Himachal Pradesh High Court
Basant Lal (Deceased) Through His Lrs ... vs Land Acquisition Collector And Another on 14 May, 2024
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No. 249 of 2017 a/w RFA Nos.
197, 222, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253 .
and 375 of 2017.
Reserved on: 29.04.2024 Decided on: 14.05.2024 ____________________________________________________________
1. RFA No. 249 of 2017 Basant Lal (deceased) through his LRs Sh. Suresh Kumar and others. .......Appellants Versus Land Acquisition Collector and another .......Respondents
2. RFA No. 197 of 2017 Jhapti Devi ...Appellant Versus Land Acquisition Collector and another ...Respondents.
3. RFA No.222 of 2017 Raj Kumar and others .....Appellants
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector and another ...Respondents.
4. RFA No. 248 of 2017
Bahadur Chand Negi (deceased) through his LRs Smt. Salochna Negi and others. ...Appellants Versus Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents.
5. RFA No.250 of 2017 Ashwani Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents.
6. RFA No.251 of 2017 Suresh Kumar ....Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents.
7. RFA No.252 of 2017 Ashok Kumar ....Appellant
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS
2
Land Acquisition Collector and another ...Respondents 8. RFA No. 253 of 2017 .
Anil Kumar .....Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents
9. RFA No. 375 of 2017
Randhir Negi and another ....Appellants
Versus
Land Acquisition Collector and another ....Respondents.
____________________________________________________________ Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the appellant(s): Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ajeet Jaswal, Advocate for the appellants in RFA Nos. 249, 250, 251, 252 and 253 of 2017.
Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary and Mr. Tarun Mehta, Advocates, for the appellants in RFA No. 248 of 2017.
Ms. Ritta Goswami, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Komal Chaudhary and Ms. Rekha Thakur, Advocates, for the appellants No. RFA Nos. 197, 222 and 375 of 2017.
For the respondent(s): Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Basant Pal Thakur, Advocate, in all the appeals.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge All these appeals have arisen from a common award passed by learned District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS 3
Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. on 02.01.2017 in Land Reference Petition Nos. 0100009/2008, 0100003/2008, .
0100001/2008, 0100004/2008, 0100007/2008, 0100008/2008, 0100010/2008, 0100011/2008 and Land Reference Petition No. 0100007/2008, and further common questions of law arise from alike facts, therefore, these appeals have been taken up together for decision.
2. Land measuring 14-71-20 hectares in Village Dutt Nagar, Tehsil Rampur Bushahr, Distt. Shimla was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short, "The Act") for the public purpose of construction of a Housing Colony for the Officers/Officials/ Employees of Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited (SJVNL).
3. The Notification under Section 4 of the Act, was issued on 01.12.2005. Collector passed the Award No.4/2005 on 10.10.2007. The compensation for land was offered at following rates:
"S. No. Classification of land Area as Centiare.
1. Kayar Awal Rs. 287-92
2. Kayar Doyam Rs. 258-14
3. Bagicha Kalahu Awal Faldar and Villa Faldar. Rs. 595-69
4. Bakhal Awal. Rs. 158-85
5. Bagicha Bakhal awal Faldar and Villa Faldar. Rs. 529-51 ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS 4
6. Bakhal Doyam Rs.119-14
7. Bajar Kadeem. Rs. 66-19
8. Ghasni and Gair majrua. Rs. 49-64."
.
4. In addition, compensation for fruit trees, non-fruit trees and structures was also offered. Total compensation in the sum of Rs.11,21,24,833/- was offered including the amount of solatium and additional charges under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.
5. On the applications of the appellants herein, the Collector referred the matter to the adjudication of learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur in terms of Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court vide impugned award held the claimants to be entitled to compensation at uniform rate as against the rate of compensation offered by the Collector on the basis of category of the land.
6. Learned Reference Court placed reliance on Ext.PW-
1/W, a sale deed dated 01.12.2004, through which the appellant Basant Lal had sold 0-01-10 hectares of land in favour of one Sunder Sahai for consideration of Rs.1,80,000/-.
