SMT. BASAVVA AND ORS. ETC.versusTHE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AND ORS.

A                     SMT. BASAVVA AND ORS. ETC.
                                         v.
           THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AND ORS.

                                MARCH 15, 1996

B              [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]

         Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

          Land Acquisition-Compensatimi--Detennination of market value-
C   Deduction towards development charges-Pennissible extent of-Deduction
    between 33-113 to 53% held permissible by Supreme Court in many
    decisions-Land acquired situated in area where there was no develop-
    ment-Development likely to take long time-Reliance on sale deed for
    compensation-Land under sale deed sintated at far flung area from land
    under acquisitimi--In view of the fact that development would have taken
D   long years High Cowt allowed additional deduction of 12% i.e. 53% and
    12% in detem1ination of compensatimi--Held principles adopted by High
    Court was not illegal.

          K Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer, LAO, [1995] S SCC
E   426, relied on.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2209-12
    of 1993 Etc. Etc.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 25.9.92 of the Karnataka High
    Court in Misc. F.A. Nos. 677-79 and 681 of 1989.
F
          K. Madhava Reddy, S.S. Javaly, G.L. Sanghi, D. Dave, Anand A.
    Magadum, E.C. Vidya Sagar, Gopal Singh, T.V. Ratnam, Ms. Kiran Sur~
    B.G. Sridharnn, G.V. Chandrashekhar, P.P. Singh, P. Mahale, S.K. Kulkar-
    ni, M.T. George and Ms. Sangeeta Kumar for the Appearing parties.
G
          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          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
H   was published on October 30, 1981. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded
                 ~                       500
                   BASAVVAv. SPL. LAND ACQN. OFFICER                         501

    compensation at the rate ranging between Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 8,080 by his A
    award dated August 22, 1985. On reference the Civil Court enhanced the
    compensation to Rs. 1.72 per sq. ft. by judgment and order 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 claimants for B
    further increase. It is also not in dispute that though the State wanted to
    file appeals against enhancement of the compensation, this Court has
    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 C
    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 acquisi-
    tion, though snbsequent'to the date of notification in this case, for the lands D
    in Kulkarni's case which in just disposed of, was granted at the rate of Rs.
    67,200 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 respon-
    dents resisted the contention.
                                                                                   E
           Having given our consideration, the question that arises for con-
    sideration is : whether the High Court has 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 Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer, LAO, (1995] 5 p
    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 G
"   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 deduc-
    tion of development charges, the nature of the development, conditions and
    nature of the land, the land required to be set apart under the building H
                                                                                     I
                                                                                     i

    502                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A rules for roads, sewarage, 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 l k.m.
  It is has also found that the land in the area is not developed and there is
B 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
  the market value under Ex.P-10 cannot form the sole basis but keeping in
  view the developments the lands are capable to fetch compensation at the
  rate of Rs. 56,000 after deducting 65%. For developmental charges, that
C 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 another 12%. Obviously, the High Court kept in
  view the fact that the lands under Ex.P-10 were situated at far flung places
D 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
E increase the compensation.
           The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

     T.N.A.                                                   Appeals dismissed.




                                                                                         ~   .