Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9
PETITIONER:
SURESH KUMAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
TOWN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BHOPAL
DATE OF JUDGMENT03/03/1989
BENCH:
SAIKIA, K.N. (J)
BENCH:
SAIKIA, K.N. (J)
OZA, G.L. (J)
CITATION:
1989 AIR 1222 1989 SCR (1) 908
1989 SCC (2) 329 JT 1989 (1) 439
1989 SCALE (1)534
CITATOR INFO :
F 1989 SC1228 (1)
F 1989 SC1229 (1)
ACT:
Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust--Section 68-Land
acquired--Compensation for such land--Determine market value
taking into account its special value.
Constitution of India, 1950:--Art. 136--Appeal involving
question of valuation of acquired land-interference with
award--Only when erroneous principle invoked or important
piece of evidence overlooked or misapplied.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894--Sections, 4, 23-25--Compen-
sation for land acquired--Principles for
determination--Determine market value of land taking into
consideration its special value.
HEADNOTE:
Respondent--Town Improvement Trust Bhopal acquired 152
acres of land in village Jamalpura under section 68 of the
Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act within the munici-
pal limits of Bhopal. That land included 12.62 acres of land
belonging to the appellant on which stood a house, a well
and some trees. The appellant being not satisfied with the
amount of compensation offered to him by the Trust, made a
Reference to the Compensation Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded
compensation at the rate of Rs.6,000 per acre for the land,
Rs.5,000 for the building, Rs.3,000 for the well and Rs.815
for the trees. Thus the Tribunal awarded a total sum of
Rs.1,20,000 as compensation as against a claim of
Rs.13,39,560 made by the appellant. On appeal, the High
Court, maintained the award in respect of the building, well
and the trees but enhanced the same so far as the land is
concerned by determining the market value of Rs.12,000 per
acre. Working or this basis, including 15% solatium, the
total amount of compensation awarded worked out to he Rs.
1,84,923.
Being dissatisfied with the Order of the High Court, he
has come up to this Court after obtaining special leave.
The main contentions urged by the appellant are (i) that
the house and well are undervalued; (ii) that the land ought
to have been treated as urbanised developed land; (iii) that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9
potential value of the land has not
909
been taken into consideration while determining compensa-
tion; (iv) that the value of the sales of similar plots has
wrongly been rejected.
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: In determining market value, where there was no
sufficient direct evidence of market price, the Court is
required to ascertain as best as possible from the materials
before it, what a willing vendor would reasonably have
expected to obtain from a willing purchaser from the land in
its particular position and with its particular potentiali-
ty. [914C-D]
A land which is certainly or likely to be used in the
immediate or reasonably near future for building purposes
but which at the valuation date is waste land or has been
used for agricultural purposes, the owner, however, willing
a vendor he is, is not likely to be content to sell the land
for its value as waste or agricultural land as the case may
be. The possibility of its being used for building purposes
would have to be taken into account. However, it must not be
valued as though it had already been built upon. It is the
possibilities of the land and not its realised possibilities
that must be taken into consideration. [914E-F]
In estimating the market value of the land, all the
capabilities of the land and all its legitimate purposes to
which it may be applied, or for which it may be adapted are
to be considered and not merely the condition it is in and
the use to which it is put at the time applied by the owner.
The proper principle is to ascertain the market value of the
land taking into consideration the special value which ought
to be attached to the special advantage possessed by the
land; namely, its proximity to developed urbanised areas.
[915A-B]
The value of the potentiality has to be determined on
such materials as are available and without indulgence in
fits of imagination. [915B-C]
A court of appeal interferes not when the judgment under
attack is not right, but only when it is shown to be wrong.
[912E]
In an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India
involving the question of valuation of acquired land, the
Supreme Court will not interfere with the award unless some
erroneous principle has been invoked or some important piece
of evidence has been overlooked or misapplied [912B-C]
910
When the willing vendor had agreed to sell land at 14
annas per sq. feet after development and the development
charge was to be paid by the willing purchaser it could be
reasonable to deduct only 50% on account of the land to be
set apart for roads, drains etc. and not beyond that. Con-
sidering this aspect of the matter and the potential value
of the land as urban developed area the Court took the view
that the compensation may justly be enhanced by 1/6th i.e.
to Rs.14,000 per acre. Solatium 15% was maintained but the
rate of interest was raised to 9% on the enhanced compensa-
tion till payment. [918F-G ]
Atmaram Bhagwant v. Collector ofNagpur, A.I.R. 1929 P.C.
