Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
A.S.KRISHNA AND CO. PVT. LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER(DEPUTY COLLECTOR) HYDERABAD
DATE OF JUDGMENT19/11/1991
BENCH:
MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)
BENCH:
MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)
MOHAN, S. (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 421 1991 SCR Supl. (2) 375
1992 SCC (1) 141 JT 1991 (4) 530
1991 SCALE (2)1186
ACT:
Land Acquisition Act. 1894.’
S. 4 (1) Compensation--Determination of--Deduction of
Development cost--Validity of
HEADNOTE:
Certain plots of land of the appellant were acquired by
notifications dated 12.1.1978, 27.7.1978 and 14.6.1979
issued under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
Land Acquisition Officer by an order dated 10.6.1982 fixed
the market value at Rs. 42,000 per acre with 5 per cent
deduction towards development cost.
In appellant’s appeal the Civil Court fixed the market
value at Rs.200 per sq. yard with a deduction of 5 per cent
towards the development charges.
On the appeal by the land acquisition officer, the High
Court reassessed the entire evidence and fixed the market
value at Rs.3 lakh per acre holding that if a deduction of
20 per cent was allowed, the market value would come to
Rs.2,40,000 per acre which worked out at Rs.50 per sq.yard,
and accordingly set aside the judgment and decree, and
determined the market value at Rs.50 per sq.yard.
Dismissing the appeals of the appellant-claimant this Court,
HELD: 1. In fixing the compensation, the High Court did
not go by the percentage of deduction but kept in view the
market value of the land at the time of the notification
under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. [p. 377 F]
2. There was clear material and the High Court accepted
it that price went up in the area after 1980. The notifica-
tions were within a range of a year or two from that time.
Therefore, the valuation after 1980 was not the guideline. [
p. 377 F-G]
376
3. In the instant case, the Collector had adopted a
deduction of five per cent. The referee Court adopted the
deduction at 20 per cent and the High Court rejecting the
claim of the Advocate General that deduction should be one-
third put it at one-fifth. The High Court did not go by the
percentage of deduction. The appropriate market value fixed
by the High Court per sq. yard was Rs 50 and if a 20 per
cent deduction from out of Rs.3 lakhs per acre was accepted,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
it worked that way. The finding of the High Court need not
be disturbed. [p. 377 E-G]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.4538-39 of
1991.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.3.1990 of the Hyderabad
High Court in C.C.A. Nos. 54 & 55 of 1987.
Ashok K.Gupta for the Appellant.
Ms. Suruchi Agrawal and T.V.S.N.Chari for the Respondents-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, CJ. Special leave granted. By notifica-
tion dated 12th January, 1973, under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as modifiednby Notification of
27th July, 1978, 26 acres and 26 gunthas of land located
within the Hyderabad District was notified for acquisition
for the Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority. A similar
notification was published on 14th June, 1979 for acquisi-
tion of two acres and 29 gunthas. The Land Acquisition
Officer made his award for both the properties on 10 th
June, 1982 fixing the market value at Rs. 42,000 per acre
with five per cent deduction towards development cost. Being
dissatisfied with the awards passed by Land Acquisition
Officer, a reference was sought and made under section 18 of
the Act. The Claimants demanded compensation at the rate of
Rs. 200 per square yard. The Civil Court fixed the market
value at Rs.200 per sq.yd. as demanded but directed deduc-
tion of 20 per cent towards development charges. The Land
Acquisition Officer carried appeals against the escalation
of compensation and the present appellants preferred cross
objections. The High Court reassessed the entire evidence
and came to hold.
"Today the position of the acquired lands is
altogether different. It is common knowledge
that the prices started soaring high from 1980
onwards and this part of Hyderabad, namely,
377
Gaddiannaram started developing from 1980 and
today it is undoubtedly one of the important
areas in Hyderabad. But we must consider the
position as it stood in 1978 and 1979. Taking
all the circumstances into account, we think
it reasonable to fix the market value at Rs. 3
lakhs per acre. The Civil Court had given a
deduction of 20 per cent towards development
charges.
The learned Advocate General contended that
deduction should be enhanced to 33-1/3 per
cent. We do not think that any interference is
called for in this regard. The lands are
abutting the highway. Evidence shows that
there are roads on three sides. Hence. we
maintain the deduction of 20 per cent and if
so done, the market value comes to Rs.2,40,000
which works out at Rs. 50 per sq.yd. The Trial
Court has awarded Rs.200 per sq.yd with a
deduction of 20 per cent which comes to Rs.
160 per sq.yd. We are unable to sustain the
order of the Court below on any justifiable
grounds. We accordingly set aside the judgment
and decree and determine the market value at
the rate of Rs.50 per sq.yd ...... "
It is against this deduction in compensation that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
claimants have come to this court in appeal.
The Collector had adopted a deduction of five per cent.
The referee court adopted the deduction at 20 per cent and
the High Court rejecting the claim of the Advocate General
that deduction should be one-third put it at one-fifth. We
find that the High Court did not go by the percentage of
deduction. In fact, according to the High Court and particu-
larly as the portion we have extracted above would show the
appropriate market value per square yard was Rs. 50 and if a
20 per cent deduction from out of Rs. 3 lakhs per acre was
accepted, it worked out that way. The Judgment of the High
Court gives us the impression that in fixing the compensa-
tion. the High Court did not go by the percentage of deduc-
tion but kept in view the market value of the land at the
time of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act.
There is clear material and the High Court has accepted it
that price went up in the area after 1980. The notifications
are within a range of a year or two from that time. There-
fore, the valuation after 1980 is not the guideline. Having
looked into the material accepted by the High Court, we are
not in a position to disturb the finding recorded by the
High Court. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
R.P. Appeals
dismissed.
378