Since, the other transactions of sale relied upon by the parties by way of one-year average prepared by the "Patwari Halqua"
were not found to have been executed within one year ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS 5 preceding the date of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, were discarded. In this manner, learned Reference .
Court held the value of acquired land to be at Rs.1636/- per centare and hence, the value of total acquired land 14-71-20 hectares was assessed at Rs.24,06,88,320/-.
7. Further, learned Reference Court by placing reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Chand vs. Union of India and another, reported in 2010 (13) Recent Civil Reports (Civil) 172, held 65% deduction to be reasonable towards development charges out of the total assessed amount considered as market value of acquired land. A sum of Rs.8,42,40,912/- was thus assessed as compensation to be payable to the claimants. The SJVNL was also directed to pay solatium @ 30% on the enhanced value of compensation and also to pay interest @ 12% on the market value plus solatium under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act.
8. The claimants have shown their dis-satisfaction with the award passed by learned Reference Court and have approached this Court by way of instant appeals.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.
::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS 610. At the time of hearing, the only objection raised to the award on behalf of the appellants is with respect to the .
quantum of deduction to the extent of 65% towards development charges. The deduction has been challenged as highly excessive. As per the appellants, the acquired land was proved to be adjacent to National Highway, which fact has not been considered by learned Reference Court while holding 65% of the amount of compensation to be deductible on account of development charges.
11. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the deductible amount on account of development charges as held by learned Reference Court was completely justified in the backdrop of the facts proved on record. As per her, the acquired land was a huge tract as compared to the exemplar sale relied upon by learned Reference Court for the purpose of assessing the market value of acquired land at the rate of 1636/- per centare.
12. Learned Reference Court has taken into consideration a sale transaction proved on record vide Ext.PW-
1/W as exemplar sale being within the prescribed period of one year immediately preceding the date of issuance of notification ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS 7 under Section 4 of the Act. The land transferred through above sale deed was only 110 sq. meters (centare). The sale .
consideration was Rs.1,80,000/- and thus, the market value of the acquired land had been assessed at Rs. 1636/- per square meter (centare). No other exemplar sale was found available during the relevant period and for such reason, the annual average value prepared by the Halqua Patwari was discarded being based on irrelevant sale transactions.
13. The total area of acquired land was 14-71-20 hectares, which was quite huge as compared to the area involved in the exemplar sale deed. The record also reveals that out of the acquired land, 12-22-35 hectares was cultivated land and remaining 2-48-85 square meter was uncultivated.
The purpose of acquisition was construction of houses for the officers/officials/employees of the SJVNL.
14. In Kasturi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354 Hon'ble Supreme Court has expounded as under:
7. It is not debated that the sale transaction covered by Ext. P-7 relates to a small plot and the land in question acquired is about 84 acres. This land comprising of a large area is not developed although it has potential value for residential and commercial purposes. In order to develop this land, roads were to be laid, provision for drainage was to be made and certain area was to be earmarked for other civic amenities. Thus, after leaving the area in the land ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS 8 required for the purposes mentioned above, plots were to be made for residential and commercial purposes by incurring expenditure for other developmental works, such .
as providing electricity, water etc. The acquired land is not a small plot located in such a way that no other development was required at all and it could be utilized as it is as a developed building site. It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; maybe the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS 9 help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may .
have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, maybe in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the 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.
8. This Court in Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi [(1988) 2 SCC 150] referring to earlier decisions has held that prices fetched for small plots cannot form the basis for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. Para 12 of the said judgment reads: (SCC pp. 157-58, para 12) "12. It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. [See Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta [(1972) 4 SCC 236] ; Mirza Nausherwan Khan v. Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad [(1975) 1 SCC 238 : (1975) 2 SCR 184] ; Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 1 SCC 330 : (1977) 1 SCR 329] ; Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad [(1984) 2 SCC 324 : (1984) 2 SCR 900] .] The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does not admit of and is ripe ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS 10 for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the .
method of hypothetical layout could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid-out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civil amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realization of the price; the profits on the venture etc. are to be made. In Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust [(1982) 1 SCC 419] this Court indicated that deductions for land required for roads and other developmental expenses can, together, come up to as much as 53 per cent. But the prices fetched for small plots cannot directly be applied in the case of large areas, for the reason that the former reflects the 'retail' price of land and the latter the 'wholesale' price."
