UNION OF INDIA versus PREMLATA AND OTHERS on 6 April 2022

[2022] 2 S.C.R. 1001

UNION OF INDIA

v.

PREMLATA AND OTHERS

(Civil Appeal Nos. 176-177 of 2022)

APRIL 06, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Comparable sales – s.4notification issued to acquire 45 hectares 89 R land – LandAcquisition Officer awarded an amount of Rs.1,13,500/- per Hectarein respect of land bearing survey No. 43/2 and Rs.1,35,000/- perHectare for the land bearing survey Nos. 40, 41 and 44 – Referencecourt enhanced the compensation at Rs. 6/- per square foot, aftermaking deduction of 25% towards developmentcharges – HighCourt, kept compensation at the same rate but subject to 1/3[rd]deduction instead of 25% deduction towards development charges– On appeal, held: Before reference court, the landowner had reliedupon other sale instances which were discarded by reference Courtas those sale instances were in respect of small plots – Even HighCourt agreed with the findings recorded by the reference court withrespect to sale instances – As per the settled position of law, thesale instances with respect to small plots of land are not comparableto a large extent of land for the purpose of determining thecompensation – In present case, land acquired is a large area whichis not comparable with the sale instance at all – Further, deductionof 40% made towards development charges considering that landacquired is a large extent of area, it is an agricultural land not fullydeveloped, the landowner having not filed any exemplar sale deedrelating to large pieces of land sold in acres to prove the marketvalue of the acquired land and the exemplars relied upon by thelandowner pertained to very small plots which were developed andconverted to non-agricultural use.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The Reference Court enhanced the amount ofcompensation determining the market price at Rs. 6/- per squarefoot after making deduction of 25% of the same towards

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Adevelopment charges, relying upon and considering the sale deedsin respect of plots of land bearing survey No. 42 of villageBorkhedi, vide Ex. 91 to 93. Before the Reference Court, thelandowner relied upon other sale instances at Ex. 50, 51 & 27.Having considered the fact that all the sale instances were inrespect of small plots, the Reference Court discarded the same.BEven the High Court also agreed with the findings recorded bythe Reference Court with respect to sale instances produced asEx. 50, 51 & 27. All the sale instances are with respect to smallplots and even the same instances were of the year 1987. In thepresent case, notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act hasCbeen issued in the year 1992. As per the settled position of law,small plots/parcels of land cannot offer the same market value aswhen a large tract of land is purchased in an open market by awilling and prudent purchaser. Generally the sale instances withrespect to small plots/parcels of land are not comparable to alarge extent of land for the purpose of determining theDcompensation. Therefore, as rightly observed by the ReferenceCourt as well as the High Court, the sale instances produced atEx. 50, 51 & 27 were not comparable at all. [Para 5][1010-E-G]

2. In the present case, a large parcel of land admeasuring46 Hectares 89 R has been acquired. The sale instances at Ex.E91 to 93 in respect of plots out of land bearing Survey No. 42 arewith respect to small pieces of land admeasuring 1200 sq. ft. whichwere non-agricultural developed plots and even the market pricementioned in the said sale deeds were on square foot basis. Theacquired land was a barren agricultural land which may have aFnon-agricultural potentiality. Therefore, considering the fact thatthe sale exemplars/sale deeds produced at Ex. 91 to 93 are inrespect of very small plots of land and were non-agriculturaldeveloped plots and even the same were on the highway andhaving the access to the main road, there shall be at least 40%deduction towards development charges. As such, the High CourtGhas not assigned any good reason as to why and on what basis, itconsidered proper to make deduction towards developmentcharges at the rate of 33.33% (1/3rd deduction). Therefore,considering the relevant factors on the appropriate deduction H

towards development charges as per the law laid down by thisCourt in the aforesaid decisions, it is found that firstly, the landacquired in question is a large extent of land (45 Hectares 89 R);secondly, it was an agricultural land not fully developed; thirdly,the landowner having not filed any exemplar sale deed relatingto large pieces of land sold in acres to prove the market value ofthe acquired land; and fourthly, exemplars relied upon by thelandowner, especially Ex. 91 to 93 pertain to very small plots/parcels of land and that too, in respect of small plots which weredeveloped and converted to non-agricultural use and thedistinguishing features noticed in the land in sale deeds, Ex. 91to 93 are not present in the acquired land, the deduction towardsdevelopment charges at 1/3[rd] as deduced by the High Court canbe said to be on a lower side. Considering the aforesaid facts andcircumstances and the relevant factors, if 40% deduction isordered to be made towards development charges, it can be saidto be an appropriate deduction towards development charges inthe facts and circumstances of the case. [Para 7][1013-G-H; 1014-A-G]

Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769; Unionof India v. Dyagala Devamma (2018) 8 SCC 485 :[2018] 7 SCR 1118; Mahanti Devi v. JaiprakashAssociates Ltd. (2019) 5 SCC 163; Viluben JhalejarContractor v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789 :[2005] 3 SCR 542; Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana(2018) 13 SCC 96 : [2017] 8 SCR 997; Maya Devi(Dead) through Lrs. V. State of Haryana (2018) 2 SCC474 : [2018] 1 SCR 225 – relied on.

Pitambar Hemlal Badgujar (dead) by LRs. v. Sub.Divisional Officer, Dhule (1996) 7 SCC 554; LandAcquisition Officer & Sub-Collector, Gadwal v.Sreelatha Bhoopal (1997) 9 SCC 628 : [1997] 3 SCR875; Bhagwathula Samanna & Others v. SpecialTahsildar & Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam,Municipality, Visakhapatnam (1991) 4 SCC 506 : [1991]1 Suppl. SCR 172; Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal(2011) 6 SCC 47 : [2011] 8 SCR 520; NelsonFernandes & Others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1004SUPREME COURT REPORTS

With

Civil Appeal Nos.178-179 of 2022.

K. M. Nataraj, ASG, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Ms.Priyanka Das, Apoorva Kurup, Navanjay Mahapatra, Digvijay Dam,Arvind Kumar Sharma, Rahul Bhangde, Satyajit A. Desai, Ms. AnaghaS. Desai, Satya Kam Sharma, Siddharth Gautam, Himanshu Sharma,Ms. Shivani Vij, Sachin Patil, Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph,Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 10.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature atBombay, Nagpur Bench in First Appeal No. 599 of 2019 and CrossObjection No. 14 of 2021, by which the High Court has determined thecompensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.6/- per square foot,subject to 1/3rd deduction, both, the acquiring body as well as the originalclaimant have preferred the present appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are asunder:

That a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1894 Act’) was issued on 05.11.1992seeking to acquire 65 Hectares 47 R land situated at Borkhedi Tahsil,District Nagpur. The said land was sought to be acquired by the Ministryof Defence for its Research and Development Organization. Acquisitionproceedings in respect of 19 Hectares 79 R of the land were droppedand the actual land acquired came to about 45 Hectares 89 R. Thedispute is with respect to four pieces of land bearing Survey Nos. 40, 41,43/2 and 44 owned by the original claimant herein (appellant in CivilAppeal Nos. 178-179/2022).

2.1 The Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated 09.03.1995awarded an amount of Rs.1,13,500/- per Hectare in respect of landbearing survey No. 43/2 and Rs.1,35,000/- per Hectare for the landbearing survey Nos. 40, 41 and 44. At the instance of the original claimant,a reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act was made. The referenceCourt under Section 18 of the 1894 Act enhanced the compensation toRs. 6/- per square foot, after making deduction of 25% towardsdevelopment charges.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed bythe Reference Court enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. 6/-per square foot, after making deduction of 25%, the acquiring bodypreferred an appeal before the High Court being First Appeal No. 716/1996. By judgment and order dated 21.09.2016, the High Court set asidethe Reference Court’s order and remanded the proceedings for freshBadjudication on the ground that sufficient opportunity was not providedto the acquiring body to contest the reference proceedings. That onremand, the Reference Court vide its judgment and order dated28.08.2018 in L.A.C. No. 38/1995 enhanced/determined thecompensation at Rs.6/- per square foot, after making deduction of 25%.C

A

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed bythe Reference Court, the original claimant filed First Appeal No. 599/2019 before the High Court with a prayer to enhance the amount ofcompensation. The acquiring body also filed Cross Objection No. 14/2021 challenging the judgment and order passed by the Reference CourtDenhancing the amount of compensation at Rs. 6/- per square foot. Bythe impugned judgment and order, the High Court has modified thejudgment and order passed by the Reference Court in L.A.C. No. 38/1995 and has held that the claimant shall be entitled to compensation forthe acquired land at the rate of Rs.6/- per square foot, subject to 1/3[rd]deduction (instead of 25% deduction as per the judgment of the ReferenceECourt) with all statutory benefits. Consequently, the first appeal preferredby the original claimant has been dismissed and the cross objection filedby the acquiring body has been allowed to the aforesaid extent.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the first appealFpreferred by the original claimant and partly allowing the cross objectionfiled by the acquiring body, both, the original claimant as well as theacquiring body have preferred the present appeals.

3. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of Indiaappearing on behalf of the acquiring body has submitted that the acquiringGbody is assailing the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt determining the compensation at Rs.6/- per square foot, subject to 1/3[rd] deduction, primarily on the following grounds:

i)determination of compensation on square foot basis inrespect of large extent of land is illegal and impermissible;H

ii)small pieces of land are not comparable to large extent ofAland for the purpose of determining compensation; and

iii)deduction of development charges ought to be fixed in lightof two factors, viz., extent of utilization and cost ofdevelopment.

B

3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned ASGthat in the present case, the acquisition proceedings were in respect of alarge extent of land admeasuring around 45 Hectares 89 R. It is submittedthat therefore, both, the Reference Court and the High Court have grosslyerred in determining the compensation on square foot basis. It is submittedthat even the land in question was a barren agricultural land. It is submittedthat therefore the determination of compensation on square foot basis inrespect of large extent of land is impermissible. Heavy reliance is placedon the decision of this Court in the case of Pitambar Hemlal Badgujar(dead) by LRs. V. Sub. Divisional Officer, Dhule, reported in (1996)7 SCC 554 (para 4).

C

D

3.2 It is further contended by the learned ASG that even both, theReference Court and the High Court have erred in relying upon the saleinstances which were in respect of individual plots of land being muchsmaller in comparison to the land acquired. It is submitted that it is wellsettled that small plots of land fetch much higher market value as opposedto when large extent of land is purchased. It is submitted that thereforethe sale instances in respect of small plots/parcels of land could not havebeen relied upon while determining the compensation in respect of alarge extent of land. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court inthe case of Land Acquisition Officer & Sub-Collector, Gadwal v.Sreelatha Bhoopal, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 628.

EF

3.3 It is further contended by learned ASG that even otherwise,the High Court has erred in deducting only 33% towards developmentcharges. It was elaborated that while determining the deduction ondevelopment charges, two factors are required to be considered, i.e., (i)area required to be utilized for development works; and (ii) cost of thedevelopment works. It is submitted that up to 40% of the area may beutilized for development works and the cost of providing various amenitiesmay be up to 35% of the value of the plot. That in light of the aforesaidprinciples and keeping the aforesaid two factors in mind, the deductionof 33% granted by the High Court is not reasonable and ought to havebeen higher in view of the effect of the aforesaid factors, especially G

H

Awhen the land was barren agricultural land. Reliance is placed upon thedecision of this Court in the case of Lal Chand v. Union of India,reported in (2009) 15 SCC 769 as well as decision of this Court in thecase of Union of India v. Dyagala Devamma, reported in (2018) 8SCC 485.B3.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaiddecisions, it is prayed to allow the appeals preferred by the acquiringbody and dismiss the appeals preferred by the original claimant.

4. Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the original claimant has vehemently submittedCthat in the present case, both, the Reference Court as well as the HighCourt have concurrently determined the market value of the land inquestion at Rs.6/- per square foot by considering the potential of theacquired land. It is submitted that the basis for both the courts below togrant the same rate of compensation is that the adjacent land bearingsurvey No. 42 admeasuring 6.25 Hectares was converted into layoutDand plots therein were sold at Rs. 7/- per square foot on 12.03.1992, i.e.,eight months prior to Section 4 notification dated 05.11.1992. Thattherefore, both, the Reference Court and the High Court have rightlyrelied upon the sale deeds of plots sold from survey No. 42 (Ex. 91, 92and 93). Relying upon the decisions of this Court in the cases ofEBhagwathula Samanna & Others v. Special Tahsildar & LandAcquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam, Municipality, Visakhapatnamreported in (1991) 4 SCC 506 and Trishala Jain v. State ofUttaranchal, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 47, it is submitted that saleexamples of small plots can form basis for determination of compensationof a large extent of land.F

