SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR.versusM.K. RAFIQ SAHEB

                        [2011] 8 S.C.R. 1088


A      SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR.
                                  v.
                        M.K. RAFIQ SAHEB
                  ·(Civil Appeal No. 1086 of 2006)
                           JULY 05, 2011
B
          [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND SWATANTER
                      KUMAR, JJ.]

        Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 252
c
         Compensation - Determination of market value of land
    - Comparative sales method - High Court relied upon
    exemplar Ex.PS to determine the market value of
    compensation - Ex. P-5 related to a small piece of land,
D   whereas the acquisition was of a larger piece of land -
    Whether Ex. P5 could be used to determine the market value
    of land - Held: It is not an absolute rule that when the
    acquired land is a large tract of land, sale instances relating
    to smaller pieces of land cannot be considered - There are
    certain circumstances when sale deeds of small pieces of
E   fand can be used to determine the value of acquired land
    which is comparatively large in area -The sale of land
    containing large tracks are generally veiy far and few - This
    limitation of sale transaction cannot operate to the
    disadvantage of the claimants - Thus, the Court should look
F   into sale instances of smaller pieces of /anq while applying
    reasonable element of deduction - In the present case, the
    land acquired was 34 guntas and the notification under
    section 4 of the Act was issued on 17. 7. 1994 - The Reference
    Court had relied upon the compensation awarded for
G   acquisition of land in the neighbouring villages, which had
    occurred 5 years pn·or to the present acquisition - However,
    the market value of the land acquired in the present case is
    much better reflected by exemplar Ex. P-5, which relates to
    sale of land just 2 kms. away from the acquired land and is
H                                1088
  SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. v.1089
                M.K. RAFIQ SAHEB

  just a little over a year before the issuance of the s. 4            A
   notification in the present case - Thus, the sale deed Ex. P-
   5 was rightly relied upon by the High Court in determining
 · compensation - However, High Court made 50% deduction
   since the sale instance Ex. P-5 related to a smaller piece of
   land - The said deduction should be increased to 60%, which         B
   would be fair, just and reasonable in the circumstances -
   Judgment of High Court modified to the extent of the said
   deduction.
         Nature of acquired land - Whether the land in question
    was agricultural land or had it ceased to be so - Held: That C
    the land had ceased to be agricultural land and was capable
    of being used as a residential or industrial site is a concurrent
    finding of fact by both the Courts below (Reference Court and
    the High Court) and is amply supported by the evidence on
    record - Appellant did not file any appeal impugning the D
    finding of th:J}eference. Court. that _the land cou~d not be
 . treated as agrJCultural land - Not havmg done so, it was not
    open to the appellant to question the finding of the High Court
 , that the land is not agricultural land "'"" Otherwise also, in light
· . of the fact that the land in question was situated by the side E
    of a residential locality and was in the midst of a highly
    developed industrial locality, the acquired land was capable
    of being used for non-agricultural purposes and should be
    considered as non-agricultural land in determination of
    compensation.                                                       F
       A notification was published under section 4(1) ·of the
  Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of the
  respondents' land measuring 34 guntas (i.e. a large tract
  of land). The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)
  concluded that the lands in question were agricultural               G
  and passed award granting compensation at Rs.1,30,000/
  • per acre along with statutory benefits. Dissatisfied by
  the award of the SLAO, the respondent filed a reference
  under section 18 of the Act for enhancement of
  compensation. The Reference Court concluded that                     H
    1090    SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2011] 8 S.C.R.


