STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. versus RADHESHYAM & ORS on 24 November 2022

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

v.

RADHESHYAM & ORS.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 8857-8858 of 2022)

NOVEMBER 24, 2022

[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s.4(1) – Market value of landacquired – Determination of – Standard method of determination isby evaluating the land on the date of publication of notificationu/s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act – Thus, it is determined withreference to the open market sale of comparable land in theneighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or beforethe date of preliminary notification – In the instant case, none ofthe principles were followed by High Court – Matter remitted toHigh Court for fresh consideration.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Deduction to be made towardsutilization of land and development charges – Deduction dependsupon the evidence to be brought on record by the parties in respectof land under acquisition – If land under acquisition is capable ofbeing used for the purpose for which smaller plots are used and issituate in a fully developed area with no requirement of any furtherdevelopment to be made, there would be no need for deduction ofthe value – Where all civic and other amenities are to be providedto make the land suitable for the purpose for which it is required,deduction is liable to be made.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The market value is determined with referenceto the open market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood,by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date ofpreliminary notification, as that would give a fair indication of themarket value. Thus, insofar as the determination of the marketvalue of the land in question by the High Court is concerned, thesame is not sustainable and the matter needs to be remitted backto the High Court to determine the valuation of compensation

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2022] 9 S.C.R.

Afor fresh consideration in accordance with law and the settledprinciples culled out for such determination. [Paras 22, 28][753-D; 755-H; 756-A-B]

2. The deduction to be made towards development of theland depends on various factors and there cannot be a straightBjacket formula. The principles are whether there should be anydeduction or not and the ratio of deduction depends upon theevidence to be brought on record by the parties in respect of theland under acquisition. It stands settled that if there is a largetract of land under acquisition but is capable of being used for thepurpose for which smaller plots are used and is situate in a fullyCdeveloped area with little or no requirement of any furtherdevelopment to be made, there would be no need for deductionof the value. Similarly, when all civic and other amenities are tobe provided to make the land under acquisition suitable for thepurpose for which it is being acquired setting aside some part ofDthe land for development like roads, drainage, electricity,communication providing for common facilities and appropriatededuction, is liable to be made. The view taken by the High Courtin this regard, is also not liable to be sustained. Thus, this issuealso requires reconsideration by the High Court in the light ofthe evidence and material on record of the case. [Paras 29, 33,E34, 36 and 37][756-B; 758-D-F; 759-A-B]

Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs. v. State ofGujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789 : [2005] 3 SCR 542 –followed.

FSpecial Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v.T. Adinarayan Setty [1959] 1 Suppl. SCR 404;Bhagwanthulla Samanna & Ors. v. Special Tehsildarand Land Acquisition Officer (1991) 4 SCC 506 : [1991]1 Suppl. SCR 172; Lal Chand v. Union of India & Anr.(2009) 15 SCC 769 : [2009] 13 SCR 622; Charan DassG(Dead) by LRs. v. H.P. Housing & Urban DevelopmentAuthority & Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 398 : [2009] 14 SCR163; Noida v. Surendra Singh 2015 SCC OnLine ALL5945 – relied on.

H

Kasturi & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354: [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 117; U.P. Awas Evam VikasParishad v. Jainul Islam and Anr. (1998) 2 SCC 467 :[1998] 1 SCR 254; Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State ofUttarakhand & Anr. (2011) 6 SCC 47 : [2011] 8 SCR520 – referred to.

A

B

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8857-8858 of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.06.2016 and 08.09.2017of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in First AppealNo. 131 of 2010 and MCC No. 304/2017.

E

Ms. Ankita Choudhary, Dy. AG, Abhinav Shrivastava, SunnyChoudhary, Advs. for the Appellants.

F

S. R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Ms. ShreyaSrivastava, Ashish Madaan, Vikas Upadhyay, Rajesh Kandari, SachinDaga, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA MURARI, J.

