Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs M.A. Aziz S/O Md.Khasim on 20 June, 2014
Bench: B.S Patil, Rathnakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
MFA No.32505/2011 C/W
MFA Nos.30207/2012, 200655/2014 & 200656/2014,
MFA.CROB Nos.1050/2012 & 1504/2013
IN MFA No.32505/2011
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER AND LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
SEDAM ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA)
AND:
1. M.A.AZIZ S/O MD. KHASIM
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WADI, TQ. CHITTAPUR
DIST. GULBARGA
2. MEHBOOB BEE
W/O HAJI MOHAMMED
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: AGRICULTURE
2
R/O WADI, TQ. CHITTAPUR
DIST. GULBARGA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs.
2(a). HAZI MOHAMMAD SHERALI
S/O LAL AHMED
AGE: 76 YEARS
2(b). SARAFUDDIN
S/O HAZI MOHAMMAD SHERALI
AGE: 51 YEARS
2(c). MAZARUDDIN
S/O HAZI MOHAMMAD SERALI
AGE: 31 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O WADI
TQ. CHITTAPUR
DIST. GULBARGA
3. RASOOL BEE W/O HAJI
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WADI, TQ. CHITTAPUR
DIST. GULBARGA
4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
(CONST -III)
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS
VIKARABAD, NOW
SECUNDRABAD
ANDHRA PRADESH
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.S.KINIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2(A-C) & R3;
SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS MFA APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF
THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 22.01.2011 PASSED IN LAC No.267/2002 ON
THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AT CHITTAPUR,
WHEREIN PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR
ENHANCED COMPENSATION.
3
IN MFA No.30207/2012
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER AND LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
SEDAM ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA)
AND:
1. SHIVARAYA S/O BABUR RAO
SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRs.
1(a). PARVATI
W/O LATE SHIVARAYA @ SHIVAJI
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WADI (JUNCTION)
1(b). MUKUND
S/O LATE SHIVARAYA
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WADI (JUNCTION)
1(c). GOVIND
S/O LATE SHIVARAYA
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WADI (JUNCTION)
SURYAKANT
S/O PRABHAKAR
AGE: MAJOR
R/O WADI (JUNCTION)
DEAD BUT NO LRs. ARE
BROUGHT ON RECORD
2. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF
4
ENGINEER, (CONST)
S.C. RAILWAYS, VIKARABAD
(SECUNDRABAD)
(ANDHRA PRADESH)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.S.KINIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-C);
SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 11.12.2012 APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE
AGAISNT SURYAKANT S/O PRABHAKAR)
THIS MFA APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF
THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 22.01.2011 PASSED IN LAC No.260/2002 ON
THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AT CHITTAPUR,
WHEREIN PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION
FILED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF L.A. ACT.
IN MFA No.200655/2014
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
(CONST -III), S.C.RAILWAYS
VIKARABAD, (SECUNDRABAD)
(ANDHRA PRADESH) ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M.A.AZIZ S/O MD. KHASIM SAB
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WADI, TQ. CHITTAPUR
DIST. GULBARGA - 585 103
2. MEHBOOB BEE
W/O HAJI MOHAMMED
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WADI, TQ. CHITTAPUR
DIST. GULBARGA - 585 103
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs.
5
2(a). HAZI MOHAMMAD SHERALI
S/O LAL AHMED, AGE: 72 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
2(b). SHARFUDDIN
S/O HAZI MOHAMMAD SHERALI
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
2(c). MAJHARUDDIN
S/O HAZI MOHAMMAD SHERALI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
ALL ARE R/O WADI
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. GULBARGA
3. RASOOL BEE
W/O HAJI MOHAMMAD
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WADI, TQ. CHITTAPUR
DIST. GULBARGA - 585 103
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER AND LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
SEDAM - 585 222 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.L.VANTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS MFA APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF
THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 22.01.2011 PASSED IN LAC No.267/2002 ON
THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AT CHITTAPUR,
ALLOWING THE PETITION AND AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF Rs.5/- PER SQ. FT. FOR THEIR ACQUIRED
LAND.
IN MFA No.200656/2014
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF
ENGINEER, (CONST)
6
S.C. RAILWAYS
VIKARABAD
(SECUNDRABAD)
(ANDHRA PRADESH)
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVARAYA S/O BABUR RAO
SINCE DECEASED
THROUGH HIS LRs.