A though the land in question remained agricultural land on
  the records, it could not be said that the said land was
  agricultural land for all practical purposes since it was
  situated by the side of a residential locality and was in
  the midst of a highly developed industrial locality and no
B agricultural activities could be carried out on it. Relying
  upon sale instances in the neighbouring villages, which
  had occurred five years prior to the present acquisition,
  the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to
  Rs.4,00,000/- per acre and also awarded statutory
c benefits. The respondent, still dissatisfied with the
  compensation awarded, filed appeal before the High
  Court. The High Court accepted the finding of the
  Reference Court that the land had ceased to be
  agricultural land and was fit to be used as a housing site
0 or an industrial site and thereafter further enhanced the
  compensation to Rs.35, 17,470/- per acre by placing
  reliance upon exemplar Ex. P-5 - which related to sale of
  a small piece of non-agricultural land just 2 kms. away
  from the acquired land and just a little over a year before
E the issuance of the section 4 notification in the present
  case, and also awarded all other statutory benefits.

       In the instant appeal, the question which arose for
  consideration was whether High Court was justified in
  enhancing the compensation. Two other related
F questions which arose for consideration were- a.)
  Whether the land in question was agricultural land or had
  it ceased to be so and b.) Whether Ex. PS could be used
  to determine the market value of land.

       Disposing of the appeal, the Court
G
      HELD:1.1. The plea of appellant that the land in
  question was agricultural land is not acceptable. That the
  land had ceased to be agricultural land and was capable
  of being used as a residential or industrial site is a
H concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below and
 SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. v.1091
               M.K. RAFIQ SAHEB

 is amply supported by the evidence on record. The               A
 appellant did not file any appeal impugning the finding
 of the Reference Court that the land could not be treated
 as agricultural land. Not having done so, it is not open
 to the appellant to question the finding of the High Court
 that the land is not agricultural land. [Paras 14,15] [1097-    B
 E-G]
      1.2. Otherwise also, in light of the fact that the land
 was situated by the side of a residential locality and was
 in the midst of a highly developed industrial locality, the
 acquired land was capable of being used for non-                C
 agricultural purposes and should be considered as non-
 agricultural land in determination of compensation. [Para
 16] [1097-H; 1098-A-B]
     Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of Goa and Anr. (2010) 13       D
 sec 710: 2010 (14) SCR 997 - relied on.
      J. Narayan v. Land Acquisition Offieer (1980) 2 KLJ 441
 - referred to.
       2. The High Court relied on E~.P5 to determine the        E
  market value of compensation. The judgment of the High
. Court is well reasoned and well considered. The only
  issue is that Ex. P-5, which was relied upon by the High
  Court, relates to a small piece of land, whereas the
  acquisition is of a larger piece of land. However, it is not   F
  an absolute rule that when the acquired land is a large
  tract of land, sale instances relating to smaller pieces of
  land cannot be considered. There are certain
  circumstances when sale deeds of small pieces of land
  can be used to determine the value of acquired land
  which is comparatively large in area. [Paras 17, 18] [1098-    G
  E-H; 1099-A]
     Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapal/y Village,
 Nizamabad District, Andhra Pradesh v. Nookala Rajama/lu
 and Ors. (2003) 12 SCC 334: 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 67;             H
    1092     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 8 S.C.R.