G

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the orders dated 20.06.2016and 08.09.2017 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench atIndore (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in First Appeal No.131 of 2010 and MCC No. 304/2017 respectively. By the said orders, H

Athe High Court allowed the MCC as well as first appeal and dismissedthe appeals of the Appellant State by reducing the deduction awardedby the Reference Court from 65% towards largeness of plot + 48%towards development to 35% on the market value of Rs.1,04,64,000/-per hectare for the irrigated land and Rs. 69,76,000/- per hectare for theun-irrigated land.B3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are asunder:

3.1. A Notification dated 27.02.2004 u/s 4(1) read with Section17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “theCact”) was published in the official gazette for acquisition of landadmeasuring 38.178 hectares of Village Sala, Tehsil, Dharampuri, District-Dhar for the purpose of “rehabilitation of displaced persons” ofvillages which came under the submergence due to increase of height ofSardar Sarovar Dam. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act in respectof Village Sala was issued on 14.05.2004, 11.05.2004 and 05.05.2004,Drespectively.

3.2. The Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as“LAO”) vide award dated 23.12.2004 passed an award for the acquiredland in Village Sala, District- Dhar, MP, wherein the learned LAOassessed the market value and awarded compensation which isEenumerated as below:

i. Irrigated Land - Rs. 47,165/- per hectare

ii. Unirrigated Land - Rs. 29,621/- per hectare

iii. Solatium – 30%F

iv. Additional Compensation -12%

3.3. The Respondent landowners being dissatisfied with the amountof compensation, sought Reference under Section 18 of the Act claimingenhancement of compensation. The Reference Court vide order dated09.09.2009, after determining the market value of the irrigated land toGthe tune of Rs. 36,62,400 per hectare and unirrigated land to the tune ofRs. 24,41,600 per hectare on the basis of sale deeds filed as exemplarsenhanced the compensation along with 48% deduction towardsdevelopment charges. The enhanced compensation made by referencecourt is enumerated as below:

H

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. RADHESHYAM &ORS. [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

i.Unirrigated land – Rs. 24,41,600 – 48% deduction =ARs.11,71,968/- per hectare

ii.Irrigated Land - Rs. 36,62,400 – 48% deduction =Rs.17,57,952/- per hectare

iii.interest @ 12% per annum on enhanced compensation from27.02.2004 to date of passing of award on 23.12.2004

BC

iv.solatium @ 30% of enhanced compensation.

It is pertinent to mention here that the Reference Court assessedthe market value of land of the village sala on the basis of saledeed Ex- P/2 dated 11.02.2002, Ex-P/3 dated 06.05.2002 and Ex-P/4 dated 04.02.2004 measuring 0.017 hectare, 0.013 hectare and0.011 hectare, respectively.

3.4. The Appellant State as well as the Respondent Landownersfiled appeals before the High Court assailing the order dated 09.09.2009passed by the Reference Court. It was contended by the Appellant statethat the enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court fromthe amount awarded by the LAO is on the higher side and that theenhancement on the basis of small exempliers is contrary to the lawsettled by the Apex Court. It was contended by the Respondentlandowners that the Reference Court erred in law in deducting 65%from the market value on account of development charges and otherpossible expenditure and looking to the fact that the land was acquiredfor “rehabilitation of displaced persons”, deduction of around 25%from the market value would be justifiable.

DE

3.5. The High Court vide impugned judgment and final order dated20.06.2016, partly allowed the appeals filed by the Respondent landownersand dismissed the appeals of the Petitioner State by reducing the deductionfor both the components to 35% on the market value of Rs. 1,04,64,000/- per hectare for the irrigated land and Rs. 69,76,000/- per hectare forthe unirrigated land. The operative portion of the aforesaid judgmentreads as under: - F

G

“37. In the instant case, having regard to the extent of landacquired and the development in and around for“rehabilitation of displaced persons” of villages which comesunder the submergence due to increase of height of SardarSarovar Dam of Tehsil- Dharampuri in District – Dhar, in H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Aour view it is appropriate to make 20% deduction towardsutilisation of the land area in the layout for roads, drains,civic amenities etc. So far as the expenditure for developmentof the large extent of land into a developed area byconstruction of roads, drainage, civic amenities etc., it isappropriate to make further deduction of 15% towardsBdevelopment charges. Two components taken together, thetotal deduction to be made would be 35%. Thus, it is a caseof less deduction. In our opinion, a deduction of 35% fromthe market value on account of development charges andother possible expenditure would be justifiable and calledCfor in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

