Back
2003 Supreme(SC) 1029
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.N. VARIAVAAND H.K. SEMA, JJ.
M.S.N. NADAF SINCE DEAD THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS
APPELLANTS;
VERSUS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, RESPONDENT.
CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 6471-75 OF 1997 WITH NOS. 6476-89 OF 1997
DECIDED ON OCTOBER 16, 2003
The normal rate of deduction for developed lands should be one-third, and if wrong principles have been applied, the court can interfere with the judgment.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966, SECTION 28(1) - 28(1) - The court discussed the application of Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 in determining compensation for acquired land. The court considered the admissibility of sale instances and the deduction percentage for developed lands. The court also referenced the principle established in Kasturi v. State of Haryana regarding the normal rate of deduction for developed lands. The court held that the High Court erred in applying a 60% deduction and set aside the judgment, restoring those of the reference courts.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were against the judgment of the High Court regarding the acquisition of land under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. The High Court considered the admissibility of sale instances and the deduction percentage for developed lands.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court erred in applying a 60% deduction and set aside the judgment, restoring those of the reference courts. The court also held that interest on solatium is payable and clarified that the claimants will be entitled to all amounts payable to them under the law.
Issues: The issues involved the admissibility of sale instances, the deduction percentage for developed lands, and the payment of interest on solatium.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the normal rate of deduction for developed lands should be one-third, as established in Kasturi v. State of Haryana. The court also clarified that if wrong principles have been applied, the court can interfere with the judgment.
Final Decision: The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the court setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring those of the reference courts. The court also held that interest on solatium is payable and clarified that the claimants will be entitled to all amounts payable to them under the law.
ORDER
1. DELAY CONDONED.
2. APPLICATIONS FOR SUBSTITUTION ARE ALLOWED.
3. THESE APPEALS ARE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT DATED 28-1-1997.
4. THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED PURSUANT TO A NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966 AND AN AWARD CAME TO BE PASSED FIXING COMPENSATION @ RS 6500 PER ACRE. BEFORE THE REFERENCE COURT, THE CLAIMANTS FILED A SALE EXAMPLE WHICH WAS MARKED AS "EXT. P-3". THAT SALE WAS IN RESPECT OF 4.5 GUNTAS OF LAND AT RS 13,500 AND THE SALE HAD TAKEN PLACE ON 13-12-1973 I.E. A FEW MONTHS PRIOR TO THE NOTIFICATION. THE ACQUIRING BODY HAD ALSO FILED SALE INSTANCES WHICH WERE MARKED AS "EXTS. D-1 TO D-3". HOWEVER, THESE WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN VIEW OF THE THEN PREVAILING LAW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE VENDOR OR THE VENDEE BEING C EXAMINED THE SALE DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE LOOKED INTO. ONE REFERENCE COURT APPLIED A DEDUCTION OF 40% AND AWARDED COMPENSATION @ RS 71,874 PER ACRE IN 5 CASES. IN 4 CASES ANOTHER REFERENCE COURT APPLIED A DEDUCTION OF 35% AND AWARDED COMPENSATION @ RS 80,000 PER ACRE.
5. AS THE ACQUISITION OF LAND WAS UNDER THE SAME NOTIFICATION, THE HIGH COURT DEALT WITH ALL THESE MATTERS BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. IT MUST BE MENTIONED THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN FILED ONLY BY THE ACQUIRING BODY. THE CLAIMANTS HAD NOT FILED ANY APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT AGREED WITH THE REFERENCE COURT THAT "EXT. P-3" WAS A COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCE AND THAT THE REFERENCE COURT HAD CORRECTLY TAKEN THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. THE HIGH COURT, HOWEVER, RELIED ON ANOTHER CASE DECIDED BY IT WHEREIN IT HAD BEEN CONCLUDED THAT DEDUCTION COULD BE UP TO 65% FOR DEVELOPMENT. THE HIGH COURT NOTED THAT IN SOME CASES DEDUCTION OF 63% HAD BEEN GRANTED BY IT. THE HIGH COURT THEN CHOSE TO DEDUCT 60% ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:
“..BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE IT WILL BE SUFFICIENT IF WE GIVE DEDUCTIONS TO THE EXTENT OF 60%".
6. THIS IS THE ONLY REASON GIVEN BY THE HIGH COURT FOR DEDUCTING UP TO 60%.
7. A NUMBER OF AUTHORITIES HAVE BEEN CITED BEFORE US BY BOTH THE PARTIES WHEREIN THIS COURT HAS MADE DEDUCTION AT DIFFERENT RATES. IN A RECENT DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF KASTURI V. STATE OF HARYANA1 EARLIER CASES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE NORMAL RULE IS THAT THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ONE-THIRD. IN THIS CASE ALSO THE ADJOINING LANDS WERE DEVELOPED LANDS. CONSIDERING THAT THEY WERE DEVELOPED LANDS, THIS COURT HELD THAT THE NORMAL RATE OF DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ONE-THIRD. WE ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THIS VIEW. IT IS ONLY IF THERE IS MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT HIGHER PERCENTAGE IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED THAT THERE COULD BE A HIGHER DEDUCTION.
8. IT WAS, HOWEVER, ARGUED THAT THE REFERENCE COURT HAD DEDUCTED @ 40% IN 5 CASES AND @ 35% IN 4 CASES AND THAT THE APPELLANTS (HEREIN) HAD NOT GONE IN AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE REFERENCE COURT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT, THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH THIS COURT MAY BE INCLINED TO INTERFERE, DEDUCTION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AT A RATE LESS THAN 40% AND 35% IN THE RESPECTIVE CASES.
9. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF FOOD CORPN. OF INDIA V. MAKHAN SINGH2 WHEREIN THIS COURT HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: (SCC PP. 75-76, PARA 15)
"15. THIS COURT AS THE LAST COURT OF APPEAL, WILL ORDINARILY NOT INTERFERE IN AN AWARD GRANTING COMPENSATION UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING TO SHOW NOT MERELY THAT ON THE BALANCE OF EVIDENCE IT IS POSSIBLE TO REACH A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION, BUT THAT THE JUDGMENT CANNOT BE SUPPORTED BY REASON OF A WRONG APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLE OR BECAUSE SOME IMPORTANT POINT AFFECTING VALUATION HAS BEEN OVERLOOKED OR MISAPPLIED. BESIDES, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE APPELLATE COURT INTERFERES NOT WHEN THE JUDGMENT UNDER APPEAL IS NOT RIGHT BUT ONLY WHEN IT IS SHOWN TO BE WRONG. SEE IN THIS CONNECTION, DOLLAR CO. V. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS3. ADDED THERETO ARE OTHER RULES OF PRUDENCE THAT THE COURTS DO NOT TREAT AT PAR LAND SITUATED ON THE FRONTAGE HAVING SPECIAL ADVANTAGE AND THE LAND SITUATED IN THE A
