Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Some decisions were cited with regard to the deduction for developmental charges. In K. Vasundara Devi Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO) (1997 (5) SCC 426, 40% deduction by the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court since the sale deeds were of small pieces of land and the market value of large tracts of land had to be arrived at. In Basavva Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (1996 (9) SCC 640), the sale deeds of small part of land were taken as basis for arriving at the market value and the Supreme Court upheld that the deduction between 33 1/3 and 53% was valid. In Basant Kumar Vs. Union of India (1996 11 SCC 542) it was held that atleast one third of the compensation should be deducted towards providing amenities, like roads, parks, electricity, sewage, water facilities etc. In Shimla Development Authority Vs. Santosh Sharma (1997 (2) SCC 637) 40% deduction towards development charges was held proper. In V. Hanumantha Reddy Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal R. Officer (AIR 2004 SC 1185) the Supreme Court held as follows:

8. We have considered the submissions and the various decisions cited and also the detailed findings of the learned Single Judge. We are of the opinion that there can be no blind application of any decision, whether it is the rate of developmental charges or the rate of appreciation as it will have to depend on the facts of the case.

9. In Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. Ramanjulu (2005 (9) SCC 594), it is held as follows:

"B.Land Acquisition Act, 1894  S.23  Compensation  Deduction from, towards developmental charges  Held, ordinarily one-third deduction would be allowed but considering the fact that the lands were acquired for expansion of industrial estate, that too for the third phase and were levelled lands adjoining the developed lands of the first and second phases of the industrial estate, 15% deduction towards development charges to be made."

11. It was contended on behalf of the Railways that while deducting for developmental charges the Courts should not take into account the purpose for which land is acquired, but, how much the owner would have lost if he had to develop his land as house-site and that is why a deduction of one third should be made which will take within its ambit the lands lost in laying down roads, access etc., and the fact that here the public purpose is for laying railway track should not be a factor to reduce the percentage of deduction towards developmental charges.

16. The learned Subordinate Judge has exempted in each segment or each part, certain lands from deduction. He has given some reasons as to why he has fixed a particular extent of land in each PART for making no deduction towards developmental charges. These reasons do not seem to be arbitrary or unreasonable and therefore, as regards the lands exempted from deduction towards developmental charges, we confirm the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge.

17. As regards appreciation for each year, we accept the judgement in AIR 2002 SC 1558(cited supra) and the manner in which the appreciation is calculated i.e., 10% for each year multiplied by the number of years from the date of sale deed to the date of Section 4(1) Notification. The value is not compounded every year in the manner the claimants pleaded that should be done.