92, followed; Dollar Company Madras v. Collector of Madras,
[1975] Suppl. S.C.R. 403; Gajapatiraju v. Rev. Divisional
Officer, A.I.R. 1939 P.C. 98; Mahabir Prasad Santuka v.
Collector, Cuttack, [1987] 1 S.C.C. 587 and U.P. Government
v.H.S. Gupta, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 202.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2931 (N)
of 1981.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.10.1980 of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.
78 of 1974.
L.M. Singhvi, D. Bhandari and A.K. Sanghi for the Appellant.
T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer and S.K. Gambhir for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.N. SAIKIA, J. This Civil Appeal by special leave is
from the order dated 7.10.1980 of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Jabalpur in Misc (F) Appeal No. 78 of 1974, allow-
ing the appeal and enhancing compensation for land acquired
by the Improvement Trust, Bhopal.
The Improvement Trust, Bhopal, hereinafter referred to
as ’the Trust’, acquired 152 acres of land of Village Jamal-
pura by Notification dated 30th April, 1965 issued under
Section 68 of the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act,
1960, hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’, and took posses-
sion of the land sometimes in June, 1967. Out of these
acquired land the instant appellant owned 12.62 acres where-
upon stood a house, a well and some trees. The whole of the
acquired land including that of the appellant was within the
limits of Bhopal Municipal Corporation. On 25.3.1966 Notifi-
cation under Section 71 of
911
the Act was issued vesting the land in the Trust. The Trust
offered compensation at the rate of Rs.950 per acre (@ 14
paise per sq. ft.) amounting to Rs.11,997.00; for the well
Rs.3,108; and for the trees Rs.815 and for compulsory acqui-
sition 15% amounting to Rs.2,400. The appellant made refer-
ence, No. 8 of 1970 to the Compensation Tribunal under
Section 72(3) of the Act. The Tribunal awarded compensation
at the rate of Rs.6,000 per acre (Rs.0.28 Paise per sqr.
ft.) for the land, Rs.5,000 for the building, Rs.3,000 for
the well and Rs.815 for the trees. Thus the Tribunal by its
award dated 25th November, 1972 awarded a total sum of
Rs.1,20,060 inclusive of interest as compensation to the
appellant, as against his claim at the rate of Rs.20,000 per
acre for the land, Rs.20,000 for the building, Rs.5,000 for
the well, Rs.2,500 for the trees and Rs. 10,000 for loss of
business and earnings, his total claim amounting to Rs.
13,39,560. On appeal, being Misc. (F) Appeal No. 78 of 1974,
the High Court maintained the award in respect of the Build-
ing, well and the trees, but enhanced the compensation in
respect of the land determining the market value at Rs.
12,000 per acre and the total area being 12.62 acres the
total compensation inclusive of that allowed for the house
etc. and 15% solatium worked out to Rs. 1,84,293. Dissatis-
fied, the appellant obtained leave and filed this appeal.
Dr. L.M. Singhvi learned counsel for the appellant
submits, inter alia, that the house and the well were gross-
ly undervalued; that both the Tribunal as well as the High
Court misdirected themselves in treating the land as agri-
cultural land but not as urbanised developed land on the
erroneous ground that there was no building activity of
substantial nature at the time of acquisition in spite of
the fact that a part of the land was already converted to
Abadi, that both the Tribunal as well as the High Court
failed to take into consideration the potential value of the
land; and that evidence of sales of similar plots was not
accepted on the ground that those pertained to small plots;
and that the High Court committed an error when it deducted
the development charge from the agreed price instead of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9
adding it to the agreed price while calculating the market
value.