1(a). PARVATI
W/O LATE SHIVARAYA @ SHIVAJI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WADI (JUNCTION)
1(b). MUKUND S/O LATE SHIVARAYA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WADI (JUNCTION)
1(c). GOVIND
S/O LATE SHIVARAYA
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WADI (JUNCTION)
2. SURYAKANT
S/O PRABHAKAR
AGE: MAJOR
R/O WADI (JUNCTION)
DEAD BUT NO LRs. ARE
BROUGHT ON RECORD
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER AND LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
SEDAM ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.S.KINIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO R1(C))
7
THIS MFA APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF
THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 22.01.2011 PASSED IN LAC No.260/2002 ON
THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AT CHITTAPUR,
ALLOWING THE PETITION & AWARDING THE COMPENSATION
OF Rs.5/- PER SQ. FT. FOR THEIR ACQUIRED LAND.
IN MFA.CROB.No.1050/2012
BETWEEN:
1. M.A.AZIZ S/O MD. KHASIM
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WADI, TQ. CHITTAPUR
DIST. GULBARGA - 585 225
2. MEHABOOB BEE
W/O HAJJI MOHAMMAD
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs.
2(a). HAZI MOHAMMAD SHERALI
S/O LAL AHMED, AGE: 75 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WADI, TQ. CHITTAPUR
DIST. GULBARGA - 585 225
2(b). SARAFUDDIN
S/O HAZI MOHAMMAD SHERALI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O WADI, TQ. CHITTAPUR
DIST. GULBARGA - 585 225
2(c). MAZARUDDIN
S/O HAZI MOHAMMAD SHERALI
AGE: 75 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WADI, TQ. CHITTAPUR
DIST. GULBARGA - 585 225
3. RASOOL BEE W/O HAJJI MOHAMMED
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WADI, TQ. CHITTAPUR
8
DIST. GULBARGA - 585 225
... CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI M.L.VANTI & SRI M.S.KINIKERI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER
S.L.A.O., S.C. RAILWAY
SEDAM - 585 222
2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
(CONST), S.C. RAILWAYS
VIKARABAD, NOW
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (CONST)
SECUNDRABAD - 500 071
ANDHRA PRADESH
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA FOR R1;
SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA.CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF
CPC R/W SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.01.2011
PASSED IN LAC No.267/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE (SR. DN.) AT CHITTAPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
REFERENCE PETITION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA.CROB.No.1504/2013
BETWEEN:
SHIVARAYA S/O BABURAO
SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRs.
(a). PARVATI
W/O LATE SHIVARAYA @ SHIVAJI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WADI (JUNCTION)
9
(b). MUKUND S/O LATE SHIVARAYA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WADI (JUNCTION)
(c). GOVIND S/O LATE SHIVARAYA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WADI (JUNCTION)
... CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI M.L.VANTI & SRI M.S.KINIKERI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER AND L.A.O.
SEDAM
2. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONST)
SC RAILWAYS, VIKARABAD NOW
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (CONST.)
S.C.RAILWAY, SECUNDRABAD
(ANDHRA PRADESH) - 500071
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA FOR R1;
SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA.CROB. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22
OF CPC R/W. SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT,
1894 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.01.2011
PASSED IN LAC No.260/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE (SR. DN.) AT CHITTAPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
REFERENCE PETITION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS ALONG WITH MFA.CROBS. COMING ON
FOR HEARING THIS DAY, B.S.PATIL J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
10
JUDGMENT
MFA No.32505/2011 is filed by the State challenging the judgment and award dated 22.01.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Chittapur, in LAC No.267/2002 determining the market value of the acquired land in Sy.No.103/1 measuring 6 acres of Wadi village in Chaittapur Taluk at Rs.5/- per sq. ft. whereas, MFA No.30207/2012 is filed by the State challenging the judgment and award dated 22.01.2011 passed in LAC No.260/2002 determining the market value of the acquired land comprising in Sy.No.99/2 of Wadi village in Chittapur Taluk, measuring 5 acres 23 guntas at Rs.5/- per sq. ft.
