Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
K. VASUNDARA DEVI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (LAO)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6811-1
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/07/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)
CITATION:
1995 AIR 2481 1995 SCC (5) 426
1995 SCALE (4)631
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
These appeals are disposed of by common judgment since
common question of law arises in this appeal. Notification
under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,
‘the Act’) was published in the State Gazette on August 29,
1980 acquiring an extent of 46 acres 6 gunthas of land in
Miryalaguda town in Nalgonda Dist. of A.P. for planned
development by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board. Possession
thereof was taken on December 10, 1980 and the award was
made on August 18, 1983 determining the compensation at the
rate of Rs.65,000/- per acre and deducted 1/3rd towards
developmental charges and fixed the compensation at
Rs.43,000/- per acre with statutory benefits. On reference,
the Subordinate Judge Suryapet in O.P. No.20/84 enhanced the
compensation to Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre, and deducted 1/4th
towards developmental charges together with statutory
benefits. On appeal to the High Court, while upholding the
market value of the lands at Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre, it had
deducted 40% of the value of the land for developmental
charges and also that fixation of the market value was based
on exhibit X-1 to X-3 sale deed of small extent of one
guntha each. Thus, these appeals by special leave against
the judgment and decree of the High Court in A.S. No.
1833/85 dated December 15, 1992 and batch.
Shri K. Madhava Reddy, the learned senior counsel for
the appellant placing reliance on Vijay Kumar Moti Lal Vs.
State of Maharashtra, [(1981) 2 SCC 719] and Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Vishakapatnam vs. Smt. A. Mangala
Gowri, [(1991) 4 SCC 218] contended that this Court had
upheld deduction of uniform rate of 1/3rd is required for
developmental charges. The High Court, therefore, was not
right in deducting 40% of value towards developmental
charges. We think that the contention is not well-founded.
The High Court has noticed in its judgment thus :
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
"However, as the sales under Exs. X-1 to
X-3 are for very small extents when
compared to the lands under acquisition
and the acquisition is meant for the
housing scheme of housing board,
necessary deduction will have to be
given for developmental charges and also
for taking into consideration the sales
which are for smaller plots while
considering the fixation of market value
for the lands under acquisition which
are in a large extent."
In view of this finding, the High Court had taken into
consideration not only the requirements towards
developmental charges but also when reliance is placed by
the Court in Ex. X-1 to X-3, admittedly smaller extents of
one guntha each which had fetched a market value at the rate
of Rs. 1,20,000/-, necessary deduction need to be given.
Taking these two factors into consideration, ultimately it
deducted 40%, though loosely termed as "towards
developmental charges". This Court in Administrator General
of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi, [AIR 1988 SC 943],
has applied the twin tests and held that 50% of the
deduction should be made when the sale transaction relate to
smaller extent of the lands were found to be genuine and
relied on to determine the market value of a large track of
land and and 50% deduction was found to be reasonable in
that case. The State did not file appeal against enhanced
compensation or deduction.
In Bhagwathula Samanna and Others Vs. Special Tahsildar
and Land Acquisition Officer, Vishakapatnam Municipality,
[AIR 1992 SC 2298], this Court had held that since lands are
in developed area, no deduction towards developmental
charges be made. In Vijay Kumar Motil Lal’s and Mangal Gauri
cases [supra], the only question was regarding deduction for
developmental charges. Sales relating to smaller pieces of
land when found to be germane Gujarat High Court deducted
60% of the value, this Court in M/s. Hasanali Khanbhai &
Sons & Ors. v. State of Gujarat [C.A. No. 3263/79] dated
July 26, 1995, upheld the deduction of 60% by the High
Court. When genuine and reliable sale deeds of small
extents were considered to determine market value, the same
will not form sole basis to determine market value of large
track of lands. Sufficient deduction should be made to
arrive at the just and fair market value of large track of
land. In that view of the law, we are of the considered
opinion that ratio in the cases in which it was dealt with
only about deduction of developmental charges of undeveloped
large extent of land does not render any assistance in
deciding the principle followed by the High Court in this
matter. In view of the judgment of this Court in
Administrator General of West Bengal’s case [supra] and all
subsequent decisions, we do not think that it is a proper
case for interference.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.