Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Reference Court in absence of any other evidence has accepted Rs. 107/- per Sq. Mt. the rate granted by SLAO as base for determination of market rate. However, he increased the same to Rs. 150/-per Sq. Mt. without recording any reasons at all. So this finding enhancing market rate from Rs. 75/- per Sq. Mt. to Rs. 150/- per Sq. Mt. by Reference Court is found to be a finding without any reasons and the supporting evidence for the same. So, that finding is not at all sustainable.

19. On perusal of the judgment and award of the Reference Court, we noticed that though the land under acquisition was an agricultural land, the Reference Court granted compensation for acquired land admeasuring 3 Hectares 5 Ares area equivalent to 30,500/- Sq. Mt. at the rate of Rs. 150/- per Sq. Mt. without any deduction towards development charges. Learned advocate Shri Paul for claimant submitted that when the land is in the developed area, there is no necessity to make any deduction out of the total area towards development charges. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Osman Khan Abdul Majid Khan and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra , wherein it has been held that there was an evidence in that case to show that area adjoining the acquired land was the area already developed and where houses were constructed and land had potential of being used as a building site and because of these facts, principle of deduction of expenses required for development of large track was not applicable in the circumstances. The Division Bench observed thus:

20. On behalf of the acquiring body, advocate Shri A.S. Bajaj contended that deduction towards development charges is a normal rule. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on the decisions reported in the case of (1) Basavva (Smt.) and Ors. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. (2) K.S. Shivadevamma and Ors. v. Asstt. Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. and (3). Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village (A.P.) Nookala Rajamallu and Ors. . In the case of Basavva and Ors. deduction between 33% to 53% from market value for development charges was held to be valid. In Basavva's case High Court gave additional deduction of 13% that is total deduction of 65% and the said deduction adopted by High Court is accepted observing that it cannot be said to be illegal. In the case of K.S. Shivadevamma and Ors. the deduction of 53% under the building rules and further deduction towards development charges ordered by High Court held not illegal. In the case of Land Acquisition Officer Kammarapally. Nookala Rajamallu and Ors. deduction of 53% towards development charges is held legal. Ino all these cases it has been observed that as a normal rule, deduction towards development charges is to the extent of 33.3%. However considering the development rules, in those cases further deduction is also held legal. So the ratio from these cases make it clear that in cases of acquisition of large track of lands when market rate is to be determined on the basis of sale instances of small plots, deduction is always permissible as some portion of the land while preparing layouts, needs to be reserved for internal roads, open spaces and thus not available for sale on Square meter basis.

21. In the case before us, the evidence laid before the Reference Court oral as well as documentary including the sale instance was found not sufficient to determine the market price at the time of acquisition of the land. The SLAO accepting the potentiality of the land had granted compensation on square meter basis however, without there being any deduction towards development charges. He has determined the market rate at Rs. 107/- per Sq. Mt. considering the location of the land. It appears that he has collected some information of sale instances and on that basis as well as market rate determined in another land acquisition proceeding SLAO determined the market rate. Learned Advocate Shri A.S. Bajaj submitted that the material collected by the S.L.A.O. cannot be considered by Reference Court unless that was brought on record before the Reference Court. This contention raised by Shri Bajaj needs to be considered at this stage.

22. The award is a public document. Same is produced before Reference Court while challenging the market rate as unreasonable or inadequate. No doubt, the Reference Court needs to record finding on the issue of market rate on the basis of material available before it. For the purpose of a certaining the reasonableness of the market rate whether it is reasonable and adequate, the award needs to be placed before the Court. The mandate under Section 25 imposes restriction not to grant compensation less than awarded by SLAO. In view of provisions under Section 25 the market rate determined is binding on the acquiring body as well as on the Reference Court though Reference Court may enhance the same on the basis of material placed before him by the claimant but cannot reduce it. In view of these facts, contention raised on behalf of acquiring body that the material referred in the award cannot be considered is devoid of any merit. We are referring the award for limited purpose. While passing the award, SLAO on the basis of material before him determined the market rate of Rs. 107/- per Sq. Mt. However, making a reference of one letter from Collector that rate came to be reduced to Rs. 75/-. No material is placed before us on what count Collector directed the reduction. Whether the market rate initially determined by SLAO is reasonable or whether Rs. 75/-per Sq. Mt. as finally determined on direction of Collector is the reasonable rate has to be seen. On behalf of acquiring body, Advocate Shri Bajaj submitted that Collector may have reduced it on account of deduction for development charges. In support, neither the letter nor any other material is placed before us. As already discussed to above, the principle of deduction towards development charges is applicable in the present case as the land acquired is a large tract agricultural land. As per normal rule, the deduction is 33.3% towards development charges. By applying the deduction of 25 to 30% of the initial market rate of Rs. 107/ - per Sq. Mt. the rate comes to Rs. 75/- per Sq. Mt. with some fraction. We are not inclined to consider that fraction because in the matter of determination of market rate always some guess-work is required. So in view of these facts, the market rate finally determined at the rate of Rs. 75/- per Sq. Mt. can be said to be a just and reasonable market rate. In view of these facts, the market rate determined and compensation granted by SALO is found just and reasonable and no material was placed before the Reference Court for further enhancement, hence the finding of inadequacy and enhancement of market rate by the Reference Court is not at all sustainable.