A Bhagwathula Samanna and Ors. v. Special Tahsildar and '
  Land Acquisition Officer (1991) 4 SCC 506: 1991 (1) Suppl.
  SCR 172; Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional
  Officer, Chittoor v. Smt. L. Kamalamma (dead) by Lrs. and
  others AIR 1998 SC 781: 1998 (1) SCR 1153 - relied on.
B      Smt. Basavva and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition
   Officer and Ors AIR 1996 SC 3168: 1996 (3) SCR 500 -
   referred to.
        3. In the normal course of events, it is hardly possible
c for a claimant to produce sale instances of large tracks
  of land. The sale of land containing large tracks are
  generally very far and few. Normally, the sale Instances
  would relate to small pieces of land. This limitation of sale
  transaction cannot operate to the disadvantage of the
0 claimants. Thus, the Court should look into sale instances
  of smaller pieces of land while applying reasonable
  element of deduction. [Para 23] [1100-G-H]
         4. In the present case, the land acquired is 34 guntas
    and the notification under section 4 of the Act was issued
E on 17.7.1994. For the purposes of determining
    compensation, the acquired land should be considered
    to be non-agricultural land. Ex. P-5 is a sale deed for sale
    of a non-agricultural land dated 23.4.1993. The land
    covered by the sale deed is about 2 kms. away from the
F · acquired land. In contrast, the Reference Court relied
    upon the compensation awarded for acquisition of land
    in the neighbouring villages, which had occurred 5 years
    prior to the present acquisition. The market value of the
    land acquired in the present case is much better reflected
G by exemplar Ex. P-5, which relates to sale of land just 2
    kms. away from the acquired land and is just a little over
    a year before the issuance of the section 4 notification
    in the present case. Thus, the sale deed Ex. P-5 was
    rightly relied upon by the High Court in determining
H compensation. [Paras 24 to 26] [1101-A-E]
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. v.1093
              M.K. RAFIQ SAHEB
      5. The High Court made a 50% deduction since the          A
sale instance Ex. P-5 related to a smaller piece of land.
This Court is of the considered view that the said
deduction should be increased to 60%, which would be
fair, just and reasonable in the circumstances. Hence, the
judgment of the High Court is modified to the extent of         B
the abovementioned deduction. All other findings of the
High Court are sustained. [Paras27,28] [1101-F-G]
                    Case Law Reference:
    (1980) 2 KLJ 441           referred to         Para 7       c
    2010 (14) SCR 997          relied on           Para 16
    2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 67 relied on               Para 19
    1991 (1) Suppl. SCR 172 relied on               Para 20
                                                                D
    1998 (1) SCR 1153          relied on           Para 21
    1996 (3) SCR 500           referred to          Para 22
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1086 of 2006.                                                   E

     From the Judgment & Order dated 17.06.2004 of the High
Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in Misc. First Appeal No. 3832
of 1999.

     P.P. Malhothra, ASG, Vimla Sinha, Sunita Sharma, Anil
                                                                F
Katiyar for the Appellants.

    Kiran Suri, Vijay Verma for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                  F
     GANGULY, J. 1. The issue involved in the present case
is wt)ether the quantum of compensation awarded by the High
Court,:in a land acquisition dispute is excessive or not.

    2. A notification was published under section 4(1} of the   H
     1094      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2011) 8 S.C.R.


1A   Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
     on 17. 7.1994 for the acquisition of the respondents land
     measuring 34 guntas in Sy. No. 6/2 of Binnamangala
     Mahavartha Kaval, K.R. Puram, Bangalore South Taluk.

8       3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter
   referred to as 'SLAO') passed an award on 26.9.1995 granting
   compensation at Rs.1,30,000/- per acr~ along with statutory
   benefits. The SLAO concluded that the lands were agricultural
   and no sale transactions relating to the same were available.
C Sale transactions were ava:table in respect of non-agricultural
   lands but they could not be adopted for determining the
   valuation of agricultural land. Therefore, the SLAO chose to rely
   on acquisition proceedings in respect of lands in the vicinity for
   determining land value. Accordingly, it was found that in the
   neighbouring villages of Benniganahalli, B. Narayanapura and
D Kaggadasapura villages, land had.been acquired in favour of
   DRDO complex where the government had approved awards
  fixing land value at Rs.1,30,000/-. The said valuation was thus
   adopted by the SLAO in the instant case.

E        4. Possession of the land was taken on 11.4.1996.

           5. Dissatisfied by the award of the SLAO, the respondent
     filed a reference under section 18 of the Act for enhancement
     of compensation.