3.6. Respondent filed an application being MCC No. 304/2017before the High Court under Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 for correction of an alleged accidental slip in the judgment dated20.05.2016 and prayed to correct the market value of the irrigated landDas well as the unirrigated land in the impugned judgment dated 20.06.2016.The High Court vide impugned order dated 08.09.2017 corrected themarket value (per hectare) for irrigated land as well as unirrigated landin para 13 and 21 of the judgment dated 20.06.2016 in respect of VillageSala from Rs. 11,71,968/- per hectare for unirrigated land to Rs. 69,76,000/- per hectare and from Rs. 17,57,952/- for irrigated land toERs. 1,04,64,000/- per hectare.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders of the High Court, thePetitioner State have preferred these appeals.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT :

F

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learnedReference Court enhanced the compensation multi-fold by relying on asmall portion of land to determine the market value of large pieces ofland. It was also submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate thepoint and further reduced deductions from 48% to 35% as developmentGcharges from market value as decided by the Reference Court.

6. It was further submitted that the Reference Court hasconsidered the exemplar sale deed of Ex P2 to P4 which were producedby landowners in order to determine the market value. These are smallplots of land as follows:

H

•Ex P2 – seller Abdul Samad, sold 0.017 hectare out ofRakba 0.732 hectare in Village Sala to the buyer Shakil forRs. 2,43,000.

•Ex P3 – seller Nasru Mohd., sold 0.013 hectare out ofRakba 0.185 hectare in Village Sala to Sadiranbai for Rs.1,40,500.

•Ex P4 – seller Ramkunwarbai, sold 0.011 hectare out ofRakba 0.109 hectare in Village Sala to the buyer kamal forRs. 64,000.

It was submitted that the sale price of the land Ex P2 to P4 (thesmall plots) mentioned comes to be Rs. 69,76,000/- per hectarefor unirrigated land and Rs. 1,04,64,000/- per hectare for irrigatedland. Out of the per hectare sale price of small plot, 65% wasjustified to get the market value of the acquired land by thegovernment.

7. It was submitted that as a result of impugned order dated08.09.2017, on the basis of misinterpreted calculation, the amount ofcompensation has been raised exorbitantly i.e., six times of thecompensation awarded by the learned LAO and comes to an amountwhich is actually higher than the present market rate of the land in question,which is not sustainable in the eyes of law as well as principle laid downby this Hon’ble Court in respect of determining the market value oflarge chunks of land on the basis of sale deeds of small areas.

8. It was vehemently submitted that the High Court has failed toappreciate that the deduction for development charges is dependent onthe various facts and circumstances and the rationale behind the same isrequired to be considered. It was submitted that in the case at hand, noevidence was led by the Respondent land owners regarding facility ofelectricity, water, road, drainage, etc. being available on land, and as amatter of fact admitted the land in question was being used for agriculturalpurposes. The learned counsel for the Appellants placed reliance on thejudgment of this Court in case of Kasturi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana[1]to substantiate the above stated argument. The relevant para referredare as hereunder: - “7. … A claimant claiming that their land is fully developedand nothing more is required for a development purpose has1 (2003) 1 SCC 354

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato show evidence that it is such a land. If no such evidence isshown, merely saying that adjoining land is developed is notenough, especially when the land is large.”

9. It was further submitted that this Court has settled that the costof small acquired plot cannot be made basis for fixation of price of plotsBof large area, because the price on which the small plots are sold, the bigplots cannot fetch that price. Even if there is no basis available then thetransaction of small plot can be made basis but in this regard the properdeductions should have been done, which can be 1/3[rd] of cost of sale ofsmall plot. It was further submitted that Reference Court rightly madedeductions placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of U.P.CAwas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Jainul Islam and Anr.[2]to determinethe market value.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants also referred to judgmentrendered by this Court in Trishala Jain & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand& Anr.[3] whereby it was held that deduction is to be applied on accountDof carrying out development activities like providing roads or civicamenities.

11. A calculation chart depicting the break-up of total value of theirrigated and unirrigated land has also been submitted on behalf ofappellants which is as under :- E

F

GARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:

12. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that theimpugned order is a covered matter which has already been decided by 2 (1998) 2 SCC 467H3 (2011) 6 SCC 47

this Hon’ble Court wherein the SLP (C) D No. 12907/2017 now registeredas (SLP No. 23225-226/2017) Upendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. &Anr. has been dismissed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated18.07.2017.

