ARUN MANOHAR DANGE AND ANR Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 282 of 2016, Judgment Date: Jan 18, 2016

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 282 OF 2016
              [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21956 OF 2014]


ARUN MANOHAR DANGE AND ANR                                     Petitioner(s)

                                VERSUS


SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
RAIGAD, ALIBAG                                                 Respondent(s)

                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.
      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 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.
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  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.

                                                   .......................J.
                                                            [KURIAN JOSEPH ]


                                                   .......................J.
                                                     [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]

      New Delhi;
      January 18, 2016.