F      6. The Reference Court, vide judgment dated 28.5.1999,
  enhanced compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre and also
  awarded statutory benefits. The Reference Court concluded
  that based on the evidence on record, it could not be said that
  the land in question was agricultural land for all practical
G purposes since it was situated by the side of a residential
  locality and was in the midst of a highly developed industrial
  locality. Thus, it held that though the land remained agricultural
  land on the records, it was not an agricultural land for all
  practical purposes and no agricultural activities could be carried
H out on it. The Court did not rely upon sale deeds Exhibit ..P~
                    t
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. v.1095
 M.K. RAFIQ SAHEB [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

P4, PS, P6, P7 andP8. Exhibit P7 and P8 were notrelied upon          A
as the parties to the transaction had not been examined. Ex.
P3 and P4 were corner sites, were not within vicinity of the
acquired land and were sold in a public auction, and thus also
held not reliable. The respondent had also produced Ex. P9,
which was a gazette notification dated 20.1.1997 issued by the       B
Revenue Secretariat, fixing the market value of the immovable
property coming under the jurisdiction of several Sub-
Registrar's office situated in Bangalore, for the purpose of
collecting stamp duty. The Reference Court discarded the
same on the reasoning that the Court did not know what was           c
the basis of determination of market value for the purpose of
collecting stamp duty in respect of immovable properties by the
Sub Registrar.

       7; Instead, the Reference Court proceeded to determine .
. the market value of. land on the basis of compensation awarded D
· in the judgment and award dated 13.8.1998 made by the
  Reference Court in respect of land in the neighbouring villages
  of Kaggadasapura and Mahadevapura, pursuant to the
  preliminary notification dated 28.7.1988. In the said villages,
  about 110 acres of land had been acquired and market value E
  was fixed at Rs.2,48,000/- per acre. The difference betWeen
  dates of preliminary notifications in the abovesaid villages and
  in the instant case was 5 years and 15 days. Accordingly, the
   Reference Court gave a 10% enhancement for each year in
  respect of lands acquired in and around Bangalore city, relying F
  on the judgment in J. Narayan v. Land Acquisition Officer,
  (1980) 2 KLJ 441, by which land value came to Rs.3,73,000/-
  per acre. However, the Reference Court found that the land had
  more potentiality and was situated in the midst of a heavy
  industrial area and in the immediate vicinity of an already G
  developed residential locality. It was also in the vicinity of a road
  known as Old Madras road as well as the road leading to the
  airport .. Hence, the Reference Court was of the opinion that the
  respondent was entitled to a higher market value than
  Rs.3, 73,000/- per acre. Thus, the Reference CQurt held that H
    1096      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 8 S.C.R.


A   Rs.4,00,000/- per acre would be reasonable and fair market
    value in the instant case.

        8. The respondent, still dissatisfied with the compensation
    awarded, filed an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka.
    The appellant also filed cross-objections under Order 41, Rule
8
    22 of CPC.

        9. The High Court, by way of impugned judgment dated
    17.6.2004, enhanced the compensation to Rs.3S, 17,470/- per
    acre and also awarded all other statutory benefits.
c
         10. The High Court accepted the finding of the Reference
    Court that the land in question was fit to be utilized as a non-
    agricultural site as it was fully supported by evidence on record.
    The High Court agreed with the Reference Court that the land
0   had ceased to be agricultural land and was fit to be used as a
    housing site or an industrial site.

        11. The High Court then went onto determination of
   quantum of compensation. It concurred with the Reference
   Court in rejecting Ex. P7, P8 and P9, stating that they could
 E not be relied upon as they related to transactions which had
   happened after the issuance of the preliminary notification.
   Since other sale transactions were available, which had taken
   place within reasonable time prior to the issuance of the section
   4(1} notification, post-dated sale transactions could not be
IF considered. The High Court also concurred in rejecting Ex. P3
   and P4 on ground that these sale transactions related to corner
   sites sold at a public auction. Corner sites fetched much more
   than other sites and when sold at a public auction, the price
   depended upon the whims and fancies of the bidders. Thus,
 G Ex. P3 and P4 could not be relied upon to determine market
   value. Ex. P6 related to the sale of a site with a building and
   thus it was not accepted. The High Court was of the opinion
   that Ex. PS could be used to determine market value. Ex. PS
   was a sale deed dated 23.4.1993 of the market value of a site
 H measuring around 30' X 40' fixed at Rs.2,S0,000/-, which
        •

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. v.1097
 M.K. RAFIQ SAHEB [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
worked out to Rs.182/- per square feet. The High Court also            A
deducted 50% of the market value shown in Ex. P5 towards
developmental charges, and market value of the acquired land
was computed at Rs.95/- per sq. ft.

