to a sale deed are not
  required to be examined themselves for proving the contents
  thereof if the contents of the sale deed are held to be
  admissible by Court in accordance with law: -
G
        "28. Section 51-A of the LA Act may be read literally and
        having regard to the ordinary meaning which can be
        attributed to the term 'acceptance of evidence' relating to
        transaction evidenced by a sale deed, its admissibility in
        evidence would be beyond any question. We are not
H
  A.P. HOUSING BOARD v. K. MANOHAR REDDY & 1115
       ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

    oblivious of the fact that only by bringing a documentary        A
    evidence in the record it is not automatically brought on
    the record. For bringing a documentary evidence on the
    record, the same must not only be admissible but the
    contents thereof must be proved in accordance with law.
    But when the statute enables a court to accept a sale deed       B
    on the records evidencing a transaction, nothing further is
    required to be done. The admissibility of a certified copy
    of sale deed by itself could not be held to be inadmissible
    as thereby secondary evidence has been brought on
    record without proving the absence of primary evidence.          c
    Even the vendor or vendee thereof is not required to
    examine themselves for proving the contents thereof. This,
    however, would not mean that the contents of the
    transaction as evidenced by the registered sale deed
    would automatically be accepted. The legislature advisedly       D
    has used the word 'may'. A discretion, therefore, has been
    conferred upon a court to be exercised judicially, i.e. upon
    taking into consideration the relevant factors."

     11. This Court in a catena of decisions has laid down that
when a large tract of land is acquired and sale instances            E
produced for small plots as exemplar, the best course for the
court to arrive at a reasonable and fare valuation is to deduct
a reasonable percentage from the valuation shown in the
exemplar land and on the basis thereof to arrive at a just and
fair valuation. In Rishi Pal Singh and Others vs. Meerut             F
Development Authority and Anr. reported in (2006) 3 SCC
205, this Court while dealing with the issue relating to a large
tract of land held as follows:-

    5 ....... With respect to the first reason, that is, exemplars   G
    of small plots have been taken into consideration by the
    Reference Court, in the first instance our attention was
    invited to some judgments of this Court to urge that there
    is no absolute bar to exemplars of small plots being
    considered provided adequate discount is given in this
                                                                     H
    1116      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A       behalf. Thus there is no bar in law to exemplars of small
        plots being considered. In an appropriate case, especially
        when other relevant or material evidence is not available,
        such exemplars can be considered after making adequate
        discount. This is a case in which appropriate exemplars
B       are not available. The Reference Court has made
        adequate discount for taking the exemplars of small plots
        into consideration ........... .

  In Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector,
  Varanasi, reported at (1988) 2 SCC 150, this Court held
C (paragraph 12) that where large tracts of land are required to
  be valued, valuation in transactions with regard to small plots
  cannot directly be adopted for valuing the compensation of large
  tracts of land.

D       ''12. It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots
        cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land r
        as the two are not comparable properties. The principle
        that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed
        plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land
E       has to be understood in its proper perspective. The
        principle requires that prices fetched for small developed
        plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents.
        However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued
        does not admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes;
F       that building lots that could be laid out on the land would
        be good selling propositions and that valuation on the
        basis of the method of hypothetical lay out could with
        justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid out
        sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small
        sites in the area at or about the time of the notification
G
        would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions
        for the extent of land required for the formation of roads
        and other civil amenities; expenses of development of the
        sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and
        electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the
H
 A.P. HOUSING BOARD v. K. MANOHAR REDDY & 1117
      ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

    period of deferment of the realisation of the price; the               A
    profits on the venture etc. are to be made. In Sahib Singh
    Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust this Court indicated
    that deductions for land required for roads and other
    developmental expenses can, together, come up to as
    much as 53 per cent. But the prices fetched for small plots            B
    cannot directly be applied in the case of large areas, for
    the reason that the former reflects the "retail" price of land
    and the latter the "wholesale" price."

    12. On the admissibility and relevance of sale deeds, this             C
Court in Ranvir Singh & Anr. V. Union of India reported in
(2005) 12 sec 59 held as follows: -

    "31. Furthermore, it is well settled that the sale deeds
    pertaining to the portion of lands which are subject to
    acquisition would be the most relevant piece of evidence               D
    for assessing the market value of the acquired lands."

    "36. ·Furthermore, a judgment or award determining the
    amount of compensation is not conclusive. The same
    would merely be a piece of evidence. There cannot be any               E
    fixed criteria for determining the increase in the value of
    land at a fixed rate ................... "

   13. It was held in the case of Union of India & Anr. v.
Ram Phool & Anr. reported in (2003) 10 SCC 167 that: -
                                                                           F
    "6. . ........... the sale price in respect of a smRll bit of
    transaction would not be the determinative factor for
    deciding the market value of a vast stretch of land ......... "

    14. In the case of Kasturi & Ors. v. State of Haryana
reported in (2003) 1 SCC 354 this Court held as follows: -                 G

    "7 .............. It is well settled that in respect of agricultural
    land or undeveloped land which has potential value for
    housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount
    of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of                H
    1118    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [201 OJ 11 S.C.R.