4.1 It is further contended by learned counsel appearing on behalfof the original claimant that though the sale deeds of adjacent land (Ex.91, 92 and 93) were eight months prior to Section 4 notification, by whichthe plots were sold at Rs.7/- per square foot, the courts below have stillgranted compensation only at the rate of Rs. 6/- per square foot on theGpremise that the adjacent land bearing survey No. 42 has a better location.It is submitted that this reasoning of the courts below is incorrect as canbe seen from Ex. 55. It is urged that even considering the sale instancesof the adjacent land bearing survey No. 42 only, the claimant shall beentitled to at least Rs.8/- per square foot by giving a rise of approximatelyH15% for the period from 12.03.1992 to 05.11.1992.

4.2 Now insofar as deduction towards development charges isconcerned, it is vehemently submitted by learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the original claimant that the layout map at Ex. 90 of the landbearing survey No. 42 showed that only 15% of the land was lost incarving a layout. It is submitted that the expert valuer had also given adeduction of 25%. Therefore, the Reference Court granted deductionof 25% which ought not to have been increased by the High Court to33%.

4.3 It is further submitted that, as such, since the deduction foradjacent land bearing survey No. 42 was only 15%, the same deductionshould have been granted by both the courts below. It is submitted thatfurther, since the land in question was acquired for construction of aResearch & Development Project of the Union of India and thelandowner was required to litigate for more than 28 years, no deductionshould have been granted by both the courts below. In support of theabove, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case ofNelson Fernandes & Others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer,South Goa & Others, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 447(Paragraphs29 & 30). Relying upon the above decision, it is submitted that the purposefor acquisition is a relevant factor for determining the extent of deduction.

4.4 It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearingon behalf of the original claimant that in fact the claimant had reliedupon the sale instances (Ex. 91, 92 and 93) in respect of the land bearingsurvey No. 42 to show the non-agricultural potential. It is submitted thatas such there was considerable undervaluation in the sale instances atEx. 91 to 93. Relying upon the sale instances at Ex. 39, 40, 41 and 47, itis submitted that there is undervaluation and even between two times tofour times in the sale instances of the same village Borkhedi.

4.5 It is also submitted that the land bearing survey No. 20 of thesame village at Borkhedi was sold at Rs. 15/- per square foot on 5.6.1987,i.e., five years prior to Section 4 notification dated 05.11.1992. It issubmitted that therefore the value of the acquired land at Rs. 7/- persquare foot in 1992 clearly shows a substantial undervaluation in thesale instances at Ex. 91 to 93.

4.6 It is further submitted that the claimants also examined theprospective purchasers at Ex. 59, 63 and 65 to prove that the valuationof the land would be in the range of Rs. 28 to Rs. 40 per square foot.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

AThat these offers were relevant pieces of evidence in view of the decisionof this Court in the case of Raghubans Narain Singh v. Uttar PradeshGovernment through Collector of Bijnor, reported in AIR 1967 SC465 (paragraph 6).

4.7 It is further submitted that even the claimant also heavily reliedBupon the expert valuer’s report at Ex. 56 who has valued the subjectland at Rs. 35/- per square foot. That the credentials of the expert valuershave been admitted by the defence witness no.2 as expert valuer is aretired government personnel and is more competent to value the acquiredland. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of MaheshDattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2009) 11CSCC 141 and Udho Dass v. State of Haryana, reported in (2010)12 SCC 51, it is urged that the valuation report of the expert shouldnormally be accepted.

4.8 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaiddecisions, it is prayed to determine the compensation at Rs. 35/- perDsquare foot for the acquired land and to modify the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court accordingly.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties atlength.

EAt the outset, it is required to be noted that the Reference Courtenhanced the amount of compensation determining the market price atRs. 6/- per square foot after making deduction of 25% of the sametowards development charges, relying upon and considering the saledeeds in respect of plots of land bearing survey No. 42 of village Borkhedi,vide Ex. 91 to 93. It is also noted that before the Reference Court, theFlandowner relied upon other sale instances at Ex. 50, 51 & 27. Havingconsidered the fact that all the sale instances were in respect of smallplots, the Reference Court discarded the same. Even the High Courthas also agreed with the findings recorded by the Reference Court withrespect to sale instances produced as Ex. 50, 51 & 27. We are in completeGagreement with the view taken by the Reference Court as well as theHigh Court regarding the sale instances produced as Ex. 50, 51 & 27.All the sale instances are with respect to small plots and even the sameinstances were of the year 1987. In the present case, notification underSection 4 of the 1894 Act has been issued in the year 1992. As per thesettled position of law, small plots/parcels of land cannot offer the sameH