Mr. Krishnamurthi learned counsel for the respondent
Trust submits that the house and the well were properly
valued; that it was not correct that the Tribunal did not
correctly consider the question of the nature of the land
which it held to be agricultural because it did not find
therein any building activity of substantial nature. At any
rate, counsel submits, the High Court took into considera-
tion the potential value of the land and as such there was
no omission to consider any
912
relevant material or misdirection in this regard. Counsel,
however, fails to explain the reason of deducting the devel-
opment charge from the agreed price, instead of adding it,
while calculating market value of the lands on the basis of
evidence produced by the claimant. This, however, according
to counsel, is not a sufficient ground for our interference
in this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India.
In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India involving the question of valuation of acquired land,
this Court will not interfere with the award unless some
erroneous principle has been invoked or some important piece
of evidence has been overlooked or misapplied, as was held
in Atmaram Bhagwant v. Collector of Nagpur, A.I.R. 1929 P.C.
92. In Dollar Company, Madras v. Collector of Madras, 1975
Suppl. S.C.R. 403 the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.
800 per ground as compensation and the City Civil Court on
reference awarded at the rate of Rs. 1,000 pet ground, and
the High Court on appeal awarded Rs.1800 per ground. The
appellant himself purchased the suit land about 10 months
before the Notification under Section 4 was made at a price
of Rs.410 per ground whereafter the appellant has spent a
little money on filling up a pond. Dismissing the appeal it
was observed that this Court interferes with the judgment of
the High Court only if the High Court applies a principle
wrongly or because some important point affecting valuation
has been overlooked or misapplied. A Court of appeal inter-
feres not when the judgment under attack is not right, but
only when it is shown to be wrong. As there was no error in
principle in the High Court judgment nor had any of the
limited grounds on which that Court’s jurisdiction could be
legitimately exercised was made out, the appeal was dis-
missed. Therefore, it is for the the appellant to show that
there is ground for interference in this case.
As regards the value of the house, the Land Compensation
Tribunal clearly observed that it visited the spot and found
that the house ’was in extremely dilapidated condition
having big cracks in foundation, walls and pillars. The
foundation was getting-loose. The roof of asbestos sheets
was sagging, indicating that the wood rafters had been badly
damaged. Doors and windows were in bad condition. The two
verandahs of the house were temporary, with roof of asbestos
sheets.’
The house, according to the Tribunal might be 20 to 25
years old and depreciation would be 5% per year. Considering
the above factors
913
we are of the view that the compensation awarded, namely,
Rs.5,000 is reasonable. Also from evidence we find that
Rs.3,000 for the well was reasonable. There was no error of
principle and hence there can be no grievance on these
counts.
Regarding nature of the land the Tribunal noted that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9
claimants in most of the references asserted that the ac-
quired land should be valued as urban house site because of
alleged potential value and had claimed compensation between
the Rs.3 to Rs. 1 per sqr. ft. The Trust disputed the claim
and urged that the lands at the time of acquisition, were
either agricultural or- merely fallow land and they had
absolutely no urban site value. The claimants also urged
that the lands were situated within Corporation limits and
lands of some of the claimants were already diverted (con-
verted). We agree with Mr. Krishnamurthi that though the
Tribunal treated it as agricultural, the High Court proceed-
ed on the principle of developed land.
It is true that the market value of the land acquired
has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is
neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor
undue deprivation on the part of the owner. Dr. Singhvi
argues that failing to consider potential value is an error
of principle. It is an accepted principle as was laid down
in Gajapatiraju v. Rev. Divisional Officer, A.I.R. 1939 P.C.