A      compensation payable on the acquired land subject to
       certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent
       of expenditure involved for development and the area
       required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the
       land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial
B      purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the
       land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the
       purpose of making construction; maybe the land is
       situated in the midst of a developed area all around but
       that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may
c      be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that
       may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A
       claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and
       nothing more is required to be done for developmental
       purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is
       such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such
D
       evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land
       is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the
       extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small
       portion of the land is abutting the main road in the
       developed area, does not give the land the character of a
E      developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one
       portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining
       large area where planned development is required, needs
       laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity
       lines, providing civic amenities etc. However, in cases of
F      some land where there are certain advantages by virtue
       of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the
       percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental
       charges required may be less on that account. There may
       be various factual factors which may have to be taken into
G      consideration while applying the cut in payment of
       compensation towards developmental charges, maybe in
       some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less
       than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference
       between a developed area and an area having potential
H
  A.P. HOUSING BOARD v. K. MANOHAR REDDY & 1119
       ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

      value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area        A
      is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso
      facto make every land situated in the area also developed
      to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast
      tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development
      purpose."                                                         B

      15. Further, in the case of Shaji Kuriakose & Anr. v.
 Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2001) 7 SCC
. 650, this Court held that: -

      "3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales        C
      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             D
      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       E
      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        F
      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     G
      covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired
      land, (4) that the 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
                                                                        H
    1120     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A      the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given
       for the acquired land. However, if there is a 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
B      acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending
       upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land.
                    "

      16. In Lal Chand v. Union of India & Anr., reported at
  (2009) 15 SCC 769, this Court while determining the rate at
C which development charges may be deducted, held (paragraph
  8):

       .. The percentage of 'deduction for development' to be
       made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of
D      undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for
       development), with reference to the sale price of small
       developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price
       of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon
       the nature of development of the lay out in which the
E      exemplar plots are situated. The 'deduction for
       development' consists of two components. The first is with
       reference to the area required to be utilised for
       developmental works and the second is the cost of the
       development works ....
F              .... 9. Therefore the deduction for the 'development
      . factor' to be made with reference to the price of a small
        plot in a developed lay out, to arrive at the cost of
        undeveloped land, will be for more than the deduction with
        reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorized
G       private lay out or an industrial layout. It is also well known
        that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies
        is much higher than the cost incurred by private
        developers, having regard to higher overheads and
        expenditure. Even among the layouts formed by DOA, the
H
 A.P. HOUSING BOARD v. K. MANOHAR REDDY & 1121
      ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

    percentage of land utilized for roads, civic amenities, parks    A
    and play grounds may vary with reference to the nature of
    layout - whether it is residential, residential- cum-
    commercial or industrial; and even among residential
    layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size
    of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community            B
    facilities, parks and play grounds provided. Some of the
    layouts formed by statutory Development Authorities may
    have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment
    plants, water tanks, electrical sub-stations etc. in addition
    to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks,           c
    playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose
    of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the
    'deduction for development' factor is a variable
    percentage and the range of percentage itself being very
    wide from 20% to 75%.                                            D
      17. It is, therefore, implicit from the aforesaid discussion
of case law and precedent that whatever could be deducted
towards development charges for developing a particular plot
of land could range between 20 per cent to 75 per cent. This
is a very wide bracket, no doubt, but an appropriate deduction       E
befitting the situation, location and the nature of the land
justifying the deduction made could be arrived at upon
estimation of all the aforesaid factors. If the land is already
developed and could be used as a commercial/residential
plot, what should be deducted would be in the lower side             F
whereas if development is to be made, like filling up of the
land, providing of roads, sewage and other civic amenities,
etc., the range of the deduction could be higher.

     18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present      G
case, and the situation of the land, what could be an appropriate
deduction in our estimation is 1/3rd from the awarded amount
towards development charges. We have referred to the
evidence adduced in this case which shows that the land is
agricultural land and therefore would require extensive
                                                                     H
    1122      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A development to be utilised as a residential site.

       19. The High Court interfered with the rate of market value
  fixed by the reference court and raised it to Rs. 75/- per square
  yard from Rs. 50/- per square yard as fixed by the reference
  court and thereafter deducted 1/3rd from the aforesaid rate
8
  towards the development charges. However, the High Court
  has not given any reason, let alone cogent reasons, for
  increasing the aforesaid rate from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 75/-. Such
  a course was also not permissible in view of the clear evidence
  which was relied upon and exhibited by the claimants-
C respondents themselves, presented as Exhibits A 1 to A9.
  Those were sale deeds which were executed in proximity to
  the date of acquisition and there is also evidence on record
  to indicate that the proposal for acquisition of the acquired
  land was initiated as on 12.10.1982. Therefore, such an
D increase without any supporting reasons cannot be said to be
  valid and legal.

       20. Therefore, relying on the Exhibits which were produced
  by the claimants-respondents and which are found as a reliable
E yardstick for determining the valuation in the present case, we
  determine the market value of the land at Rs. 50/- per square
  yard as on the date of the notification and direct that 1/3rd of
  the awarded amount shall be deducted from the aforesaid
  valuation towards development charges. It is needless to point
F out here that the respondents shall also be entitled to the
  statutory benefits as provided for under Section 23(1), 28 and
  34 of the Act for which the decision rendered in the case of
  Sunder v. Union of India reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211 which
  was later affirmed and elaborated in the case of Gurpreet
G Singh vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 8 sec 457 would
  be applicable.

       21. We accordingly allow these appeals. However, we
   leave the parties to bear their own costs.

H N.J.                                            Appeal allowed.