market value as when a large tract of land is purchased in an openmarket by a willing and prudent purchaser. As per the settled position oflaw, generally the sale instances with respect to small plots/parcels ofland are not comparable to a large extent of land for the purpose ofdetermining the compensation. In the case of Mahanti Devi v.Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 163, afterfollowing the decision of this Court in the case of Viluben JhalejarContractor v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 789, it isheld that in case of acquisition of large tracts of land and the exemplarsare of small portion of land, there shall be a suitable deduction towardsdevelopment costs.

In the case of Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in(2018) 13 SCC 96, this Court had an occasion to consider the deductionsrequired to be made when considering transactions pertaining to smalldeveloped plots, for determining compensation of large areas and it isheld that when a large area is acquired, two kinds of deductions have tobe made, i.e., (i) for development, and (ii) in case of exemplar transactionis a small area, the deduction is required to be made to arrive at thevalue of large tract.

5.1 In the present case, the sale instance at Ex. 50 was withrespect to plot admeasuring 135 Square Meters. Similarly, the saleinstance at Ex. 51 was with respect to plot admeasuring 135 SquareMeters. Even the sale instance at Ex. 27 was with respect to 1500 sq.ft. It is also to be noted that even in respect of sale instance at Ex. 50dated 5.6.1987, the price determined was Rs.10.34/- per square footand so far as the sale instance at Ex. 51 dated 10.09.1987 is concerned,the price determined was at Rs. 3/- per square foot. In the present case,the land acquired is a large area, i.e., 45 Hectares 89 R. Therefore, asrightly observed and held by the Reference Court as well as the HighCourt, the sale instances produced at Ex. 50, 51 & 27 are not comparableat all. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by theReference Court as well as the High Court discarding Ex. 50, 51 & 27.

6. Now the next issue is with respect to sale instances at Ex. 91to 93 in respect of plots out of land bearing Survey No. 42, which can besaid to be comparable and/or nearer to comparable sale instances asland bearing Survey No. 42 was adjacent to the acquired land. As perthe sale deeds, Ex. 91 to 93, the plots were sold at Rs.7/- per squarefoot. However, considering the fact that survey No. 42 was having direct AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aaccess to main road and was closer to Chandrapur – Nagpur N.H. 7than the acquired land, the Reference Court determined the market priceat Rs. 6/- per square foot and determined the compensation afterdeducting 25% towards development charges. The High Court hasenhanced the deduction from 25 % to 1/3[rd], i.e., 33.33%.

BThus, both, the Reference Court as well as the High Court haveheavily relied upon Ex. 91 to 93 with respect to plots out of land bearingSurvey No. 42 and determined the market price. It is true that as ageneral rule, the compensation shall not be determined on square footbasis (see Pitambar Hemlal Badgujar (d) by Lrs. (supra)). However,at the same time, in a given case, the Court may determine theCcompensation on square foot basis after making a reasonable deductiontowards development charges, in case there are no other sale instancesavailable.

6.1 What should be reasonable deduction towards developmentcharges has been considered by this Court in the cases of Lal ChandD(supra) and Dyagala Devamma (supra).

As held by this Court in the case of Lal Chand (supra), thepercentage of “deduction for development” to be made to arrive at themarket value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (withpotential for development), with reference to the sale price of smallEdeveloped plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of suchdeveloped plots, the percentage depending upon the nature ofdevelopment of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated. Thedecision in the case of Lal Chand (supra) has been subsequently followedby this Court in the case of Maya Devi (Dead) through Lrs. V. State ofFHaryana, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 474 as well as in the case ofAndhra Pradesh Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy, reported in(2010) 12 SCC 707.