98 that the compensation must be determined by reference to
the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to
obtain from willing purchaser. The disinclination of the
vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the
purchaser to buy it must alike be disregarded. Neither must
be considered as acting under compulsion. The value of the
land is not to be estimated at its value to the purchaser
but this does not mean that the fact that some particular
purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be
disregarded. The wish of a particular purchaser, though not
his compulsion, may always be taken into consideration for
what it is worth. Any sentimental value for the vendor need
not be taken into account. The vendor is to be treated as a
vendor willing to sell at the market price. Section 23 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, enumerates the matters to be
considered in determining compensation- The first to be
taken into consideration is the market value of the land on
the date of the publication of the Notification under Sec-
tion 4(1). Market value is that of a willing vendor and a
willing purchaser. A willing vendor would naturally take
into consideration such factors as would contribute to the
value of his land including its unearned increment. A will-
ing purchaser would also consider more or less the same
factors. There may be many ponder-
914
able and imponderable factors in such estimation or guess
work. Section 24 of the Act enumerates the matters which the
Court shall not take into consideration in determining
compensation. Section 25 provides that the amount of compen-
sation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the
amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. As was
observed in Gajapatiraju (supra) sometimes, it happens that
the land to be valued possesses some unusual, and it may be,
unique features, as regards its position or its potentiali-
ty. In such a case the court has to ascertain as best as
possible from the materials before it what a willing vendor
might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser,
for the land in that particular position and with that
particular potentiality. In the instant case also the ac-
quired land possesses Some important features being located
within the Corporation area and its potentiality for being
developed as a residential area. In such a situation in
determining its market value, where there was no sufficient
direct evidence of market price, the Court was required to
ascertain as best as possible from the materials before it,
what a willing vendor would reasonably have expected to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9
obtain from a willing purchaser from the land in this par-
ticular position and with this particular potentiality. It
is an accepted principle that the land is not to be valued,
merely by reference to the use to which it has been put at
the time at which its value has to be determined, that is,
the date of the notification under Section 4, but also by
reference to the use to which it is reasonably capable of
being put in the future. A land which is certainly or likely
to be used in the immediate or reasonably near future for
building purposes but which at the valuation date is waste
land or has been used for agricultural purposes, the owner,
however willing a vendor he is. is not likely to be content
to sell the land for its value as waste or agricultural land
as the case may be. The possibility of its being used for
building purposes would have to be taken into account.
However, it must not be valued as though it had already been
built upon. It is the possibilities of the land and not its
realised possibilities that must be taken into considera-
tion, In other words, the value of the land should be deter-
mined not necessarily according to its present disposition
but laid out in its lucrative and advantageous way in which
the owner can dispose it of. It is well established that
the special, though natural, adaptability of the land for
the purpose for which it is taken, is an important element
to be taken into consideration in determining the market
value of the land. In such a situation the land might have
already been valued at more than its value as agricultural
land, if it had any other capabilities. However, only rea-
sonable and fair capabilities but not far-fetched and hypo-
thetical capabilities are to be taken into consideration. In
sum, in estimating
915
the market value of the land all of the capabilities of the
land, and all its legitimate purposes to which it may be
applied or for which it may be adapted are to be considered
and not merely the condition it is in and the use to which
it is at the time applied by the owner. The proper principle
is to ascertain the market value of the land taking into
consideration the special value which ought to be attached
to the special advantage possessed by the land; namely, its
proximity to developed urbanised areas.
The value of the potentiality has to be determined on
such materials as are available and without indulgence in
fits of the imagination. In Mahabir Prasad Santuka v. Col-
lector, Cuttack, [1987] 1 S.C.C. 587 the evidence on record
was that the land was being used for agricultural purposes
but it was fit for non-agricultural purposes and it had
potentiality for future use as factory or building site and
that on industrialisation of the neighbouring areas the
prices increased tremendously, and that aspect, it was held,
could not be ignored in determining compensation.
On the question as to whether the land was urbanised
developed land or not we find that the Tribunal consolidated
all the 15 references arising out of the acquisition for the
purpose of recording evidence and, that is, how it came to
consider the Exts. P-1, P-2, P-3, and P-8 being agreements
of sale executed by Phool Chand Gupta who was father of the
claimant in reference No. 1 of 1970 while the petitioners
reference was No. 8 of 1970. Similarly the Ext. D-1 to D-6
also pertained to small plots of land out of land in refer-
ence No. 1 of 1970. The High Court rightly held that the
Exts. P-1, P-2, P-3 and P-8 and the sale deeds Exts. D-1 to
D-6 furnished a more reliable data for working out the
market value. If those lands were the urban developed house
site lands, their prices would have reflected the same. It
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9
cannot, therefore be said that High Court was in error in
taking the above Exts. into consideration. However, poten-
tial value was not separately considered. Exts. P-1, P-2,
P-3 and P-8 were agreements of sale executed on 29th July,
1961 in respect of small parcels of land wherein the vendor
agreed to sell the land at that time at the rate of 14 annas
per sqr. ft. to Rs. 1 per sqr. ft. It was further agreed
that the vendees would pay development charges at the rate
of 4 annas per sqr. ft. The vendor and the respective vend-
ees were examined- It should be noted that the Exts. were
agreements to sell and not sales. The High Court observed.