2. The Union of India has filed the connected appeal in MFA No.200655/2014 represented by the Deputy Chief Engineer, South Central Railways, Secundrabad, challenging the market value fixed for the acquired land in LAC No.267/2002 similarly MFA No.200656/2014 is filed by the Union of India challenging the market value fixed 11 for the acquired lands in LAC No.260/2002. The acquisition is for the benefit of the railways. MFA.CROB.No.1050/2012 is filed by the claimants in MFA No.32505/2011 seeking enhancement of market value and compensation payable for the acquired lands in LAC No.267/2002. MFA.CROB.No.1504/2013 is filed by the claimants in MFA No.30207/2012 seeking enhancement of market value and compensation determined in LAC No.260/2002.
3. As all these cases arise out of acquisition made by the same notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the same purpose of formation of double railway line in Wadi Town of Chittapur Taluk and as the Reference Court has fixed market value at Rs.5/- per sq. ft. treating both the acquired lands as having same potentiality, at the request of learned counsel for both sides and also having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases, we have found it just and 12 appropriate to hear these appeals and cross objections together and dispose them by this common judgment.
4. Facts leading to these appeals, briefly stated, are that Sy.No.103/1 measuring 6 acres and Sy.No.99/2 measuring 5 acres 23 guntas situated at Wadi village of Chittapur Taluk have been acquired for the purpose of formation of double railway line/track by a preliminary notification dated 14.11.1990 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, ('the Act' for short) which was published in the Official Gazette on 13.12.1990. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 22.04.1992 determining the market value of the acquired land in Sy.No.103/1 at Rs.7,090/- per acre and at Rs.6,420/- per acre for the acquired land in Sy.No.99/2. Dissatisfied by the market value determined, the claimants sought reference of their cases for fixation of correct market value.
5. On reference, the Reference Court has fixed the market value at Rs.5/- per sq. ft. in respect of both the 13 lands. The Reference Court has taken note of the non- agriculture potentiality of the lands, location of both the lands in a developed area surrounded by Wadi Cement Factory, buildings like Cinema Theatre and also the National Highway running close by. On the basis of Exs.P1 & P2 - sale deeds produced and marked in LAC No.267/2002 the Reference Court has determined the market value.
6. It is relevant to point out here that Ex.P1 pertains to sale deed dated 23.10.1990 in respect of a plot of land measuring 20 ft. by 60 ft. carved out of Sy.No.180/2 of Wadi village which was sold at Rs.12,000/- (Rs.10/- per sq. ft.). Ex.P2 is a sale deed dated 26.09.1989 pertaining to another plot of land measuring 40 ft. by 60 ft. carved out of Sy.No.104/3 of Wadi village sold at Rs.12,000/- (Rs.5/- per sq. ft.). In fact, these very sale deeds are also marked in LAC No.260/2002 as Exs.P14 and P15. Therefore, the Reference Court while fixing the market value has referred 14 to these two sale deeds, it has taken the average value involved in these two sale deeds and has arrived at Rs.7.50/- per sq. ft., out of which, 33% has been deducted towards developmental and other charges and the market value has been arrived at Rs.5/- per sq. ft. The same has been awarded along with other statutory sums including interest.
7. In the two appeals filed by the State Government and the two appeals filed by the Union of India, the grievance made is with regard to the fixation of the market value by referring to a small plot of lands without deducting appropriate amount towards developmental and other charges. Whereas, in the cross objections filed, the claimants have sought for enhancement of compensation by fixing the market value at Rs.11.50/- per sq. ft.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for both parties, perused the evidence on record and the judgments and award passed by the Reference Court. The points that arise for our consideration are:
15
i. Whether the Reference Court was right and justified in placing reliance on Exs.P1 and P2/Exs.P14 and P15 sale deeds relating to small plots of land for determining the market value of the acquired lands and in fixing the market value at Rs.5/- per sq. ft.?
ii. Whether the Reference Court has erred in deducting only 33% towards developmental and other charges while fixing the market value of the acquired land on the basis of small plots of land in a developed area?
9. In LAC No.267/2002, the first claimant has examined himself as PW.1; Srikanth, who is an attesting witness to Ex.P2 - sale deed has been examined as PW.2; and Mohd. Maqeemsaheb, who is an attesting witness to Ex.P1- sale deed has been examined as PW.3. Exs.P1 to P18 are produced and marked in evidence. The respondents have not adduced any evidence.