6.2 In the case of Dyagala Devamma (supra), while quashingand setting aside the judgment and order of the High Court makingGdeduction towards development charges at 25% in place of 50% as wasdeducted by the Reference Court, in paragraphs 19 & 20, it is observedand held as under:

“19. In addition to these principles, this Court in several caseshave laid down that while determining the true market value ofthe acquired land especially when the acquired land is a large H

chunk of undeveloped land, it is just and reasonable to makeappropriate deduction towards expenses for development ofacquired land. It has also been consistently held that at whatpercentage the deduction should be made varies from 10% to86% and, therefore, the deduction should be made keeping in mindthe nature of the land, area under acquisition, whether the land isdeveloped or not and, if so, to what extent, the purpose ofacquisition, etc. It has also been held that while determining themarket value of the large chunk of land, the value of smaller piecesof land can be taken into consideration after making properdeduction in the value of lands especially when sale deeds oflarger parcel of land are not available. This Court has also laiddown that the court should also take into consideration thepotentiality of the acquired land apart from other relevantconsiderations. This Court has also recognised that the courtscan always apply reasonable amount of guesswork to balancethe equities in order to fix a just and fair market value in terms ofparameters specified under Section 23 of the Act. (See TrishalaJain v. State of Uttaranchal [Trishala Jain v. State ofUttaranchal, (2011) 6 SCC 47 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 178] andVithal Rao v. LAO [Vithal Rao v. LAO, (2017) 8 SCC 558 : (2017)4 SCC (Civ) 155] .)

20. Keeping in mind the aforementioned principles, when we takenote of the facts of the case at hand, we find that firstly, the landacquired in question is a large chunk of land (101 ac. approx.);secondly, it is not fully developed; thirdly, the respondents(landowners) have not filed any exemplar sale deed relating tolarge pieces of land sold in acres to prove the market value of theacquired land; fourthly, exemplar relied on by the respondents,especially Ext. P-18 pertains to very small pieces of land (19guntas); fifthly, the three distinguishing features noticed in the landin sale deed (Ext. P-18) are not present in the acquired land.”

7. Applying the law laid down by this Court on the deduction to bemade towards development charges while determining the compensationto the facts of the case on hand, it is required to be noted that in thepresent case a large parcel of land admeasuring 46 Hectares 89 R hasbeen acquired. The sale instances at Ex. 91 to 93 in respect of plots outof land bearing Survey No. 42 are with respect to small pieces of land AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aadmeasuring 1200 sq. ft. which were non-agricultural developed plotsand even the market price mentioned in the said sale deeds were onsquare foot basis. In the present case, the acquired land is a barrenagricultural land which may have a non- agricultural potentiality.Therefore, considering the fact that the sale exemplars/sale deedsproduced at Ex. 91 to 93 are in respect of very small plots of land andBwere non-agricultural developed plots and even the same were on thehighway and having the access to the main road, we are of the opinionthat there shall be at least 40% deduction towards development charges.As such, the High Court has not assigned any good reason as to whyand on what basis, it considered proper to make deduction towardsCdevelopment charges at the rate of 33.33% (1/3[rd] deduction). The HighCourt has not at all considered the relevant factors while making anappropriate deduction towards development charges. Therefore,considering the relevant factors on the appropriate deduction towardsdevelopment charges as per the law laid down by this Court in theDaforesaid decisions, and when we take note of the facts of the case onhand, we find that firstly, the land acquired in question is a large extentof land (45 Hectares 89 R); secondly, it was an agricultural land not fullydeveloped; thirdly, the landowner having not filed any exemplar saledeed relating to large pieces of land sold in acres to prove the marketvalue of the acquired land; and fourthly, exemplars relied upon by theElandowner, especially Ex. 91 to 93 pertain to very small plots/parcels ofland and that too, in respect of small plots which were developed andconverted to non-agricultural use and the distinguishing features noticedin the land in sale deeds, Ex. 91 to 93 are not present in the acquiredland, we are of the firm view that the deduction towards developmentFcharges at 1/3[rd] as deduced by the High Court can be said to be on alower side. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and therelevant factors, we are of the opinion that if 40% deduction is orderedto be made towards development charges, it can be said to be anappropriate deduction towards development charges in the facts andcircumstances of the case.G

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, CivilAppeal Nos. 176-177 of 2022 are hereby partly allowed. The impugnedcommon judgment and order passed by the High Court in First AppealNo. 599/2019 and Cross Objection No. 14/2021 is modified and it isdirected that the original claimant shall be entitled to the compensationH

for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.6/- per square foot, subject to40% deduction towards development charges, with all statutory benefits.Consequently, Civil Appeal Nos. 178-179/2022 preferred by the originallandowner stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Devika Gujral

Appeals disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H