      12. Being aggrieved by the enhancement in compensation           8
granted by the High Court, the appellant approached this court
by filing this appeal.

    13. The point that arises for consideration before us is
whether High Court has correctly enhanced compensation?
Two related questions have to be answered to determine the             C
same.

      a.    Whether the land is agricultural land or has it
            ceased to be so?

      b.    Whether Ex. PS, which relates to sale instance of          D
            a small piece of non-agricultural land, can be used
            to determine the market value of land?

      14. The appellant has challenged the finding of the High
Court that the land ceased to be agricultural land. It contended       E
that the land was agricultural land, as was clearly seen from the
records and no conversion charges were paid to convert it into
non-agricultural land.

       15. We reject this contention of the appellant. That the land
                                                                       F
has ceased to be agricultural land and is capable of being used
as a residential or industrial site is a concurrent finding of fact
by both the Courts below and is amply supported by the
evidence on record. We uphold the same. The appellant did
not file any appeal impugning the finding of the Reference Court
that the land could not be treated as agricultural land. Not having    G
done so, it is not open to the appellant to question the finding
of the High Court that the land is not agricultural land.

     16. Otherwise also, we are of the opinion that in light of
the fact that the land was situated by the side of a residential       H
                                                              •

     1098      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2011] 8 S.C.R.


 A locality and was in the midst of a highly developed industrial
   locality, the acquired land was capable of being used for non-
   agricultural purposes and should be considered as non-
   agricultural land in determination of compensation. We find
   support in this reasoning from the judgment of this court in
 B Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of Goa and Anr. reported in
   (2010) 13 SCC 710. The relevant portion of the said judgment
   is set out below:

          "5. The High Court has also referred to the situation of the
          property and has noted that the acquired lands are in a
 c        village where all basic amenities like primary health centre,
          high school, post office were available within a distance
          of 500 meters. It can therefore be safely concluded that the
          acquired lands are not undeveloped rural land, but can be
          urbanisable land situated near a developed semi-urban
 D        village with access to.all infrastructure facilities."

         17. We find that the High Court relied on Ex. P5 to
   determine the market value of compensation. It appears that
   the said sale instance relates to a small residential site
 E measuring 30' X 43' (125.309 sq. mts). The acquired land in
   question measures 34 guntas. The Reference Court rejected
   Ex. P5 in determining market value of land since it found that
   the land covered by Ex. P5 was at a distance of 2 kms from
   the acquired land. We are of the opinion that the Reference
 F Court erred in rejecting Ex. P-5 in determining compensation
   for the acquired land.
         18. The judgment of the High Court is well reasoned and .
    well considered. We find no perversity in its reasoning. The only
    issue is that Ex. P-5, which was relied upon by the High Court,
  G relates to a small piece of land, whereas the acquisition is of
    a larger piece of land. It is not an absolute rule that when the
    acquired land is a large tract of land, sale instances relating to
    smaller pieces of land cannot be considered. There are certain
    circumstances when sale deeds of small pieces of land can be
1
  H used to determine the value of acquired land which is
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR v.1099
 M.K. RAFIQ SAHEB [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
comparatively large in area, as can be seen from the judicial         A
pronouncements mentioned hereunder.
     19. It has been held in the case of Land Acquisition
Officer, Kammarapally Village, Nizamabad District, Andhra
Pradesh v. Nookala Rajamallu and Ors. reported in (2003)
12 sec 334 that:                                                      B