10. In LAC No.260/2002, claimant No.1(a) - Parvati has examined herself as PW.1. She has also examined 16 PW.2 and PW.3 who are the attesting witnesses to the same sale deeds which are marked as Exs.P14 and P15. The claimants have produced and marked Exs.P1 to P29. In this case, the respondent has examined RW.1 - Ramrao, a Section Engineer of Railways and has produced and marked Exs.R1 to R9.
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Reference Court has seriously erred in taking average of the value of sale transaction comprised in Exs.P1 and P2 for determining the market value. According to the appellants, Sy.No.103/2 being a land situated immediately abutting the acquired land Sy.No.103/1, site formed in Sy.No.103 ought to have been made basis for determining the market value, without referring to the value of site formed in Sy.No.180/2 which is not a land situated immediately abutting the acquired land.
12. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that as the exemplar sites which are made 17 basis for determination of market value are small plots of land situated in developed areas, the Reference Court ought to have deducted atleast 67% towards developmental and other charges and deduction of only 33% is illegal.
13. Learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel representing the Railways has placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs. and others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another [(2012) 1 SCC 390] in support of their contentions.
14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/cross objectors has contended that acquired lands are situated in the vicinity of Wadi Railway Junction and have been sandwiched between developed areas on all sides. He urges that as is evident from the evidence of the claimants and the findings recorded by the Reference Court, the acquired lands are surrounded by ACC Cement Factory, Power Plant and other buildings including 18 Cinema Talkies, Hospital building and a High School. It is also pointed out from the evidence that part of the land comprised in Sy.No.103, the subject matter of acquisition had been converted in the year 1987 and therefore, it was undeniable that the entire land had non-agriculture potentiality. He also urged that the Reference Court has seriously erred in referring to a plot of land comprised in Sy.No.104/2 which was sold one year prior to the date of preliminary notification issued. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, sale of plot of lands made in Sy.No.180/2 was just one month prior to the date of preliminary notification and therefore, the said piece of land ought to have been made basis for determining the market value. It is also contended by the counsel that indeed the acquired lands had better facilities than Sy.Nos.180/2 and 104/2, as it had the benefit of road passing through both eastern and southern sides of the acquired lands. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Fertilizers Limited Vs. Jagga Singh (deceased) through LRs. and 19 another [(2012) 1 SCC 74] to contend that deduction of 30% considering the larger size and the nature of the land acquired has been held proper in the said case. He has also placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Nelson Fernandes Vs. Spl. L.A.O., South Goa [AIR 2007 SC 1414] and C.R.Nagaraja Shetty Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Appeal No.1173/2009, to contend that it is not an inviolable rule that deduction has to be made in all cases and that deduction cannot be less than 67% as contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate.
15. Ex.P5 is the village map. It discloses that the acquired lands Sy.No.103/1 and Sy.No.99/2 are located in close proximity to Sy.No.180. In fact, there is only one land i.e., Sy.No.101 that separates Sy.No.180 from Sy.No.103/1 and Sy.No.99/2. Therefore, it cannot be said that the acquired lands were not situated in close proximity to Sy.No.180. Indeed, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, the acquired lands 20 particularly, Sy.No.103/1 has advantage of road passing both on the eastern and southern sides. This advantage is not there to the land in Sy.No.180. Plot of land carved out of Sy.No.180 has been sold on 23.10.1990 as per Ex.P1 at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. Preliminary notification proposing to acquire the said land was issued on 14.11.1990 and the same was published in the official Gazette on 13.12.1990. Therefore, the sale transaction involved in Ex.P1 is proximate in point of time to the 4(1) Notification issued in the instant cases. Whereas, sale deed Ex.P2 which pertains to the sale of site carved out of Sy.No.104/3 is dated 26.09.1989, one year two months prior to the date of publication of preliminary notification. Therefore, we do not find it just or appropriate to make Ex.P2 sale deed which is not proximate in point of time to the 4(1) notification, as basis for determining the market value. Though Sy.No.104 is located immediately abutting Sy.No.103, in the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the location of Sy.No.180 which is also in the immediate vicinity of the acquired land, which reflects 21 sale transaction of the period immediately prior to the 4(1) notification, the Reference Court ought to have made Ex.P1 as the basis instead of trying to take average of Exs.P1 and P2 as the basis for determining the market value. There is absolutely no justification to adopt such an approach. It will be thus clear that in Ex.P1, sale consideration shown, for the site measuring 20 ft. by 60 ft. is at Rs.10/- per sq. ft. (Rs.12,000/-). This can be taken as basis for determining the market value of the two acquired lands.