15. Thus, in the given facts of the case, the deduction on account of development charges was necessarily required.
Further, it cannot be forgotten that the development charges have consistently been held to have two separate components viz., area acquired to be utilized for common facilities and cost of developmental work.
16. In Lal Chand vs. Union of India and another (2009) 15 SCC 769, it has been held as under:
::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS 11"14. "The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first is with reference to the area required to be utilized for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. For .
example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilize around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities), etc."
17. Similar reiteration of law can be found in Haryana State Agricultural Market Board and another vs. Krishan Kumar and others (2011) 15 SCC 297 in the following terms:
"10. It is now well settled that if the value of small developed plots should be the basis, appropriate deductions will have to be made therefrom towards the area to be used for roads, drains and common facilities like park, open space, etc. Thereafter, further deduction will have to be made towards the cost of development, that is, the cost of levelling the land, cost of laying roads and drains, and the cost of drawing electrical, water and sewer lines."
18. In Major General Kapil Mehra and others vs. Union of India and another (2015) 2 SCC 262, the above proposition has been expounded as under:
"32. While making one-third deduction towards development cost, the learned Single Judge did not keep in view the two essential components of deduction for development. Deduction for development consists of two components: firstly, appropriate deduction to be made towards the area required to be utilized for roads, drains and common facilities like parks, etc.; secondly, further deduction to be made towards the cost of development, that is cost of levelling the land, cost of laying roads and drains, erection of electrical poles and water lines, etc. For deduction of development towards land and development charges, the nature of development, conditions and nature of the land, the land required to ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS 12 be set apart under the Building Rules for roads, sewerage, electricity, parks, water supply etc. and other relevant circumstances involved are required to be considered.
.
34. Consistent view taken by this Court is that one-
third deduction is made towards the area to be used for roads, drains and other facilities, subject to certain variations depending upon its nature, location, extent and development around the area. Further, appropriate deduction needs to be made for development cost, laying roads, erection of electricity lines depending upon the location of the acquired land and the development that has taken place around the area."
19. It is more than settled that the development charges cannot be calculated in a straitjacket formula. It depends on the facts of each and every case as can be gathered from the precedents detailed hereunder:
(a) In K. Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO), (1995) 5 SCC 426 at page 427 the position has been explored as under:
3. Shri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant placing reliance on Vijay Kumar Moti Lal v. State of Maharashtra [(1981) 2 SCC 719] and Special Tehsildar Land Acquisition v. A. Mangala Gowri [(1991) 4 SCC 218] , contended that this Court had upheld deduction of uniform rate of 1/3rd required for developmental charges. The High Court, therefore, was not right in deducting 40% of value towards developmental charges. We think that the contention is not well-founded. The High Court has noticed in its judgment thus:
"However, as the sales under Exs. X-1 to X-3 are for very small extents when compared to the lands under acquisition and the acquisition is meant for the housing scheme of housing board, necessary deduction will have to be given for developmental charges and also for taking into consideration the sales which are for smaller plots while considering the fixation of market value for the lands under acquisition which are in a large extent."::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS 13
4. In view of this finding, the High Court had taken into consideration not only the requirements towards developmental charges but also when reliance is placed by the court in Exs. X-1 to X-3, admittedly smaller .
extents of one guntha each which had fetched a market value at the rate of Rs 1,20,000 necessary deduction need to be given. Taking these two factors into consideration, ultimately it deducted 40%, though loosely termed as "towards developmental charges". This Court in Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector [(1988) 2 SCC 150 : AIR 1988 SC 943] has applied the twin tests and held that 50% of the deduction should be made when the sale transaction relates to smaller extent of the lands which were found to be genuine and relied on to determine the market value of a large tract of land and 50% deduction was found to be reasonable in that case. The State did not file appeal against enhanced compensation or deduction.
