Leave granted.
The issue pertains to the determination of just
compensation for the land acquired from the
appellants. The dispute is in a narrow compass as to
whether there should be 75% deduction for development
charges. The reasons stated by the High Court in
paragraph 12 of the impugned Judgment reads as
follows :-
"12. Now the question is what should be
the deduction made for arriving at the JUDGMENT market value of the acquired land on
the basis of the market value reflected
from Exhibit 32. The rate of market
value reflected from Exhibit 32 is Rs.
381/- per sq. meter. The area of the
acquired and is very large - 9900 sq.
meters. There were no internal roads
or drainage lines on the acquired land.
Apart from the largeness of the
acquired land, a substantial deduction
will have to be made on account of cost
of development. The decision in the
case of Bhagwathula Samanna (supra)
relied upon by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants will not
help him as in the facts of the case,
the land was acquired for housing
purposes and the finding of fact was
that there were roads, electricity and
drainage facilities in the nearby
locality. Deduction on account of
development cost normally ranges from
10% to 75%. Considering the fact that
we are comparing a large acquired land
of 9900 sq. meters which was an
agricultural land with a developed plot
of land admeasuring only 778.80 sq. JUDGMENT mtrs., maximum deduction of 75% will
have to be made on account of cost of
development......."
Our attention has been invited by the learned
counsel for the appellants to paragraph 5 of the
impugned Judgment, "the acquired land was situated on
the relevant date within the limits of Pen Municipal
Council". It is stated in the award itself that the
basic amenities such as electricity and water supply
were available in the municipality as on the date of
the award. There were educational facilities such as
primary, secondary and higher education schools as
well as colleges available and the main city is near
to the main market place. All these amenities were
available in the municipality on the relevant date.
Bombay-Goa National Highway passes through the
municipality. There was a railway station in the
city and the adjoining areas were developing quite
fast. It has also been noted by the High Court in
paragraph 9 of the impugned Judgment that there was
evidence available to the effect that the acquired
land can be utilised for setting up of a housing
colony and that there was overall growth in and
around the municipality.
Thus, having regard to all these aspects, the
market value having been fixed by the High Court at JUDGMENT Rs. 445/- per sq. meter, we fail to appreciate the
basis for deduction of 75%. Though the learned
counsel for the respondent vehemently contended
before us that the land value fixed for a small plot
cannot be taken as a base for fixation of land value
of the appellants, which comes to 9900 sq. meters.
There is a quarrel with regard to this submission.
But the question is whether the High Court has taken
into consideration the stage of the development of
the property in and around the acquired land, which
we have referred to above in detail, as per the
evidence available on record.
In that view of the matter, we do not find any
justification for deveating from the normal practice
adopted by the courts in limiting the dedution only
by 1/3rd of the market value. We are persuaded to
follow the same principle, taking note also of the
fact that the purpose of acquisition was for water
filtering shed.
There is no dispute that the land was in 'No
Development Zone' and further deduction of 10% was in
any way unjustified.
Thus, we allow the appeal and limit the total
deduction to 33%+10%, which comes to 44%. The
reference court shall work out the compensation
accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGMENT
New Delhi;
January 18, 2016.