SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1976

1997(1) Supreme 206
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Shimla Development Authority & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Smt. Santosh Sharma & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No.15550 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10752         of 1991)
Decided on 22-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : H.K. Puri, Advocate for Naresh Kr. Sharma, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Deduction of 40% of compensation towards development charges is an application of correct principle which calls for no interference.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23-Deduction of 40% of the compensation awarded towards development charges-No ground to interfere. (Paras 3 & 4)

       

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Notice was sent to the respondents as early as on July 25, 1991 but neither the unserved notice nor the acknowledgement cards have so been far received from the respondents. So notice must be deemed to have been served on them.

3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 23.1.1986 acquiring land situated at Patti Rihana I and II and Kasumpti Junga of Tehsil & District Shimla. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per bigha. On reference, the District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- On appeal, the High Court after deducting 40% of the compensation awarded towards development charges, has confirmed the same in the impugned judgment. Shri H.K. Puri, learned counsel for the appellants contended that in several judgment, this Court has confirmed deduction upto 40% of the compensation towards development charges and that, therefore, the same ratio would be maintained in all the cases. In some cases this Court has pointed out that depending upon the location of the land and development needed, deduction between 30% to 40% was proper and was approved. In this case the Division Bench has accepted thus :

"I am of the view a deduction of the 40% would be reasonable."

4. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has correctly applied the principle and we find no ground to interfere with it.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top