5. In Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tahsildar and Land r Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality [(1991) 4 SCC 506 : AIR 1992 SC 2298] this Court had held that since lands are in developed area, no deduction towards developmental charges be made. In Vijay Kumar Moti Lal [(1981) 2 SCC 719] and Mangala Gowri [(1991) 4 SCC 218] cases, the only question was regarding deduction for developmental charges. Sales relating to smaller pieces of land when found to be germane Gujarat High Court deducted 60% of the value, this Court in Hasanali Khanbhai and Sons v. State of Gujarat [(1995) 5 SCC 422] upheld the deduction of 60% by the High Court. When genuine and reliable sale deeds of small extents were considered to determine market value, the same will not form sole basis to determine market value of large tracts of land. Sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the just and fair market value of large tracts of land. In that view of the law, we are of the considered opinion that ratio in the cases in which it was dealt with only about deduction of developmental charges of undeveloped large extent of land does not render any assistance in deciding the principle followed by the High Court in this matter. In view of the judgment of this Court in Administrator General of W.B. case [(1988) 2 SCC 150 : AIR 1988 SC 943] and all subsequent decisions, we do not think that it is a proper case for interference.
(b) In Basavva v. Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 9 SCC 640 it has been considered as under:
::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS 143. Having given our consideration, the question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court has committed any error of law in fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs 56,000 per acre? On the principle of deductions in the determination of .
the compensation, this Court in K. Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional, Officer, LAO [(1995) 5 SCC 426] has considered the entire case law and has held that the Court, in the first instance, has to consider whether sales relating to smaller pieces of lands are genuine and reliable and whether they are in respect of comparable lands. In the event the Court finds that such sales are genuine and reliable and the lands have comparable features, sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the just and fair market value of large tracts of land. The time-lag for real development and the waiting period for development are also relevant consideration for determination of just and adequate compensation. Each case depends upon its own facts. For deduction of development charges, the nature of the development, conditions and nature of the land, the land required to be set apart under the building rules for roads, sewerage, electricity, parks, water etc. and all other relevant circumstances involved are to be considered. In this case the facts recorded by the High Court are that Ex. P-10 sale deed is dependable sale but it is in respect of a small plot of land situated at a distance of more than 1 km. It is also found that the land in the area is not developed and there is no development towards that area. The High Court also noted that it takes years for development in those lands though the lands are capable of being used for non-agricultural purpose. On those findings the High Court held that the market value under Ex. P-10 cannot form the sole basis but keeping in view the developments the lands are capable of fetching compensation at the rate of Rs 56,000 after deducting 65%. For developmental charges, that deduction between 33-1/3 to 53% was held to be valid by this Court in several judgments. In Vasundara Devi case [(1995) 5 SCC 426] 63% deduction was upheld. In view of the fact that development of land would have taken years, the High Court has deducted another 12%. Obviously, the High Court kept in view the fact that the lands under Ex. P-10 were situated at far-flung places from the lands under acquisition and since the land takes long time for development it has given additional deduction of 12%, i.e. 53 + 12% = 65% in determination of the compensation. On the basis of the rationale referred to above, the principle adopted by the High Court cannot be said to be illegal. Thus considered, we hold that there is no justification for interference in the finding recorded by the High Court or to further increase the compensation.
(c) In Land Acquisition Officer v. Nookala Rajamallu, (2003) 12 SCC 334 the rate of deduction has been held as under:
::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS 1511. The evidence on record shows that the acquired lands were agricultural lands. Obviously, their valuation would differ to a considerable extent from the land used for house sites. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land .
acquired for the formation of roads and other civic amenities, expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the price, the profits on the venture, etc. are to be made.
(See Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi [(1988) 2 SCC 150] .) In Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust [(1982) 1 SCC 419] the deduction for such development was taken as 53%.
