2009(2) Supreme 248
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
C.R. Nagaraja Shetty — Appellant
versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1173 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8378 of 2008)
Decided on : 24-02-2009
(b)Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Deduction of development charges from the compensation payable is permissible, if justified – In absence of any justification recorded by the High Court, such deduction cannot be sustained. (Para 8)
(2007)9 SCC 447; (2005)4 SCC 789; (1995)5 SCC 422; (2003)12 SCC 334 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case:
1.Land acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of the land belonging to the appellant. The compensation was determined at Rs.10/- per square feet.
2.An application for enhancement under Section 18 of the Act was filed by the appellant. After two rounds of litigation including one SLP, the High Court enhanced the compensation amount at Rs.75/- per square feet. However, the High Court deducted Rs.25/- per square feet for development charges. The High Court also did not award the compensation towards yielding coconut trees, barbed fencing wire etc.
Finding of the Court :
The claimant would be entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.75/- per square feet with all the statutory benefits.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has a slightly chequered history. Land acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of the land, bearing Survey No. 4 of Beratana Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 35 guntas, belonging to the appellant. Section 4 Notification dated 29.11.1990 was published on 20.12.1990. After Section 5-A enquiry, declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was published on 18.6.1992. In the award proceedings dated 9.12.1994, the compensation was determined at Rs.10/- per square feet. An application for enhancement under Section 18 of the Act was filed by the appellant and Reference Court partly allowed the Reference and enhanced the compensation to Rs.27.50 per square feet. The appellant was also held to be entitled to solatium at 30% of the market value and for additional amount at 12% p.a. under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The Reference Court accepted that this was non-agricultural land and was situated adjacent to the Highway and thus, it had potential for being used for commercial purpose. The public purpose for which the land was acquired, was for widening of the National Highway.
3. Dissatisfied by the judgment of the Reference Court, an appeal was filed before the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of the Reference Court, enhancing the compensation and strangely enough held that the Reference Court had erred in enhancing the compensation. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition, being SLP (Civil) No. 8575 of 2006 before this Court. This Court, by its order dated 26.2.2007, set aside the judgment and remanded the matter to the High Court to consider the appeal afresh. Accordingly, the High Court heard the matter again and partly allowed the appeal, enhancing the compensation amount at Rs.75/- per square feet. However, the High Court deducted Rs.25/- per square feet for development charges. The High Court also did not award the compensation towards yielding coconut trees, barbed fencing wire etc. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant, now, has come before us by way of the present appeal.
4. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant urged that considering that this land was on the outskirts of Bangalore City and had the great commercial potential, the High Court was bound to give enhanced compensation, at least at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet. It was pointed out that the acquired land was on the National Highway and as such, had the potential for commercial purposes. The Learned Counsel further, by way of his second submission, urged that the High Court, at any rate, should not have deducted Rs.25/- per square feet, so as to limit the compensation to Rs.50/- per square feet. The Learned Counsel pointed out that such deduction for development charges was completely unjustified, particularly, because there could be no development in the small piece of land. The Learned Counsel relied upon the judgment reported in 2007 (9) SCC 447.
5. As against this, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, supported the impugned judgment and contended that in fact, the High Court had given much more compensation than what was actually deserved by the appellant.
6. The High Court has increased the compensation from Rs.27.50/- per square feet to Rs.75/- per square feet. In the impugned judgment, the High Court observed that the concerned land was abutting the National Highway and was within 15 kilometers from Bangalore City Corporation limit and further that all-round development has taken place as industries have come up thereby. In this, the High Court relied upon a Division Bench judgment passed by the same High Court, wherein, it was found that the value of the nearby land was Rs.62.50/- per square feet. The High Court ultimately held that since the said land referred to in the earlier judgment pass
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.