IMPORTANT POINT
In case of undeveloped land being acquired if the exampler sale deed pertains to developed land deductions up to 75 of its market value can be allowed.

Headnote:
(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Compensation – Acquisition of undeveloped land – Deduction from market value of developed land – Factors to be considered – First, space/area to be left out for amenities, parks etc. – Second, developmental expenditure for providing civic amenities etc. – Third, deduction for waiting period or de-escalation – Gross deductions should not exceed 75%. (Para 16, 19)
(1982) 1 SCC 419; (1988) 2 SCC 150; (1988) 3 SCC 751; (1998) 2 SCC 385; (2003) 1 SCC 354; (2003) 12 SCC 334; (2003) 12 SCC 642; (2005) 4 SCC 789; (2008) 2 SCC 568; (2009) 15 SCC 769; (2010) 1 SCC 444; (2010) 12 SCC 707; (2011) 7 SCC 714 – Relied upon
(b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Deduction from market value of developed land – On account of de-escalation – Period exceeding one year – High Court applying 10% deduction for de-escalation – Not unjustified. (Para 25)
(2004) 6 SCC 533; (2008) 14 SCC 748; (2011) 8 SCC 91 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Acquisition of land for Gulbarga Development Authority was challenged on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
After the litigation through Reference Court the High Court determined the compensation which is under challenge here.
Finding of the Court:
Deduction of 70% as determined by the High Court does not warrant interference.
Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Gdish Singh Khehar, J.Through this common order, we propose to dispose of Civil Appeal no.1743 of 2006, as also, Civil Appeal nos.8899-8901 of 2011. For convenience, the factual position, as has been depicted in Civil Appeal no.1743 of 2006, has been referred to.

2. Gulbarga Development Authority, consequent upon its desire to acquire land for raising a residential layout, issued a preliminary notification under section 15(1) of the City Improvement Trust Board Act, 1976 on 13.5.1982. Through the aforesaid notification, it was proposed to acquire 144 acres of land falling in the revenue estate of villages Rajapur (71 acres) and Badepur (73 acres). The matter in respect of the acquisition of land crystallized, when the final notification was issued on 14.12.1989. Thereby the land of the appellants, measuring 8 acres 4 guntas, situated in survey no.63 of the revenue estate of village Badepur, came to be acquired. Insofar as Civil Appeal nos.8899-8901 of 2011 is concerned, the appellants' land measuring 7 acres 7 guntas, falling in survey no.14/2, in the revenue estate of village Rajapur, was acquired.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer announced his award on 7.7.1990. By the aforesaid award, the market value of the land, falling in the revenue estate of village Badepur, was fixed at the rate of Rs.4,100/-per acre. For the land falling in the revenue estate of village Rajapur, the Land Acquisition Officer, assessed the market value at Rs.13,500/-per acre. The landowner, Chandrashekar (whose LRs. are the appellants in Civil Appeal no.1743 of 2006) filed Writ Petition nos.15489-496 of 1990 to assail the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Gulbarga Development Authority, by finding fault with the procedure adopted. The High Court of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the High Court), while issuing notice, passed an interim order staying dispossession for a period of 3 weeks. By a motion bench order dated 10.8.1990, the interim order passed on 23.7.1990 was continued, "till further orders". Writ Petition nos. 15489496 of 1990 came to be dismissed on 12.8.1991. The notification for acquisition of land as also the procedure adopted was held to be in consonance with law.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition referred to in the foregoing paragraph, the original landowner Chandrashekar, filed a protest petition assailing the quantum of compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the aforesaid protest petition dated 24.9.1990, reference was also sought, for enhancement of compensation awarded to the appellant. Since the protest petition filed by the landowner was not referred for adjudication, the landowner filed an application under section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The aforesaid application was allowed, and the claim raised by the landowner was registered for adjudication.

5. After adjudicating upon the matter, the Reference Court announced its award on 19.6.1999. The compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector at Rs.4,100/-per acre, was enhanced to Rs.1,46,000/-per acre. The Gulbarga Development Authority, as also, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred independent appeals before the High Court. By an order dated 3.11.1999, the High Court allowed the appeals, and remitted the matter to the Reference Court for reconsideration, on the issue of deductions to be made from the market value, so as to determine compensation payable to the land losers. In this behalf, it would be relevant to mention, that while determining the compensation payable to the appellant, the Reference Court had based its assessment on a sale deed dated 30.12.1983. From the market value of land assessed, on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed, the Reference Court had applied a deduction of 33 percent. The High Court having concluded, that the aforesaid deduction was inappropriate, had remanded the matter for re-determination. It is the case of the appellants before this Court, that the only issue, whic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 1090

IMPORTANT POINTIn case of undeveloped land being acquired if the exampler sale deed pertains to developed land deductions up to 75 of its market value can be allowed.

Cases Referred (14)

IMPORTANT POINT
In case of undeveloped land being acquired if the exampler sale deed pertains to developed land deductions up to 75 of its market value can be allowed.