12. In K.S. Shivadevamma v. Asstt. Commr. and Land Acquisition Officer [(1996) 2 SCC 62] this Court held as follows : (SCC p. 65, para 10) "10. It is then contended that 53% is not automatic but depends upon the nature of the development and the stage of development. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel that the extent of deduction depends upon development need in each case. Under the Building Rules 53% of land is required to be left out. This Court has laid as a general rule that for laying the roads and other amenities 33 1/3% is required to be deducted. Where the development has already taken place, appropriate deduction needs to be made. In this case, we do not find any development had taken place as on that date. When we are determining compensation under Section 23(1), as on the date of notification under Section 4(1), we have to consider the situation of the land development, if already made, and other relevant facts as on that date. No doubt, the land possessed potential value, but no development had taken place as on the date. In view of the obligation on the part of the owner to hand over the land to the City Improvement Trust for roads and for other amenities and his requirement to expend money for laying the roads, water supply mains, electricity, etc. the deduction of 53% and further deduction towards development charges @ 33 1/3%, as ordered by the High Court, was not illegal."
13. On applying the principles of law as set out in various decisions referred to above to the facts of the case, we feel that deduction at the rate of 53% from the value indicated in Ext. B/4 would bring the rate per square yard to be around Rs 40. The rate is accordingly fixed. The claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs 40 per sq yard along with statutory entitlements including interest on solatium. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Costs made easy.
::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS 16(d) In Charan Dass v. H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority, (2010) 13 SCC 308 It has been held as under:
31. The next question which now survives for consideration is whether the deduction of 40% from the market value .
determined by the High Court towards development charges for laying roads, etc. is justified?
32. It is well settled that it is not in every case that deduction towards development charges has to be made when a big chunk of land is acquired for housing colonies, etc. Where the acquired land falls in the midst of an already developed land with amenities of roads, electricity, etc. deduction on this account may not be warranted. At the same time, where all civic and other amenities are to be provided to make it suitable for building purposes or under the local building regulations setting apart of some portion of the lands for providing common facilities is mandatory, an appropriate deduction may be justified. In Tehsildar Land Acquisition [(1991) 4 SCC 218 : AIR 1992 SC 666] , following Tribeni Devi case [(1972) 1 SCC 480] , this Court had observed as under: (SCC p. 223, para 4) "4. ... It is to be noted that in building regulations, setting apart the lands for development of roads, drainage and other amenities like electricity, etc. are condition precedent to approve layout for building colonies. Therefore, based upon the situation of the land and the need for development the deduction shall be made. Where acquired land is in the midst of already developed land with amenities of roads, drainage, electricity, etc. then deduction of 1/3 would not be justified. In the rural areas housing schemes relating to weaker sections deduction of 1/4 may be justified."
33. In the light of the aforenoted parameters, we are of the view that in the instant case, having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, including the location of the acquired land, a deduction of 30% towards development charges from the market value of land as arrived at by the High Court, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we hold that the market value of the land for the purpose of payment of compensation to the landowners in all these appeals is to be assessed at Rs. 1,05,000 per bigha.
(e) In Prahlad Dubey v. State of Bihar, (2016) 13 SCC 394 it has been held as under:
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the High Court, the landowners have challenged the impugned judgment by way of these appeals.
3. The respondent State of Bihar was aggrieved by the said enhancement and therefore, the State filed first appeals for getting the compensation amount reduced. After hearing the parties concerned, the High Court deducted [State of Bihar v. Prahalad Dubey, 2012 SCC OnLine Pat 247 : (2012) 2 ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS 17 BLJR 174] 60% from the value arrived at by the Reference Court on the ground that the land was not very well developed and because the land was not comparable to the lands in respect of which sale instances were produced. In the circumstances 60% .
(Rs 12,000) was deducted from Rs 20,000, and in all Rs 8000 per kattha has been awarded.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the sketch which has been placed before this Court by the appellants. Upon perusal of the said sketch and upon knowing the locality of the land which has been acquired, we find that the land is not away from the city but it is abutting the hospital and the locality in which the land is situated is quite developed. In the circumstances, deduction to the extent of 60% does not appear to be fair.
