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.