13. It was submitted that the High Court in the case of UpendraSingh had determined the value of the land as per the exemplars providedby the land owners and laid down the principle that the total deductionwould be 35% ie., 20% towards deduction of utilization of the land and15% towards development charges.

14. It was also submitted that in the case of Upendra Singh, theHigh Court rejected the computation done by the Reference Court ofinitially deducting 65% from the valuation of land arrived on the basis ofthe exemplars/sale deed and then further deducting 48% from theremaining value.

15. It was also submitted that the order passed by the High Courtin the case of Upendra Singh has been challenged before this Hon’bleCourt by the Land Owners only and that the order of upendra singh isbeing implemented by the state government by disbursing thecompensation; which implies that the state government has acceptedthe said order and did not challenge it before the Hon’ble Supreme Courtnor filed any review petition.

16. Following order dated 18.07.2017 was passed by this Court inthe case of Upendra Singh Vs. State of M.P :- “Delay condoned in filing application for substitution,abatement, if any, is set aside and application for substitutionis allowed in Diary No.13816/2017. Heard. Delay condoned.

We do not see any ground to interfere with the impugned orderexcept to direct that the petitioners shall be entitled to allstatutory benefits including the one under Section 28 of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 in accordance with law.

The special leave petitions are accordingly disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

17. The impugned order of the High Court has been passed relyingupon the order passed in FA NO. 566/2010 and the connected appeals inmatters of Upendra singh Vs. State of MP, wherein the High Court

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Adecided the principle of deduction and to what extent deduction shouldbe made.

18. The order of the High Court in the case of Upendra Singhhas attained finality as the SLP being Diary No. 12907 of 2017 nowregistered as (SLP No. 23225-226/2017) and other connected matters,Bpreferred by the land owners against the order of the High Court wasdisposed of vide order dated 18.07.2017 and the state never challengedthe order of the High Court.

19. Learned counsel for the Respondents submitted a comparativevaluation of land by various authorities.

C

DEFG

20. We have carefully considered the submissions made at thebar and perused the materials placed on record.

21. The two main issues which arise for consideration before thisCourt are :H

i. Determination of market value of land acquired.

ii. Deduction to be made towards utilization of land anddevelopment charges.

Reference Court after determining the market value of the landdeducted 65% from the valuation so determined and further deductedanother 48% from the value so determined after deducting 65% fromthe market value.

The High Court made a total deduction of 35% from the valuation,out of which 20% deduction was towards utilisation of land area in thelay out for roads, drains, civic amenities, etc., and 15% towardsdevelopment charges.

ISSUE NO. 1

22. The standard method of determination of the market value ofany acquired land by a valuer is by evaluating the land on the date ofpublication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, acting as ahypothetical purchaser willing to purchase the land in open market at theprevailing price on that day, from a seller willing to sell such land at areasonable price. Thus, the market value is determined with referenceto the open market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood, by awilling seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminarynotification, as that would give a fair indication of the market value.

23. This Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer,Bangalore Vs. T. Adinarayan Setty[4], indicated the methods of valuationto be adopted in ascertaining the market value of the land on the date ofnotification, as under:-

(i) Opinion of experts.

(ii) The price paid within a reasonable time in bona-fidetransactions of puirchase of the land acquired or the landsadjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similaradvantages; and

(iii) A number of years’ purchase of the actual or immediatelyprospective profits of the lands acquired.

24. It is well settled by various judicial pronouncements of thisCourt that in order to determine the market value of the land under4 1959 Supp.(1) SCR 4045 (2005) 4 SCC 789

A

B

DE

F

G

H

Aacquisition, certain positive as well as negative factors have to be takeninto consideration. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case ofViluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs. Vs. State of Gujarat[5]has laid down the following principles for determination of market valueof the acquired land :- “17. Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to beconsidered in determining the compensation; the principalamong which is the determination of the market value of theland on the date of the publication of the notification UnderSub-section (1) of Section 4.