6. It is an admitted fact that the sale instances which had been relied upon by the Reference Court were pertaining to sale of large area and therefore, deduction up to 30% was quite reasonable. We are, therefore, of the view that the deduction of 60% is not justifiable. However, deduction should have been 30%.
(f) In Vithal Rao v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2017) 8 SCC 558, Hon'ble Supreme Court has rendered following exposition
28. In addition to these principles, this Court in several cases has also laid down that while determining the true market value of the acquired land and especially when the acquired land is a large chunk of undeveloped land, it is just and reasonable to make appropriate deduction towards expenses for development of acquired land. It has also been consistently held that at what percentage the deduction should be made varies from 10% to 86% and, therefore, the deduction should be made keeping in mind the nature of the land, area under acquisition, whether the land is developed or not and, if so, to what extent, the purpose of acquisition, etc. It has also been held that while determining the market value of the large chunk of land, the value of smaller piece of land can be taken into consideration after making proper deduction in the value of lands and when sale deeds of larger parcel of land are not available. This Court has also laid down that the Court should also take into consideration the potentiality of the acquired land apart from other relevant considerations. This Court has also recognised that the courts can always apply reasonable amount of guesswork to balance the equities in order to fix a just and fair market value in terms of parameters specified under Section 23 of the Act. (See Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal [Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal, (2011) 6 SCC 47 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 178] .) ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS 18
20. One of the relevant fact available on record is that substantial portion of acquired land was having level fields.
.
The above fact has been stated on oath by the appellant Basant Lal, which has not been rebutted or controverted either by confronting the appellant in cross-examination or by leading any independent evidence. Another fact that can be said to be proved on record is that the acquired land on one side abuts National Highway.
21. The appellants have not led any other evidence to prove that the facilities for development of area for housing purposes was already available on the acquired land. As noticed above, the record reveals that the entire land is agricultural with major part of it under cultivation and balance as uncultivated. In this view of the matter, inference can easily be drawn that for raising a housing colony on the acquired land all the facilities viz., roads, drains, electrification, public utilities, playground, parks etc. were required to be developed.
22. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has not made any effort to bring on record its proposed plans for construction of housing colony for its employees. The said respondent being a PSU could not be said to have acquired the ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS 19 land for housing purpose without having made initial exercise of layout etc. Had such evidence been brought on record, it .
definitely would have helped the court with assessment process on objective parameters. Respondent No.2 has also not led any evidence to prove the instances of development charges on account of cost thereof. It is not clear as to what extent the proposed housing colony will be developed or in other words equipped with facilities.
23. Noticeably, learned Reference Court has held the applicability of deduction charges @ 65% by placing reliance upon Lal Chand (supra), still what has been missed out is the availability of two relevant parameters on record, one being the flatness of acquired land and second the contiguity of National Highway to the acquired land.
24. The above two parameters coupled with the absence of disclosure by SJVNL as to nature and extent of provision of facilities to be provided in its proposed housing colony, the deduction @ 65% appears to be excessive and in my considered view it will be reasonable to assess the deductible amount @ 55 % for the reasons firstly that normally in hilly terrains it is rare to get flat land and this factor would definitely reduce the ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS 20 development cost of land for SJVNL considerably and secondly the accessibility to the acquired land through already existing .
National Highway would be a major factor of cost reduction or else the SJVNL had to spend on constructing roads even to reach the acquired land.
25. In light of above discussion, the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned award passed by learned District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla on 02.01.2017 is modified to the extent that the deductible amount on the assessed market value on account of development charges shall be 55%. The consequences shall follow and the appellants shall be entitled to balance amount from respondent No.2 in terms of what has been held above.
26. The appeals are accordingly disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Satyen Vaidya) th 14 May, 2024 Judge (GR) ::: Downloaded on - 14/05/2024 20:33:02 :::CIS