that the idea behind those transactions was that the vendor
would apply to the revenue authority for diversion and the
town planning authority for sanction of lay-out plan and the
sale deeds would be executed after the land was developed.
The High Court also noted that
916
there was nothing to show that the agreements were prepared
only to be used later as evidence of market value. In Decem-
ber 1960 Phool Chand Gupta applied for diversion of his land
to the Sub-Divisional Officer. In January 1961 application
was also made to the Town Planning Authority for sanction of
the lay-out plan but in the meantime the land was notified
for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act sometimes in
1962 and Phool Chand Gupta tried to extricate his land from
acquisition which, however, did not materialise and, as
already noted, on 30.4.65 the instant notification to ac-
quire under Section 68 of the Act was issued. Rejecting the
contention that the agreements were spurious, the High Court
observed that the very fact that applications were made for
diversion and for sanction of lay-out plan went to show that
the owner was interested in the development in the land and
in selling it after dividing it into plots. Thus, the High
Court, rightly took into consideration the above Exts, which
pertained to a part of the acquired land of 152 acres.
The High Court also considered the sale deeds Exts. D-1
to D-6 which pertained to small plots of lands out of land
in reference No. 1 of 1970. Those sale deeds were registered
in 1966-67, but the agreements to sale were entered into in
1959-62. The respective purchasers and the vendors were
examined. The market value on the basis of Ext. D-2 made in
the sale deed of 1962 selling only to 12.50 sqr. ft. for
Rs.260 which worked out to Rs.8712 per acre. The High Court
did not say that these Exts. were rejected. By Ext. P-5, P-6
and P-32 small parcels of land, at Kumharpura were sold.
Kumharpura was noted to be two to three furlongs away from
the acquired land. The market rate according to these Exts.
ranged from Rs. 1.88 to 2.34 per sqr. ft. The High Court
observed that these sales could not be a useful guide for
determining the market value of land acquired. We are of the
view that compared to Exts. P-1, P-2, P-3 and P-8 Exts. P-5
and P-6 and P-32 were less indicative of the market value of
the acquired land. We feel that the appellant should have no
grievance for rejection of these sales of Kumharpura. We
find force in the contention of Dr. Singhvi that potential
value was not taken into account in this case to the extent
it should have been done. From the award dated 25.11.1972 it
appears that the acquired land was situated at Village
Nissatpura, within Corporation limits of Bhopal Town and
consisting of Khasra No. 190/ 73, 136/74, 178/74, 135/75-76,
the total area being 12.62 acres. The High Court found that
the land was bounded on three sides by three roads: towards
the eastern side by Berasia road; towards the western side
by Sultania road; and towards the northern side by P.G.B.T.
College Road. Southern boundary of the land was a Nala. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9
High
917
Court also noticed that the land abutted to roads, namely,
Berasia road and P.G.B.T. College road and the claimant had
a house on the land and that the claimant had stated that he
had obtained water and electricity connection from the
Corporation and the electricity Board.: 7.60 acres of land
out of 12.62 acres had been diverted and the land was even.
At paragraph 14 of the special leave petition it is
stated that the land is approachable from two different and
important localities of Bhopal Town. From Bajaria Chowk
Shahjanabad, a road, called Sultania Infantry road, proceeds
Military Lines called Sultania Infantry lines. On both sides
of this road, there is the thickly habited locality of
Shahjahanabad, till about two furlongs. Slightly ahead is
the enterance porch gate of the Military lines. Just before
the gate, a tarred road bifurcates on the right hand side
and it enters the acquired land of Swatantra Kumar Ref. No.
