Back
2007(7) Supreme 642
Supreme Court of india
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Lucknow Development Authority — Appellant
versus
Krishna Gopal Lahoti and Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 5112 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.12446 of 2005)
Decided on : 02-11-2007
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 54 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 96 – Deduction in compensation towards development charges - Deduction to be made towards development charges cannot be proved in any strait-jacket formula - It depends upon facts of each case - There are various factual factors which have to be taken into consideration while applying cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges - In some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd - There is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed - Fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly, when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose - Keeping in view general principles and factual scenario as evident from materials brought on record, market value fixed @ 8 per sq ft was sustained but held that instead of 25% development charges one-third held had to be deducted. (Paras 21,22,25,26)
Facts of the case :
Land belonging to claimants was acquired by Appellant Lucknow Development authority herein in the instant case. Market value of land in question was determined @ 2.20 per sq ft by Special Land Acquisition officer. On Reference there against u\s 18 by Land owners, Market value of land was determined @ 6 per Sq feet by Tribunal. First Appeal there against was dismissed. Appeal there against on plea that Tribunal wrongly placed reliance on a sale deed relating to a small piece of land was dismissed by High Court.
Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
The Court held that where large area is subject matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. Where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to adjudicating Court to make comparison of prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining prices.
Result: Appeal allowed partly.
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the ‘Act’) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’).
3.In the First Appeal challenge was to the award dated 18.2.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow in a reference under Section 18 of the Act in land case No.746 of 1991 titled Krishna Gopal Lahoti v. State of U.P.
4.The factual background in a nutshell is as follows :
“A large area of land measuring 194 bigha 19 biswa 14 biswansi and 14 kachwansi situated in village Purania and Mahibullapur was sought to be acquired by appellant-Lucknow Development Authority under the housing and development scheme known as “Timber Nagar Avasiya Yojana”. Khasra plot No.379 measuring 8 bigha, and Khasra plot No.394 measuring 2 bigha, 8 biswa 15 biswansi situated at village Mahibullapur and belonging to the claimants Krishna Gopal Lahoti, Sharad Kumar Lahoti, Sunil Kumar Lahoti and Sudhir Kumar Lahoti were also acquired under the said scheme. The relevant notification under Section 4 was issued on 26.3.1986. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 28.5.1986. The possession of the acquired land was taken on 17.12.1986 and Award under Section 11 of the Act was made on 27.5.1988 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Special Land Acquisition Officer in his Award under Section 11 of the Act determined the market value of the land in question at the rate of Rs.2.20 per sq. ft.
5.Aggrieved by the aforesaid Award, reference under Section 18 was preferred by the land owners, inter alia, stating that adjoining to the land in question, there is Lucknow-Sitapur Highway and nearby the acquired land there are number of colonies such as Aliganj Colony, Kapurthala Complex, P & T Colony, Arif Complex, Public Service Commission and Office of Geological Survey of India.
6.According to the landowners, the land in question has great potential value and the market value as determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is quite inadequate. The market value of the land at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq.ft. was claimed by the respondents besides statutory benefit under Act 68 of 1984.
7.The Lucknow Development Authority and the State of U.P. filed written statements separately. It was stated that the compensation as determined and awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is quite adequate and the claimants are not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Act 68 of 1984. It was stated that claim petition is barred by time. It is also barred by the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (in short ‘ULC’ Act) and by the provisions of Section 31 of the Act.
8.Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence.
9.The learned Tribunal could not find any substance in the pleas raised by the appellants regarding claim being barred under various heads as alleged in the written statements and all the issues were decided in negative against the appellant. The Tribunal further found that the claimants are entitled to the benefit of provisions of Act of 68 of 1984 and on the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal determined the market value of the land at Rs.6/- per sq. ft. and accordingly compensation was awarded by the impugned Award.
10.Against the Award, the First Appeal was filed before the High Court. Primarily, it was contended before the High Court that the Tribunal had not properly evaluated the evidence on record and wrongly placed reliance on a sale deed relating to a small piece of land. It was also submitted that without any proper appreciation of materials on record the compensation was enhanced.
11.Stand of the respondents before the High Court was that there was no illegality in the Award passed by the reference court. It was submitted that t
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