B

18. One of the principles for determination of the amount ofcompensation for acquisition of land would be the willingnessof an informed buyer to offer the price therefore it is beyondany cavil that the price of the land which a willing andinformed buyer would offer would be different in the caseswhere the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the propertyand in the cases where he is not.

C

D

19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetchin the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected bythe special needs of a particular purchase. Where definitematerial is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales ofEsimilar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date ofnotification Under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other saleinstances as well as other evidences have to be considered.

20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained withmathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to beidentified having regard to the proximity from time angle aswell as proximity from situation angle. For determining themarket value of the land under acquisition, suitableadjustment has to be made having regard to various positiveand negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition byplacing the two in juxtaposition.…

F

G

21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many,a large block of land will have to be developed preparing alayout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plottingout smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of H

an entrepreneur. Such development charges may rangebetween 20% and 50% of the total price.”

25. From a perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the HighCourt, we find that none of the above prinicples enunciated for determiningthe valuation of the acquired land has been taken into consideration bythe High Court. The High Court blindfoldly relied on the case of UpendraSingh Vs. State of M.P. & Anr., on the ground that the judgment of theHigh Court in the said case has attained finality on account of dismissalof the Special Leave Petition being Diary No. 12907 of 2017 nowregistered as SLP No. 23225-226 of 2017 and other connected matters,preferred by the land owners vide judgment and order dated 18.07.2017.

26. From a perusal of the judgment of the High Court in the caseof Upendra Singh (Supra) filed as Annexure P-3 goes to show that inthe said case, the area of the acquired land was 49.413 hectares whereasin the case at hands, it is 38.178 hectares. Apart from above, theReference Court in the case of Upendra Singh, fixed the value of non-irrigated land at Rs.20,14,000/- per hectares with irrigated land at Rs.30,21,000/-. Whereas in the present case, the Reference Court fixed thevalue of irrigated land to the tune of Rs. 1,04,64,000/-. The difference invalue of the land as per the exemplers/sale deeds in the two cases worksout to be 346.38%. We failed to understand that as to how the marketvalue determined in the case of Upendra Singh would automatically beapplied to the land acquired in the present case, without recording anyfinding that both the lands are in vicinity and identical in nature andsimilarly situated. In our considered opinion, the High Court fell in agrave error in applying the market value of the land determined in thecase of Upendra Singh to the land involved in the case at hands.

27. The High Court in the impugned order has failed to discuss asto how the market value of the acquired land determined in the case ofUpendra Singh would be applicable in the facts and circumstances ofthe land acquired in the present case. Except for the fact that the land inboth the matters have been acquired for the same purpose, we do notfind any material on record to draw a conclusion that the market valueof the land determined in the case of Upendra Singh would automaticallybe applicable to the land acquired in the present case. In the absence ofany such material to justify the market value determined in the case ofUpendra Singh would be applicable to the land acquired in this case,the reliance placed by the High Court on the dismissal of the Special AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ALeave Petition by this Court, in the case of Upendra Singh, appears tobe totally mis-founded.

28. Thus, insofar as the determination of the market value of theland in question by the High Court is concerned, the same is notsustainable and the matter needs to be remitted back to the High CourtBto determine the valuation of compensation for fresh consideration inaccordance with law and the settled principles culled out for suchdetermination.

ISSUE NO. 2

29. In so far as, issue no. 2 is concerned, the deduction to beCmade towards development of the land depends on various factors andthere can not be a straight jacket formula. Laying down the principlesfor deduction to be made towards the development of the land vis-a-vislargeness of area, this Court in the case of Bhagwanthulla Samanna& Ors. Vs. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer[6], observedas under :-D

Issues

“In applying the principle it is necessary to consider allrelevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered underthe acquisition, the only relevant factor. Even in the vast areathere may be land which is fully developed having all amenitiesEand situated in an advantageous position. lf smaller areawithin the large tract is already developed and suitable forbuild- ing purposes and have in its vicinity roads, drainage,electricity, communications etc. then the principle ofdeduction simply for the reason that it is part of the largetract acquired, may not be justified.F

“…..If the larger tract of land because of advantageousposition is capable of being used for the purpose for whichthe smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developedarea with little or no requirement of further development, theprinciple of deduction of the value for purpose of comparisonGis not warranted.”

30. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Lal ChandVs. Union of India & Anr.[7]observed that the deduction towards 6 (1991) 4 SCC 506H7 (2009) 15 SCC 769

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. v. RADHESHYAM &ORS. [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

development can range from 20% to 75%, depending on various factors.The Court has observed as under :- “13. The percentage of “deduction for development” to bemade to arrive at the market value of large tracts ofundeveloped agricultural land (with potential fordevelopment), with reference to the sale price of smalldeveloped plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price ofsuch developed plots, the percentage depending upon thenature of development of the layout in which the exemplarplots are situated.

14. The “deduction for development” consists of twocomponents. The first is with reference to the area required tobe utilized for developmental works and the second is thecost of the development works. For example, if a residentiallayout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it mayutilize around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads,drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (communityfacilities), etc.….

20. Therefore the deduction for the “development factor” tobe made with reference to the price of a small plot in adeveloped layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land,will be far more than the deduction with reference to the priceof a small plot in an unauthorized private layout or anindustrial layout. It is also well known that the developmentcost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than thecost incurred by private developers, having regard to higheroverheads and expenditure.”

31. In the case of Charan Dass (Dead) by LRs. Vs. H.P. Housing& Urban Development Authority & Ors.[8], this Court has obeservedas under :- “32. It is well settled that it is not every case that deductiontowards development charges has to be made when a bigchunk of land is acquired for housing colonies, etc., wherethe acquired land falls in the midst of an already developedland with amenities of roads, electricity, etc., deduction on AB

CDE

F

G

H

A

this account may not be warranted.At the same time, whereall civic and other amenities are to be provided to make itsuitable for building purposes or under the local buildingregulations setting apart of some portion of the lands forproviding common facilities is mandatory, an appropriatededuction may be justified….”

B

32. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in the caseof Noida Vs. Surendra Singh[9], as under :-

“57. With respect to determination of rate of Rs.135/- there isno ground that this by itself is bad. The next and last groundCtaken in these appeals is that there should not have been anydeduction. To this extent, we find substance that the land inquestion was situated in an area which was alreadysufficiently developed, and land was being sold there insquare yards. There was thus no justification to apply anydeduction, whatsoever, since it is not a rule of thumb that inDevery case deduction must be applied.”

33. The principles culled out from the above pronouncementsclearly go to show that whether there should be any deduction or notand the ratio of deduction depends upon the evidence to be brought onrecord by the parties in respect of the land under acquisition.

E

34. It stands settled that if there is a large tract of land underacquisition but is capable of being used for the purpose for which smallerplots are used and is situate in a fully developed area with little or norequirement of any further development to be made, there would be noneed for deduction of the value. Similarly, when all civic and otherFamenities are to be provided to make the land under acquisition suitablefor the purpose for which it is being acquired setting aside some part ofthe land for development like roads, drainage, electricity, communicationproviding for common facilities and appropriate deduction, is liable to bemade.

G

35. The High Court again fell in error in respect to this issue as itfailed to analyse the evidence brought on record by the parties in thisregard, if any, and without recording any finding in respect of the variousfactors required to be considered for making deduction, simply relying upon the case of Upendra Singh (Supra), has held that deduction of35% from the market value on account of development charges andother possible expenditure is justifiable.

36. The view taken by the High Court in this regard, is also notliable to be sustained.

37. Thus, this issue also requires reconsideration by the High Courtin the light of the evidence and material on record of the case.

38. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, wehereby set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated20.06.2016 and remit the matter back to the High Court for freshconsideration to determine the compensation appropriately in accordancewith law and by taking into account the settled principles and all therelevant evidence and material available on record for the irrigated aswell as the unirrigated land. The High Court shall also re-determine thededuction to be made towards development charges afresh taking intoaccount all the relevant evidence, facts and materials on record. Insofaras, the order dated 08.09.2017 passed by the High Court in applicationbeing MCC No. 304 of 2017 for correction of alleged accidental slip injudgment dated 20.06.2016 is concerened, the same also hereby standsset aside as a fresh determination of the market value is to be made.

39. The appeals, accordingly, stand allowed.

Devika Gujral(Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)

Appeals allowed.

B

C

D

E

F

G

H