16. The next question that would fall for consideration is the percentage of deduction that has to be made towards developmental and other charges. There are long line of judgments of the Apex Court dealing with this aspect of the matter. In fact, learned counsel for both sides have taken us through some of them. However, as the judgment in Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs. and others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another [(2012) 1 SCC 390] rendered by the Apex Court deals 22 exhaustively with the aspect of deduction of amount from the market value towards developmental charges and has dealt with large number of cases decided earlier on this aspect, we may usefully refer to the same and adopt the ratio laid down therein for the purpose of the present case. The principle evolved with regard to different components of deduction while making valuation based on the market value of small piece of land for determining the compensation and in respect of large extent of undeveloped acquired land has been set out in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the case referred to supra. The same can be usefully referred to:
"23. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the analysis of the legal position referred to in the foregoing four paragraphs, we are of the view that there is no discrepancy on the issue in the recent judgments of this Court. In our view, for the "first component" under the head of "development" deduction of 331/3% can be made. Likewise, for the "second component"
under the head of "development", a further 23 deduction of 331/3% can additionally be made. The facts and circumstances of each case would determine the actual component of deduction, for each of the two components. Yet under the head of "development, the applied deduction should not exceed 67%. That should be treated as the upper benchmark. This would mean, that even if deduction under one or the other of the two components exceeds 331/3%, the two components under the head of "development" put together, should not exceed the upper benchmark.
24. In Lal Chand Vs. Union of India [(2009) 15 SCC 769] case and in A.P.Housing Board Vs. K.Manohar Reddy [(2010) 12 SCC 707] case, this Court expressed the upper limit of permissible deductions as 75%. Deductions up to 67% can be made under the head of "development". Under what head then, would the remaining component of deductions fall? Further deductions would obviously pertain to considerations other than the head of "development"."
24
17. It has further observed that before applying deductions and for ascertaining the market value of the undeveloped acquired land, it is necessary to classify the nature of the exemplar land, as also, the acquired land which would facilitate for the calculation of correct quantum of deductions. The land under reference may be totally undeveloped, partially developed, substantially developed or fully developed, therefore, while arriving at the percentage of deduction the said factors have to be kept in mind.
18. The Apex Court has referred to the first component of deduction being deduction towards earmarking certain areas for roads and civic amenities which might be to the tune of 33.1/3% and second component of deduction referred is with regard to the developmental expenditure i.e., for constructing roads and providing civic amenities like Hospitals, Police Station, Schools etc. to the tune of 33.1/3%. Thus, the Apex Court has held that maximum of 67% of deduction would 25 reflect the said two components. Third component of deduction, in some cases, would be regarding waiting period for disposal of the sites to be formed in the acquired land after development, which may range to about 5%.
19. Keeping in mind these principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgment, if we now examine the facts of the present cases, it becomes clear that the acquired land is located in close proximity to Wadi township very near to Wadi Railway Station/Junction. Indeed part of the acquired land comprised in Sy.No.103/1 had been converted in the year 1987 itself for non-agricultural use making it very clear that the acquired land had all the potentiality of urban land. It is also clear that the acquired lands were surrounded by developed areas where cinema theatre, schools, power plants and factories had come up. It is nobody's case that the acquired lands consists of hilly or rocky area requiring huge expenditure to level them. On the other hand, evidence on record 26 shows that the acquired area is sandwiched between well developed area and is having frontage to the main road on two sides. Even Sy.No.99/2 is no advantage though it may not have the road passing by it. As held by the Apex Court in the decision referred to above, all these factors have to be taken into consideration while making deduction towards development.
20. Therefore, the total deduction that has to be given towards the two components referred to above cannot exceed 60%. If the market value is calculated at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. and 60% of it is deducted, it will come to Rs.4/- per sq. ft. which in our view is the just and fair market value having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present cases. As regards award of compensation against other statutory heads including interest there is no scope for any interference.
Hence, the appeals filed by the State and the Union of India are partly allowed. The market value is reduced and fixed at Rs.4/- per sq. ft. Cross objections filed by the 27 claimants are dismissed. In all other respects, the award passed by the Reference Court is left undisturbed. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE NB*