    "6. Where large area is the subject-matter of acquisition,
    rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a
    safe criterion. Reference in this context may be made to
    few decisions of this Court in Collector of Lakhimour v.          c
    Bhuban Chandra Dutta: AIR 1971 SC 2015, Prithvi Raj
    Taneja v. State of M.P. AIR 1977 SC 1560 and Kausalya
    Devi Bogra v; Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1984 SC 892.
    7. It cannot, however, be laid down as ·an absolute
    proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot       D
    be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where
    there is no other material, it may in appropriate cases be
    open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the
    prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases
    necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while            E
    determining the prices."
   20. In the case of Bhagwathula Samanna and Ors. v.
Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, reported in
(1991) 4 sec 506, it was held:
                                                                      F
    "13. The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly
    fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold
    is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it
    would be permissible to take into account the price fetched
    by the small plots of land. If the larger tract of land because
                                                                      G
    of advantageous position is capable of being used for the
    purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also
    situated in a developed area with little or no requirement
    of further development, the principle of deduction of the
    value for purpose of comparison is not warranted ... "
    1100     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 8 S.C.R.


A        21. In Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional
    Officer, Chittoor v. Smt. L. Kamalamma (dead) by Lrs. and
    others, AIR 1998 SC 781, this Court held as under:-

        " ... when no sales of comparable land was available where
        large chunks of land had been sold, even land transactions
B
        in respect of smaller extent of land could be taken note of
        as indicating the price that it may fetch in respect of large
        tracts of land by making appropriate deductions such as
        for development of the land by providing enough space for
        roads, sewers, drains, expenses involved in formation of
c       a lay out, lump sum payment as also the waiting period
        required for selling the sites that would be formed."

       22. Further, it has also been held in the case of Smt.
  Basavva and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and
D Ors, reported in AIR 1996 SC 3168, that the court has to
  consider whether sales relating to smaller pieces of land are
  genuine and reliable and whether they are in respect of
  comparable lands. In case the said requirements are met,
  sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at a just and fair
- market value of large tracks of land. Further, the court stated
  that the time lag for real development and the waiting period
  for development were also relevant factors to be considered
  in determining compensation. The court added that each case
  depended upon its own facts. In the said case, based on the
F particular facts and circumstances, this court made a total
  deduction of 65% in determination of compensation.

       23. It may also be noticed that in the normal course of
  events, it is hardly possible for a claimant to produce sale
  instances of large tracks of land. The sale of land containing
G large tracks are generally very far and few. Normally, the sale
  instances would relate to small pieces of land. This limitation
  of sale transaction cannot operate to the disadvantage of the
  claimants. Thus, the Court should look into sale instances of
  smaller pieces of land while applying reasonable element of
H deduction.
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. v.1101
 M.K. RAFIQ SAHEB [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
                                                                       1
     24. In the present case, the land acquired is 34 guntas and   A
the notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on
17.7.1994. We have already held that for the purposes of
determining compensation, the acquired land should be
considered to be non-agricultural land. Ex. P-5 is a sale deed
for sale of a non-agricultural land dated 23.4.1993. The land      B
covered by the sale deed is about 2 kms. away from the
acquired land.
     25. In contrast, the Reference Court relied upon the
compensation awarded for acquisition of land in the
neighbouring villages, which had occurred 5 years prior to the     C
present acquisition. We are of the opinion that market value of
the land acquired in the present case is much better reflected
by exemplar Ex. P-5, which relates to sale of land just 2 kms.
away from the acquired land and is just a little over a year
before the issuance of the section 4 notification in the present   D
case. All other sale deeds presented before this Court could
be relied upon and were rightly rejected by both the Reference
Court and the High Court for the reasons given above.
    26. Thus, we are of the opinion that the sale deed Ex. P-
5 was rightly relied upon by the High Court in determining         E
compensation.
     27. The High Court made a 50% deduction since the sale
instance Ex. P-5 related to a smaller piece of land. We are of
the considered view that the said deduction should be increased
to 60%, which we find fair, just and reasonable in the             F
circumstances.
     28. Hence, the judgment of the High Court is modified to
the extent of the abovementioned deduction. All other findings
of the High Court are sustained.
                                                                   G
    29. The appeal is thus dismissed with the aforesaid
modification.
    30. No order as to costs.
B.B.B.                                    Appeal disposed of.
                                                                   H