1/70. This tarred road was constructed by the Trust after
acquisition of the lands. It goes on all sides of village
Jamalpura, which is surrounded on all sides by the lands of
Ref. No. 1/70. A part of land of Ref. No. 1/70 was developed
after acquisition, and the tarred road reaches the developed
plots. We have to note that such detail evidence was not
there before the Tribunal and no benefit of development
pursuant to and after the acquisition can be taken into
consideration. Even so, from the map and juxtaposition we
have no doubt that the acquired land had potentialities
which deserved to be counted.
In U.P. Government v.H.S. Gupta, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 202
where in computing compensation for acquisition of an estate
outside the Municipal area the High Court had given valid
and weighty reasons for adopting the principle that the
valuation should be on plot-wise though there was certain
advantages in computing the value at the block rate where
vast area of land was acquired, this Court held that in the
circumstances of that case the proper mode of valuation was
plot rate basis. In the instant case the application of the
principle that if the land has to be sold in one block
consisting of a large area, the rate likely to be fixed per
sq. ft. would be lower than if an equal extent of land is
parcelled out into smaller bits and sold to different pur-
chasers could not be found fault with. The price fetched for
smaller extent of land similarly situated with the same kind
of advantages and drawbacks can also be applied to a large
area valued plot-wise instead of block-wise.
In the instant case relying on Exts. P-1, P-2, P-3 and
P˜8 and considering the fact that applications were made for
diversion and for sanction of a lay-out plan the High Court
found that it went to show that the owner was interested in
developing the land and in selling it by
918
dividing it into plots. The lowest rate of price in these
agreements was 14 annas per sqr. ft. and the agreements
mentioned that 4 annas per sqr. ft. Would be needed for
developing the land. This charge was to be paid by the
purchaser. So the price of developed land would be Rs. 1/2
per sqr. ft. The evidence of M.P. Jain (D.W. 9), Senior
Draftsman of the Improvement Trust went to show that ex-
penses for improvement of land ranged from Rs. 1.50 to 2 per
sqr. ft. The statement of Shri Jain was recorded in 1972.
Making some allowance for the increase in the rate the High
Court considered it proper to hold that in 1965 when this
land was acquired the charges for improvement would have
worked at 75 paise (12 annas) per sqr. ft. It had also come
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9
in the evidence of Shri Jain that 50 to 60 per cent of the
land had to be left for roads, drainage, gardens, school
etc. and it was only then that the lay-out plan was sanc-
tioned. High Court, accordingly, deducted improvement
charges at the rate of 12 annas per sqr. ft., and the market
rate for unimproved land in the light of these agreements
worked out to 6 annas per sqr. ft. As 50% of the land at
least had to be left out for roads etc; so the market rate
of 3 annas per sqr. ft. was applied for the entire unde-
veloped land. Market rate thus worked out to Rs.8,000 per
acre approximately. However, the High Court awarded Rs.
12,000 per acre. There was an additional factors in the
calculation. Mr. Krishnamurthi therefore submitted that the
High Court took into consideration the potential value of
the land as a developed area but while making calculation it
may have committed mistake. To our mind the error was in
wholly overlooking the basic price agreed to be paid by the
purchaser and the standard of development they visualised.
The whole of the basic price could not be expected to be
eaten up by the development of the land to the standard
contemplated by the vendor and purchaser. When the willing
vendor has agreed to sell land at 14 annas per sqr. ft.
after development and the development charge was to be paid
by the willing purchaser, it could be reasonable to deduct
only 50% on account of the land to be set apart for roads,
drains etc. and not beyond that. Considering this aspect of
the matter and the potential value of the land as urban
developed area we are of the view that the compensation may
justly be enhanced by 1/6th to Rs. 14,000 per acre and we do
so. We maintain 15% solatium but raise the rate of interest
to 9% on the enhanced compensation from today till payment.
We leave it open for the appellant to move for higher inter-
est and solatium if entitled by virtue of subsequent judg-
ment of this Court, if any.
In the result, this appeal is allowed as above. We make no
order
as to costs.
Y.L. Appeal allowed.
919